The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So it seems the government are going to tell the alcohol industry to be more responsible or face tougher laws ( BBC News ).
The immediate, and somewhat predictable response is probably something along the lines of "oh no, more expensive booze!". But unfortunately alcohol, like smoking, does cause real health problems. One of the main arguments for more laws is reducing the health impact (and therefore cost) alcohol has on the population. Another is reducing crime.
Some of the most well-worn arguments against are that it's cultural, that it's another example of the "nanny state" that banned smoking and wants to ban anything and everything.
But disregarding the arguments for and against for a moment, it seems strange to me that the government are now looking at introducing "legally binding" new rules to replace self-regulation. Not strange because I think self-regulation works, strange because it seems obvious to me that self-regulation never really works. I suppose some small businesses may be able to self-regulate, but public limited companies are legally bound to maximise profits for shareholders. Do you maximise those profits by scaring off your customers with health concerns? Certainly not. When clothing manufacturers introduce corporate codes of conduct that have no legal comeback, does that stop child labour or sweatshops? I think with the recent exposure Gap and Primark have been getting we can conclude it does not.
So what did ministers really think this voluntary code would achieve? In any case, it's called "voluntary", which implies they don't see it as necessary. Yet when companies don't implement it, they threaten them. It's this hypocrisy that really stood out for me. We'll tell you what you should do, what the best practice is. But when you don't adopt this best practice, which isn't a requirement, we'll force it upon you. So why not just come out with it straight away and make it a legal requirement? Would it be cynical of me to think maybe the politicians didn't want to get on the bad side of the drinks industry unless they really had to?
But anyway. The proposed 'solutions' include:
- curbs on happy hours
- forcing bars to offer smaller measures
- banning alcohol promotions/displays near checkouts
- better labelling with number of units, etc.
To me, these seem to focus far too much on pubs and clubs. Pubs are already closing at a rapid rate, and additional laws for them to comply with will surely mean an acceleration of this. That's not to say something shouldn't be done about rising alcohol related problems, but as has been widely talked about in recent years, there are many middle class drinkers buying wine and spirits in their weekly shop and not getting hammered, but drinking beyond a couple of units each and every night.
And so the cynical side of me rears its ugly head again... Why is it that supermarkets and the like seem to get off relatively easily? Could it be because it's easier to target pubs than the huge power of Tesco, Sainsburys, et al? Could it be that politicians are wary of targetting the practices of the 'middle classes' drinking at home every evening because of the media backlash there could be? You can quite easily imagine the Daily Mail being delighted that happy hours are to be curbed, so that violent youths have less opportunity to get tanked up on cheap booze. But you can also imagine the indignation they'd show at the suggestion that people should perhaps drink less at home.
This article from the BBC website also raises some interesting points. While it seems to suggest there is a cultural link, it also has figures on the high numbers of children on alcohol related treatment. And it makes the often unpopular link between legal and illegal drugs, mentioning that while the government actively promote alcohol, saying it "can play an important and positive role in British society", that's a million miles away from the demonising of any and all illegal drugs.
An interesting aside, an article I was reading recently discusses how when heroin, seen as one of the "worst" drugs, was legal and available by prescription from GPs, there were very few addicts, most of those were war veterans who had become hooked on it as a painkiller. There are various points raised, but one fact mentioned is that the favoured "heroin substitute" of methadone is actually more addictive than heroin, and more likely to result in fatal overdoses. It also discusses how many of the "ills" of heroin are not down to the drug itself, more the substances it is cut with by dealers. Of course, none of this is to say it's good to be hooked on an addictive drug, but it is very interesting how arbitrary drug classification and even legality seems.
So, what is my point here? Well, I don't seem to have one. I suppose I feel that alcohol is a problem; it can have a negative impact on health, it can increase violence and be a factor in some very poor decisions. But the line between 'good' and 'bad' drugs seems increasingly arbitrary as we become more aware of the impacts and benefits of assorted substances. All drugs have bad points, but it seems the government are very quick to dismiss the good from some, while championing it in others. I would hope the government introduce fair legislation that does not hammer small pubs. Wetherspoons and the like can probably do without happy hours, given their often ridiculously cheap prices, but smaller pubs often need these 'gimmicks' to attract more than the same old regulars. Supermarkets need to be addressed as well, ensuring alcohol is not used as a loss-leader to draw in customers, and the manufacturers themselves should perhaps be made to pay a bigger chunk of tax due to the 'unhealthy' nature of their products, and the volatile effect they can have on their customers.
Hell, I would argue this should be extended to most businesses. Car manufacturers should surely be taking more responsibility for road deaths when cars that can reach speeds well above the limit are mass produced. And of course companies that pollute the planet need to be financially punished to encourage a more ethical approach. In short, self-regulation doesn't work. But government regulation is also doomed to failure if it doesn't tackle all those who profit from a potentially harmful trade fairly and equally, taking into account not only the potential damage they cause (whether to health, the environment, safety, etc), but also the money available to them to implement changes, offering help for those who may not be able to afford changes, while fining those who have the ability to make changes, but lack the will to make them happen.
Well, that was quite an essay wasn't it. If you managed to get through it all, celebrate with a drink or two!
The immediate, and somewhat predictable response is probably something along the lines of "oh no, more expensive booze!". But unfortunately alcohol, like smoking, does cause real health problems. One of the main arguments for more laws is reducing the health impact (and therefore cost) alcohol has on the population. Another is reducing crime.
Some of the most well-worn arguments against are that it's cultural, that it's another example of the "nanny state" that banned smoking and wants to ban anything and everything.
But disregarding the arguments for and against for a moment, it seems strange to me that the government are now looking at introducing "legally binding" new rules to replace self-regulation. Not strange because I think self-regulation works, strange because it seems obvious to me that self-regulation never really works. I suppose some small businesses may be able to self-regulate, but public limited companies are legally bound to maximise profits for shareholders. Do you maximise those profits by scaring off your customers with health concerns? Certainly not. When clothing manufacturers introduce corporate codes of conduct that have no legal comeback, does that stop child labour or sweatshops? I think with the recent exposure Gap and Primark have been getting we can conclude it does not.
So what did ministers really think this voluntary code would achieve? In any case, it's called "voluntary", which implies they don't see it as necessary. Yet when companies don't implement it, they threaten them. It's this hypocrisy that really stood out for me. We'll tell you what you should do, what the best practice is. But when you don't adopt this best practice, which isn't a requirement, we'll force it upon you. So why not just come out with it straight away and make it a legal requirement? Would it be cynical of me to think maybe the politicians didn't want to get on the bad side of the drinks industry unless they really had to?
But anyway. The proposed 'solutions' include:
- curbs on happy hours
- forcing bars to offer smaller measures
- banning alcohol promotions/displays near checkouts
- better labelling with number of units, etc.
To me, these seem to focus far too much on pubs and clubs. Pubs are already closing at a rapid rate, and additional laws for them to comply with will surely mean an acceleration of this. That's not to say something shouldn't be done about rising alcohol related problems, but as has been widely talked about in recent years, there are many middle class drinkers buying wine and spirits in their weekly shop and not getting hammered, but drinking beyond a couple of units each and every night.
And so the cynical side of me rears its ugly head again... Why is it that supermarkets and the like seem to get off relatively easily? Could it be because it's easier to target pubs than the huge power of Tesco, Sainsburys, et al? Could it be that politicians are wary of targetting the practices of the 'middle classes' drinking at home every evening because of the media backlash there could be? You can quite easily imagine the Daily Mail being delighted that happy hours are to be curbed, so that violent youths have less opportunity to get tanked up on cheap booze. But you can also imagine the indignation they'd show at the suggestion that people should perhaps drink less at home.
This article from the BBC website also raises some interesting points. While it seems to suggest there is a cultural link, it also has figures on the high numbers of children on alcohol related treatment. And it makes the often unpopular link between legal and illegal drugs, mentioning that while the government actively promote alcohol, saying it "can play an important and positive role in British society", that's a million miles away from the demonising of any and all illegal drugs.
An interesting aside, an article I was reading recently discusses how when heroin, seen as one of the "worst" drugs, was legal and available by prescription from GPs, there were very few addicts, most of those were war veterans who had become hooked on it as a painkiller. There are various points raised, but one fact mentioned is that the favoured "heroin substitute" of methadone is actually more addictive than heroin, and more likely to result in fatal overdoses. It also discusses how many of the "ills" of heroin are not down to the drug itself, more the substances it is cut with by dealers. Of course, none of this is to say it's good to be hooked on an addictive drug, but it is very interesting how arbitrary drug classification and even legality seems.
So, what is my point here? Well, I don't seem to have one. I suppose I feel that alcohol is a problem; it can have a negative impact on health, it can increase violence and be a factor in some very poor decisions. But the line between 'good' and 'bad' drugs seems increasingly arbitrary as we become more aware of the impacts and benefits of assorted substances. All drugs have bad points, but it seems the government are very quick to dismiss the good from some, while championing it in others. I would hope the government introduce fair legislation that does not hammer small pubs. Wetherspoons and the like can probably do without happy hours, given their often ridiculously cheap prices, but smaller pubs often need these 'gimmicks' to attract more than the same old regulars. Supermarkets need to be addressed as well, ensuring alcohol is not used as a loss-leader to draw in customers, and the manufacturers themselves should perhaps be made to pay a bigger chunk of tax due to the 'unhealthy' nature of their products, and the volatile effect they can have on their customers.
Hell, I would argue this should be extended to most businesses. Car manufacturers should surely be taking more responsibility for road deaths when cars that can reach speeds well above the limit are mass produced. And of course companies that pollute the planet need to be financially punished to encourage a more ethical approach. In short, self-regulation doesn't work. But government regulation is also doomed to failure if it doesn't tackle all those who profit from a potentially harmful trade fairly and equally, taking into account not only the potential damage they cause (whether to health, the environment, safety, etc), but also the money available to them to implement changes, offering help for those who may not be able to afford changes, while fining those who have the ability to make changes, but lack the will to make them happen.
Well, that was quite an essay wasn't it. If you managed to get through it all, celebrate with a drink or two!
awwwwwwwwww poor rameler dats ur new name rammbler
Yer, it was never meant to be a particularly long post, but I can start rambling and half an hour later can't remember what kicked it all off... As anyone who has mentioned royalty in close proximity to me has probably found out...
wow a new perspective not read all it sorry but wa i read was gd :)
That looks like a good post, but I am not quite ready to read all of it yet! But I will get round to it, promise.
One thing I've seen is that the price of alcohol in supermarkets etc has comparitively gone down over the last thirty years. I guess if this is what's driving the large levels of ueber-boozing, it's a good target, aside from the declining pub industry.
I don't know if it's just me, but Sainsbury's own-brand-bog-standard vodka is quite a recent invention, but from personal experience, i'd say that it's the cheap stuff - spirits and cheap, strong stuff - that are to blame. Higher taxes on such stiff may be the price we have to pay.
Well, I say we. I may occasionally indulge in house Scotch, but I largely drink ales and stouts. :^)
Everyone reacts differently to a lot of booze, but if it's more expensive to get trashed away from the pub, something may happen. Maybe reminding people of the health risks would be of use as well.
I don't know if it's just me, but Sainsbury's own-brand-bog-standard vodka is quite a recent invention, but from personal experience, i'd say that it's the cheap stuff - spirits and cheap, strong stuff - that are to blame. Higher taxes on such stiff may be the price we have to pay.
Well, I say we. I may occasionally indulge in house Scotch, but I largely drink ales and stouts. :^)
Everyone reacts differently to a lot of booze, but if it's more expensive to get trashed away from the pub, something may happen. Maybe reminding people of the health risks would be of use as well.
So it seems the government are going to tell the alcohol industry to be more responsible or face tougher laws ( BBC News ).
The immediate, and somewhat predictable response is probably something along the lines of "oh no, more expensive booze!". But unfortunately alcohol, like smoking, does cause real health problems. One of the main arguments for more laws is reducing the health impact (and therefore cost) alcohol has on the population. Another is reducing crime.
Some of the most well-worn arguments against are that it's cultural, that it's another example of the "nanny state" that banned smoking and wants to ban anything and everything.
But disregarding the arguments for and against for a moment, it seems strange to me that the government are now looking at introducing "legally binding" new rules to replace self-regulation. Not strange because I think self-regulation works, strange because it seems obvious to me that self-regulation never really works. I suppose some small businesses may be able to self-regulate, but public limited companies are legally bound to maximise profits for shareholders. Do you maximise those profits by scaring off your customers with health concerns? Certainly not. When clothing manufacturers introduce corporate codes of conduct that have no legal comeback, does that stop child labour or sweatshops? I think with the recent exposure Gap and Primark have been getting we can conclude it does not.
So what did ministers really think this voluntary code would achieve? In any case, it's called "voluntary", which implies they don't see it as necessary. Yet when companies don't implement it, they threaten them. It's this hypocrisy that really stood out for me. We'll tell you what you should do, what the best practice is. But when you don't adopt this best practice, which isn't a requirement, we'll force it upon you. So why not just come out with it straight away and make it a legal requirement? Would it be cynical of me to think maybe the politicians didn't want to get on the bad side of the drinks industry unless they really had to?
But anyway. The proposed 'solutions' include:
- curbs on happy hours
- forcing bars to offer smaller measures
- banning alcohol promotions/displays near checkouts
- better labelling with number of units, etc.
To me, these seem to focus far too much on pubs and clubs. Pubs are already closing at a rapid rate, and additional laws for them to comply with will surely mean an acceleration of this. That's not to say something shouldn't be done about rising alcohol related problems, but as has been widely talked about in recent years, there are many middle class drinkers buying wine and spirits in their weekly shop and not getting hammered, but drinking beyond a couple of units each and every night.
And so the cynical side of me rears its ugly head again... Why is it that supermarkets and the like seem to get off relatively easily? Could it be because it's easier to target pubs than the huge power of Tesco, Sainsburys, et al? Could it be that politicians are wary of targetting the practices of the 'middle classes' drinking at home every evening because of the media backlash there could be? You can quite easily imagine the Daily Mail being delighted that happy hours are to be curbed, so that violent youths have less opportunity to get tanked up on cheap booze. But you can also imagine the indignation they'd show at the suggestion that people should perhaps drink less at home.
This article from the BBC website also raises some interesting points. While it seems to suggest there is a cultural link, it also has figures on the high numbers of children on alcohol related treatment. And it makes the often unpopular link between legal and illegal drugs, mentioning that while the government actively promote alcohol, saying it "can play an important and positive role in British society", that's a million miles away from the demonising of any and all illegal drugs.
An interesting aside, an article I was reading recently discusses how when heroin, seen as one of the "worst" drugs, was legal and available by prescription from GPs, there were very few addicts, most of those were war veterans who had become hooked on it as a painkiller. There are various points raised, but one fact mentioned is that the favoured "heroin substitute" of methadone is actually more addictive than heroin, and more likely to result in fatal overdoses. It also discusses how many of the "ills" of heroin are not down to the drug itself, more the substances it is cut with by dealers. Of course, none of this is to say it's good to be hooked on an addictive drug, but it is very interesting how arbitrary drug classification and even legality seems.
So, what is my point here? Well, I don't seem to have one. I suppose I feel that alcohol is a problem; it can have a negative impact on health, it can increase violence and be a factor in some very poor decisions. But the line between 'good' and 'bad' drugs seems increasingly arbitrary as we become more aware of the impacts and benefits of assorted substances. All drugs have bad points, but it seems the government are very quick to dismiss the good from some, while championing it in others. I would hope the government introduce fair legislation that does not hammer small pubs. Wetherspoons and the like can probably do without happy hours, given their often ridiculously cheap prices, but smaller pubs often need these 'gimmicks' to attract more than the same old regulars. Supermarkets need to be addressed as well, ensuring alcohol is not used as a loss-leader to draw in customers, and the manufacturers themselves should perhaps be made to pay a bigger chunk of tax due to the 'unhealthy' nature of their products, and the volatile effect they can have on their customers.
Hell, I would argue this should be extended to most businesses. Car manufacturers should surely be taking more responsibility for road deaths when cars that can reach speeds well above the limit are mass produced. And of course companies that pollute the planet need to be financially punished to encourage a more ethical approach. In short, self-regulation doesn't work. But government regulation is also doomed to failure if it doesn't tackle all those who profit from a potentially harmful trade fairly and equally, taking into account not only the potential damage they cause (whether to health, the environment, safety, etc), but also the money available to them to implement changes, offering help for those who may not be able to afford changes, while fining those who have the ability to make changes, but lack the will to make them happen.
Well, that was quite an essay wasn't it. If you managed to get through it all, celebrate with a drink or two!
The immediate, and somewhat predictable response is probably something along the lines of "oh no, more expensive booze!". But unfortunately alcohol, like smoking, does cause real health problems. One of the main arguments for more laws is reducing the health impact (and therefore cost) alcohol has on the population. Another is reducing crime.
Some of the most well-worn arguments against are that it's cultural, that it's another example of the "nanny state" that banned smoking and wants to ban anything and everything.
But disregarding the arguments for and against for a moment, it seems strange to me that the government are now looking at introducing "legally binding" new rules to replace self-regulation. Not strange because I think self-regulation works, strange because it seems obvious to me that self-regulation never really works. I suppose some small businesses may be able to self-regulate, but public limited companies are legally bound to maximise profits for shareholders. Do you maximise those profits by scaring off your customers with health concerns? Certainly not. When clothing manufacturers introduce corporate codes of conduct that have no legal comeback, does that stop child labour or sweatshops? I think with the recent exposure Gap and Primark have been getting we can conclude it does not.
So what did ministers really think this voluntary code would achieve? In any case, it's called "voluntary", which implies they don't see it as necessary. Yet when companies don't implement it, they threaten them. It's this hypocrisy that really stood out for me. We'll tell you what you should do, what the best practice is. But when you don't adopt this best practice, which isn't a requirement, we'll force it upon you. So why not just come out with it straight away and make it a legal requirement? Would it be cynical of me to think maybe the politicians didn't want to get on the bad side of the drinks industry unless they really had to?
But anyway. The proposed 'solutions' include:
- curbs on happy hours
- forcing bars to offer smaller measures
- banning alcohol promotions/displays near checkouts
- better labelling with number of units, etc.
To me, these seem to focus far too much on pubs and clubs. Pubs are already closing at a rapid rate, and additional laws for them to comply with will surely mean an acceleration of this. That's not to say something shouldn't be done about rising alcohol related problems, but as has been widely talked about in recent years, there are many middle class drinkers buying wine and spirits in their weekly shop and not getting hammered, but drinking beyond a couple of units each and every night.
And so the cynical side of me rears its ugly head again... Why is it that supermarkets and the like seem to get off relatively easily? Could it be because it's easier to target pubs than the huge power of Tesco, Sainsburys, et al? Could it be that politicians are wary of targetting the practices of the 'middle classes' drinking at home every evening because of the media backlash there could be? You can quite easily imagine the Daily Mail being delighted that happy hours are to be curbed, so that violent youths have less opportunity to get tanked up on cheap booze. But you can also imagine the indignation they'd show at the suggestion that people should perhaps drink less at home.
This article from the BBC website also raises some interesting points. While it seems to suggest there is a cultural link, it also has figures on the high numbers of children on alcohol related treatment. And it makes the often unpopular link between legal and illegal drugs, mentioning that while the government actively promote alcohol, saying it "can play an important and positive role in British society", that's a million miles away from the demonising of any and all illegal drugs.
An interesting aside, an article I was reading recently discusses how when heroin, seen as one of the "worst" drugs, was legal and available by prescription from GPs, there were very few addicts, most of those were war veterans who had become hooked on it as a painkiller. There are various points raised, but one fact mentioned is that the favoured "heroin substitute" of methadone is actually more addictive than heroin, and more likely to result in fatal overdoses. It also discusses how many of the "ills" of heroin are not down to the drug itself, more the substances it is cut with by dealers. Of course, none of this is to say it's good to be hooked on an addictive drug, but it is very interesting how arbitrary drug classification and even legality seems.
So, what is my point here? Well, I don't seem to have one. I suppose I feel that alcohol is a problem; it can have a negative impact on health, it can increase violence and be a factor in some very poor decisions. But the line between 'good' and 'bad' drugs seems increasingly arbitrary as we become more aware of the impacts and benefits of assorted substances. All drugs have bad points, but it seems the government are very quick to dismiss the good from some, while championing it in others. I would hope the government introduce fair legislation that does not hammer small pubs. Wetherspoons and the like can probably do without happy hours, given their often ridiculously cheap prices, but smaller pubs often need these 'gimmicks' to attract more than the same old regulars. Supermarkets need to be addressed as well, ensuring alcohol is not used as a loss-leader to draw in customers, and the manufacturers themselves should perhaps be made to pay a bigger chunk of tax due to the 'unhealthy' nature of their products, and the volatile effect they can have on their customers.
Hell, I would argue this should be extended to most businesses. Car manufacturers should surely be taking more responsibility for road deaths when cars that can reach speeds well above the limit are mass produced. And of course companies that pollute the planet need to be financially punished to encourage a more ethical approach. In short, self-regulation doesn't work. But government regulation is also doomed to failure if it doesn't tackle all those who profit from a potentially harmful trade fairly and equally, taking into account not only the potential damage they cause (whether to health, the environment, safety, etc), but also the money available to them to implement changes, offering help for those who may not be able to afford changes, while fining those who have the ability to make changes, but lack the will to make them happen.
Well, that was quite an essay wasn't it. If you managed to get through it all, celebrate with a drink or two!