British aggressor tyrannical government takes first steps to alcohol prohibition.

[Provost Harrison]

But it is right what has been said, they are just preparing for another tax hike on something 'evil'...

[Japher]

so they can hike the taxes and then say, well, at least you have your alcohol

[Provost Harrison]

The thing about our 'beloved' government is that they are doing it purely for money. In many ways they have control in the wrong way. They put up taxes on fuel to supposedly create a disincentive to driving. But then they hike up the price of public transport - have you seen how much it costs for train travel in this country? So the cheaper option tends to be driving...it's ridiculous...and all for extracting more money out of the taxpayer rather than some noble sentiment about protecting the environment.

[Cort Haus]

It's true that there is a contradiction between their anti-car moralising and the high cost of public transport, but what they are really about is authoritarianism. They complain about people eating too much while simultaneously complaining about people eating to little, or the 'wrong kind of food'.

There's no tax at stake with their foodie moralising, and they genuinely have contempt for people who like getting pissed, and want to extert their "nanny-state knows best" grip into the home to control people's lives.

Part of the reason for high public transport costs are probably the hysterical health and safety overheads, combined with other bureaucratic excesses. One of the things that characterises this era is the number of people whose job it is is to ensure things conform to the ever-expanding raft of laws and guidelines. To keep themselves in the perpetual gravy-train, these bureaucrats fill their days insisting on new laws and regulations that the meddle-mad government feels obliged to implement. And so it goes on, an endless cycle of laws, bureaucrats, and taxes.

[Provost Harrison]

If you want rules and regulations, come and work for the pharmaceutical sector - it is something else

[Provost Harrison]

The FDA are more to thank for those than anyone else

[Japher]

Jon Miller would do quite well, if he'd only date his posts too

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
If you want rules and regulations, come and work for the pharmaceutical sector - it is something else

I bet.

[Sandman]

The UK government collects about £8 billion in taxes from alcohol. I wonder how much it costs to patch drunks up?

[Japher]

about $700/month per drunk

I guess the question would then be, how much would be made due to increased productivity?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Part of the reason for high public transport costs are probably the hysterical health and safety overheads, combined with other bureaucratic excesses. One of the things that characterises this era is the number of people whose job it is is to ensure things conform to the ever-expanding raft of laws and guidelines. To keep themselves in the perpetual gravy-train, these bureaucrats fill their days insisting on new laws and regulations that the meddle-mad government feels obliged to implement. And so it goes on, an endless cycle of laws, bureaucrats, and taxes.

Public transit is subsidized almost everywhere in the world, except maybe ultrahighdensity Hong Kong and Singapore. Its an expensive service to deliver, by its nature.

At least here, transit is subject for the most part to the same health and safety regs as most other industries. There may be some regulations it would be wise to drop, but I know of no one with familiarity with the industry, who thinks it would have a dramatic effect on the price of transit services.

[lord of the mark]

Re: British aggressor tyrannical government takes first steps to alcohol prohibition.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The new strategy document proposes, in many ways, more of the same: more education campaigns, more advice, more treatment facilities, and more of a crackdown on drunken behaviour.

which of these is endangering your liberty, exactly?

[Cort Haus]

They are the thin end of the wedge, LotM. Anyway, seeing as the govt sees more than about two pints as excessive, "crackdown on drunken behaviour" could be subject to a very wide interpretation.

Hectoring the population usually precedes prohibitive legislation here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
They are the thin end of the wedge, LotM. Anyway, seeing as the govt sees more than about two pints as excessive, "crackdown on drunken behaviour" could be subject to a very wide interpretation.

Hectoring the population usually precedes prohibitive legislation here.

cite and context for "more than two pints" IIUC more than two drinks a night for a person of average weight, on a regular basis is considered unhealthy, though not likely a behavior problem. What are the standards for behavior?


Thin end? Slippery slope eh? maybe its different there. Folks have been hectoring about alcohol here since prohibition ended, 64 years ago. Only big social change lately has been a crackdown on drunk driving, which really did kill people and was quite justified. When I used to live in Florida, liquor stores had drive up windows, where you could buy a cup of ice, and minibottle of liquor. Basically a drive up bar. They banned that a few years back, no one sane that I know of thought it a major loss of liberty.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
They are the thin end of the wedge, LotM.

IE, these measures have the relation to the banning of of alcohol, as Putins measures do to the establishment of dictatorship in Russia.