I do.

That way, no loyalty card informs the Stasi that I might need some of my NI back when I get dementia, no scowls from the Righteous when I am forced to queue with tramps and no stupid warnings on labels.

43p a pint.

http://www.brew-it-yourself.co.uk/?gclid=CPGI96j72ZYCFRmA1Qod1gbT2A

Stick that up your arse, Jacob. Sideways.

“I am arguing for the freedom to use all the tools available to government to create a better society”

Just like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Cunt.

“When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.” Ayn Rand

I don’t think I chose the best example when comparing alcoholism and bank robbery, but I am interested in how far it could go.

Both bank robbery and alcoholism can be considered socially undesirable. Can you really stick bank robbery in one box and alcholism in another? Philip Thomas, you measured the difference in burden of cost to the individual vs cost to society, your assertion that the individual pays a higher price for the pleasure they gain than his or her nearest and dearest is shaky, your assertion that Robbing a bank incurs no cost for the robber is simply wrong.

There was a time when a person could be jailed for drinking alcohol, I can imagine a world in which stolen “earnings” are legal and taxable.

I am arguing for the freedom to use all the tools of available to government to create a better society, rather than striking punitive tax from the spectrum of choice simply because of dogmatic views about what constitutes personal freedom.

In, alcoholism for all its horrors, the gain in terms of satisfied urges and the pleasure of being drunk is to the alcoholic and so are the bulk of the costs (dementia, death, etc.). There may be social costs as well, but that’s why we add a special duty to alcohol so that we’ve the funds to provide healthcare, rehab, social support for families, etc. It’s not perfect but it’s liberating, practical and balances the books.

In robbing a bank, whether remotely or in person, the person gains wealth entirely at the expense of others (the customers that lose their cash, the public that pay for the police to try and find these guys, etc.).

This is why being an alcoholic is legal and being a bankrobber isn’t. If you really think the former is worse than the latter then…well, I’m not sure any logic will persuade you otherwise.

Of course, if you’re asking if we apply this logic consistently in the law, the answer is no, we don’t. A sizeable portion of our laws are total nonsense, hence why we spend sizeable portions of our time complaining about them.

The speed cameras that have been taken out of service, are the ones that don’t make enough revenue.

Nope, they want to extract more taxation while pretending they are doing something for our own good.

Like the speed cameras? They were deployed to st

Ho Ho. You kidder, Tim. You know that’s exactly what thousands of these weird quango-crats want…

So Nordic measures are good in terms of cutting the health risks associated with heavy daily consumption, but bad in terms of fighting and general disorder. Since the latter are the only issues government policy has any business addressing, it’s clearly a failure.

In this case its like the playing field has changed, you never used to have to warn kids of the dangers of drinking a half bottle of vodka cos they wouldn’t be able to afford it until they were old enough to know better, but now they can afford it they need the information at a younger age, thus displacing other learning that kids ought to be doing.

Like throwing fireworks.

(note that the 1960s are a silly comparison here: alcohol consumption grew from 1965 to 1980 and has trended flat since.)