Repeal current unrealistic Drink Driving Laws, but enforce Drunken Driver Laws.

For the common good, there is a need to repeal current unrealistic Drink Driving Laws, but certainly a need to enforce Drunken Driver Laws.

Why the current drink driving limits and the even more preposterous “Zero Tolerance” or “Not a Drop” measures are beyond all logic; and to think that people vote for these clowns???

The human body produces alcohol naturally… end of story, but I must go on!

Endogenous ethanol production is the term for alcohol being produced naturally within the body through fermentation of its contents in the gut. Depending on diet and other factors; up to about one ounce or 3 grams of pure ethanol (alcohol) is produced within the body each day. That amount equals almost two standard drinks of beer, wine or liquor.

Catabolic degradation of ethanol is essential to life, not only to humans, but to almost all living organisms, hence when you put your favourite alcoholic beverage to your lips your body says, Ooh, thank you so much!

Additionally, there is a condition known as “auto-brewery syndrome”, where intestinal overgrowth of Candida or other yeasts in the gut, eat our bodily sugars and convert them into pure ethanol (alcohol, which is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and is sometimes rather large quantities equivalent to having several drinks of beer, wine or liquor. This is most common in people who have been on long-term antibiotics or immunosuppressant drugs and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK on long-term antibiotics and who have Candida or other yeast infections, and many more people that don’t even know they have the infections. People with this condition, who eat large amounts of carbohydrates such as rice, can actually feel drunk after eating, and chronic fatigue is the most common symptom, hence why you usually feel sleepy after a meal.

Just like most laws, they are conjured up by a handful of individuals with an ulterior purpose and not for the purpose to which they lead you to believe, i.e., “saving lives”. Politicians couldn’t give a damn about preventing injuries or saving people’s lives, other than their own. As usual, they do not consult with any experts in the particular field for which the purpose of the law will affect, i.e., the ambulance and fire services who have battled with politicians for years to remove speed humps as they are putting more lives at risk than they are saving, and yet the local authorities are still installing them, blatantly obvious, to keep people in jobs and to line their own pockets. Politicians rely purely on the scaremongering tactics that they have systematically inflicted on the masses, they don’t need to follow ‘due process protocols’ and they don’t want any expert involvement because it would expose the ulterior motive’ behind the laws they wish to implement.

Why is this idea important?

For the common good, there is a need to repeal current unrealistic Drink Driving Laws, but certainly a need to enforce Drunken Driver Laws.

Why the current drink driving limits and the even more preposterous “Zero Tolerance” or “Not a Drop” measures are beyond all logic; and to think that people vote for these clowns???

The human body produces alcohol naturally… end of story, but I must go on!

Endogenous ethanol production is the term for alcohol being produced naturally within the body through fermentation of its contents in the gut. Depending on diet and other factors; up to about one ounce or 3 grams of pure ethanol (alcohol) is produced within the body each day. That amount equals almost two standard drinks of beer, wine or liquor.

Catabolic degradation of ethanol is essential to life, not only to humans, but to almost all living organisms, hence when you put your favourite alcoholic beverage to your lips your body says, Ooh, thank you so much!

Additionally, there is a condition known as “auto-brewery syndrome”, where intestinal overgrowth of Candida or other yeasts in the gut, eat our bodily sugars and convert them into pure ethanol (alcohol, which is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and is sometimes rather large quantities equivalent to having several drinks of beer, wine or liquor. This is most common in people who have been on long-term antibiotics or immunosuppressant drugs and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK on long-term antibiotics and who have Candida or other yeast infections, and many more people that don’t even know they have the infections. People with this condition, who eat large amounts of carbohydrates such as rice, can actually feel drunk after eating, and chronic fatigue is the most common symptom, hence why you usually feel sleepy after a meal.

Just like most laws, they are conjured up by a handful of individuals with an ulterior purpose and not for the purpose to which they lead you to believe, i.e., “saving lives”. Politicians couldn’t give a damn about preventing injuries or saving people’s lives, other than their own. As usual, they do not consult with any experts in the particular field for which the purpose of the law will affect, i.e., the ambulance and fire services who have battled with politicians for years to remove speed humps as they are putting more lives at risk than they are saving, and yet the local authorities are still installing them, blatantly obvious, to keep people in jobs and to line their own pockets. Politicians rely purely on the scaremongering tactics that they have systematically inflicted on the masses, they don’t need to follow ‘due process protocols’ and they don’t want any expert involvement because it would expose the ulterior motive’ behind the laws they wish to implement.

Charge for A&E care if a person is intoxicated.

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Why is this idea important?

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Decrease alcohol and anti social behaviour

Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.

It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.

Why is this idea important?

Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.

It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.

Latest figures for alcohol abuse underline the perverse nature of prohibition

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

Why is this idea important?

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

repeal the licencing act

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

something politicians find hard to grasp about drugs

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

Why is this idea important?

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

Alcohol – Football Fans Travelling to Matches

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 currently prohibits any football fan travelling in a vehicle designed to carry more than eight passengers from possessing or drinking alcohol whilst travelling to or from a football match.

This legal prohibition on citizens conducting themselves as they wish whilst causing no harm to others in a infringement on the civil liberties of football supporters.  No other group in our society is singled out for such intrusive restrictions.

It is already against the law to be drunk in a public place. The police should simply enforce the law which applies to all citizens, not single out football fans for treatment as potential criminals.

Why is this idea important?

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 currently prohibits any football fan travelling in a vehicle designed to carry more than eight passengers from possessing or drinking alcohol whilst travelling to or from a football match.

This legal prohibition on citizens conducting themselves as they wish whilst causing no harm to others in a infringement on the civil liberties of football supporters.  No other group in our society is singled out for such intrusive restrictions.

It is already against the law to be drunk in a public place. The police should simply enforce the law which applies to all citizens, not single out football fans for treatment as potential criminals.

Abolish the ‘Challenge 21/25’ requirements when buying alcohol

I would like to propose that the 'challenge 21' or in some cases 'challenge 25' requirements when purchasing alcohol be repealed.

 

Currently, the legal age to purchase alcohol in a shop is 18. However, the law requires that employees challenge anyone who appears to be under 21, or 25 in some cases, to provide ID before they can purchase alcohol. 

These regulations lead to a creeping criminalisation of people's legal right to enjoy an alcoholic drink, and foster a culture of suspicion and mistrust by enshrining in law the assumption that a customer is attempting to purchase alcohol illegally, and requiring them to prove otherwise. 

The poorly thought out nature of this law has lead to its over-zealous application in numerous instances – there have been no shortage of reports in the media of people who are clearly and unquestionably over 18 – in some cases quite evidently of pensionable age – being denied alcohol because they do not have, or cannot provide, a passport, driving licence or the one specific type of ID card permitted; and even cases where parents accompanied on a shopping trip by their children have been denied their purchase, despite showing the required ID, on the pretext that the children might drink the alcohol!

In addition, the law criminalises employers and employees who fail to check a customer's ID.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose that the 'challenge 21' or in some cases 'challenge 25' requirements when purchasing alcohol be repealed.

 

Currently, the legal age to purchase alcohol in a shop is 18. However, the law requires that employees challenge anyone who appears to be under 21, or 25 in some cases, to provide ID before they can purchase alcohol. 

These regulations lead to a creeping criminalisation of people's legal right to enjoy an alcoholic drink, and foster a culture of suspicion and mistrust by enshrining in law the assumption that a customer is attempting to purchase alcohol illegally, and requiring them to prove otherwise. 

The poorly thought out nature of this law has lead to its over-zealous application in numerous instances – there have been no shortage of reports in the media of people who are clearly and unquestionably over 18 – in some cases quite evidently of pensionable age – being denied alcohol because they do not have, or cannot provide, a passport, driving licence or the one specific type of ID card permitted; and even cases where parents accompanied on a shopping trip by their children have been denied their purchase, despite showing the required ID, on the pretext that the children might drink the alcohol!

In addition, the law criminalises employers and employees who fail to check a customer's ID.

Under age cashiers in supermarkets cannot ring up alcohol.

Today I was held up at Waitrose because the young girl on the cash desk had to call an adult to ring up my purchase of a bottle of wine. It is ridiculous that this restriction applies. It is not as though she was drinking the wine herself.when I complained,I was told that this was the law.

Why is this idea important?

Today I was held up at Waitrose because the young girl on the cash desk had to call an adult to ring up my purchase of a bottle of wine. It is ridiculous that this restriction applies. It is not as though she was drinking the wine herself.when I complained,I was told that this was the law.

controlling alcohol sales

It has been suggested that there should be a minimum price for the sale of alcohol but consumers are not given the choice of buying, for example wine and beer, with lower alcohol content.  A few years ago most of the cheaper wines had an alcohol content of  9, 10 or 11%, nowadays most wines are 12.5, 13.5 or 14%. and if it is possible to find one with lower alcohol it is more expensive.  It used to be easy to find beers with an alcohol content of 2.6 or 2.8%, now the choices of beers and lagers have nearly double that alcohol content.  Government should ensure that retailers – in particular the supermarkets – offer for sale wines and beers with lower alcohol content and at a cheaper price than the higher alcohol types

Why is this idea important?

It has been suggested that there should be a minimum price for the sale of alcohol but consumers are not given the choice of buying, for example wine and beer, with lower alcohol content.  A few years ago most of the cheaper wines had an alcohol content of  9, 10 or 11%, nowadays most wines are 12.5, 13.5 or 14%. and if it is possible to find one with lower alcohol it is more expensive.  It used to be easy to find beers with an alcohol content of 2.6 or 2.8%, now the choices of beers and lagers have nearly double that alcohol content.  Government should ensure that retailers – in particular the supermarkets – offer for sale wines and beers with lower alcohol content and at a cheaper price than the higher alcohol types

i dont do drugs

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

Why is this idea important?

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

law that fines shop staff for selling alcohol

I think this should be repealed as it should not be the responsibility of shop staff to ensure that there is no under age drinking. also for an £80 fine to be given to shop staff for being mislead is totally unfair to those who are already on a low wage to be penalised. It also means possible dismissal and being summons to go to court therefore giving someone who has been mislead a criminal record. this also applies to the manager that has the licence for the shop to sell alcohol that is someone who has had nothing to do with the sale in the first place. I think it is an unfair law penalising those who can not afford such heavy fines and whose future work could be damaged by having to go to court. the whole idea must be thought out again and another remedy sought.

Why is this idea important?

I think this should be repealed as it should not be the responsibility of shop staff to ensure that there is no under age drinking. also for an £80 fine to be given to shop staff for being mislead is totally unfair to those who are already on a low wage to be penalised. It also means possible dismissal and being summons to go to court therefore giving someone who has been mislead a criminal record. this also applies to the manager that has the licence for the shop to sell alcohol that is someone who has had nothing to do with the sale in the first place. I think it is an unfair law penalising those who can not afford such heavy fines and whose future work could be damaged by having to go to court. the whole idea must be thought out again and another remedy sought.

Permisable age for consuming alcohol

Raise the age for alcohol consumption to 21 as it is in the US and Canada ( and is only available through government sourced shops or in bars) and in most places it is stricktly enforced. Hopefully be this time youngsters may have a little more common sence. 

Why is this idea important?

Raise the age for alcohol consumption to 21 as it is in the US and Canada ( and is only available through government sourced shops or in bars) and in most places it is stricktly enforced. Hopefully be this time youngsters may have a little more common sence. 

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Modification of the Driving while unfit through drugs or alcohol law

Justice should be more severe for those caught driving a vehicle while unfit because of drugs and alcohol.

However I believe that the legal limit for alcohol should be slightly raised to 50mg/100ml instead of 35mg/100ml and i'll explain this later.

For all controlled substances except through prescrpition; there should be no tollerance even if fit to drive.

Why is this idea important?

Justice should be more severe for those caught driving a vehicle while unfit because of drugs and alcohol.

However I believe that the legal limit for alcohol should be slightly raised to 50mg/100ml instead of 35mg/100ml and i'll explain this later.

For all controlled substances except through prescrpition; there should be no tollerance even if fit to drive.

Charge for Binge Drinking

The NHS should charge people who are drunk, Binge drinking not only damages peoples health but also people around them and the facilities they abuse.

Binge drinking costs the country 20 Billion according to a government report  With 1.7 billion pounds in costs alone for the NHS.

The NHS charges for car accidents so why don't they charge for binge drinking/ Self inflicted.

 

Ok anyone who has a drink can have a fall but anyone who is excessively drunk and has to be admitted should have a blood test and if the level of alcohol is high then charge them for it.  Say 2 times the current legal driving limit. And no im not saying it is acceptable to  drink and drive. Just trying to sort out a minature safety net for the innocent revelleer and social drinker.

Why is this idea important?

The NHS should charge people who are drunk, Binge drinking not only damages peoples health but also people around them and the facilities they abuse.

Binge drinking costs the country 20 Billion according to a government report  With 1.7 billion pounds in costs alone for the NHS.

The NHS charges for car accidents so why don't they charge for binge drinking/ Self inflicted.

 

Ok anyone who has a drink can have a fall but anyone who is excessively drunk and has to be admitted should have a blood test and if the level of alcohol is high then charge them for it.  Say 2 times the current legal driving limit. And no im not saying it is acceptable to  drink and drive. Just trying to sort out a minature safety net for the innocent revelleer and social drinker.

Licenced hours; Off-sales

The Licencing (Scotland) Act 2005, Section 65, states that alcohol shall not be sold in a premises for which an off-sales licence is in force between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 10.00 a.m.

 

About once a week I take myself to the local supermarket to purchase groceries.  At weekends I enjoy a glass of red wine at home.  I am a responsible drinker and, as a retired police officer, I am fully aware of the anti-social effects (and health problems) which can be attributed to alcohol abuse. I like to go shopping reasonably early in the morning (say, 8 or 9) to avoid the crowds. 

 

I am unable to buy a bottle of wine before ten in the morning. Therefore I cannot buy alcohol with my shopping.  I fail to see how society benefits from this law and think that it should be repealed.  The law in this respect is outdated.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Licencing (Scotland) Act 2005, Section 65, states that alcohol shall not be sold in a premises for which an off-sales licence is in force between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 10.00 a.m.

 

About once a week I take myself to the local supermarket to purchase groceries.  At weekends I enjoy a glass of red wine at home.  I am a responsible drinker and, as a retired police officer, I am fully aware of the anti-social effects (and health problems) which can be attributed to alcohol abuse. I like to go shopping reasonably early in the morning (say, 8 or 9) to avoid the crowds. 

 

I am unable to buy a bottle of wine before ten in the morning. Therefore I cannot buy alcohol with my shopping.  I fail to see how society benefits from this law and think that it should be repealed.  The law in this respect is outdated.

 

Drink Driving

Assuming the driver can prove the he /she has been responsible whilst drinking ie not driven home. The sentence assuming no fault of the driver should be a lesser sentence . Recognising the difference between being over the limit having. Slept and showered as as posed to driving straight from the pub Resturant etc.

Why is this idea important?

Assuming the driver can prove the he /she has been responsible whilst drinking ie not driven home. The sentence assuming no fault of the driver should be a lesser sentence . Recognising the difference between being over the limit having. Slept and showered as as posed to driving straight from the pub Resturant etc.

Fines for Anti Social Behaviour

To set out a standard list of penalties for those who spend a weekend getting so drunk that they require the public serviced to assist them.

If people wish to drink to excess and then require the services of the police, para medics, hospitals etc then they should pay the cost.

Why is this idea important?

To set out a standard list of penalties for those who spend a weekend getting so drunk that they require the public serviced to assist them.

If people wish to drink to excess and then require the services of the police, para medics, hospitals etc then they should pay the cost.