Alix

I believe that alcohol is the only property a person can lawfully own and carry but have confiscated by the police on mere suspicion (no evidence required) of a crime having taken place.

And the new move seems to be that it will be confiscated with no suspicion of any crime having taken place.

Its a hell of a failure of liberty that we have reached such a point that the state can take stuff off citizens for no reason - and it doesn’t seem much of a change.

Lee

Perhaps we could reverse that and parents can give their kids a note saying they permit them to drink alcohol.

Many parents would hapilly do so. (It is imorral to tell a seventeen year old that he or she is ‘too young’ to do anything - and many parents know it)

What is interesting about it is particularly its manner of dealing with the repossession of your personal affects. Rather than taking the alcohol from you and confiscating it, they pour it away. I can’t get my head around how it is ever right to take something that through all intents and purposes probably isn’t illegally gained (as the stats show, most alcohol is got from friends and family) and then destroy it simply because of a location of drinking. But then it would be unworkable for police to enforce the law in such a way that means they have to keep all the alcohol intact!

To also argue that we should therefore let people do what they like because it’s their body is also naive. There are social costs to binge drinking, though hugely exaggerated by the anti-drinking lobby. There are medical costs that we all incur because of drinking and the direct/indirect actions caused. If we lived in a libertarian society where everyone paid for their own healthcare then you’d certainly have more of a point, but as it is I can’t see the liberal stance in saying the state should completely stand back and let a minority of individuals cause any certain strain on state resources or put them in a situation which ultimately inflicts a negative impact on those around them.

We of course should stand up against the infringement on our liberties here, they are without need, but lets not belittle our own argument by not recognising that there are collateral effects to society with binge drinking.

17. I assure you I have picked up on that many a time, though the law technically is that you can drink from the age 5 as long as your parent is in agreement. Perhaps the law should be that you can’t confiscate alcohol as long as you have a letter from mummy? ;)

My understanding was that it was already legal for the police to confiscate alcohol specifically from underage drinkers if they had reason to suspect that they had been drinking it or were going to. The extended SuperLabour version is that they can take alcohol off children without any such suspicion.

This was from the Beeb coverage. I suppose it depends on whether the new version of the law does just apply to children or whether Thickie Smith is hoping to apply it to everyone so as to catch the “Young People” - in which case your point stands. Either way, of course, your point about the basic legality of drinking at any age stands (I didn’t know it was 5 though - favourite new fact of the day).

Ignore our right to harm ourselves if we please. Even ignore the presumption of innocense being trampled on by this ludicrous notion that booze makes crime (I drink heavilly and yet stay law abiding even under severe provocation).

Consider instead “confiscation of alcohol”

It is legal to drink alcohol from the age of five. It is legal to own alcohol at any age though not legal to sell it to some one young. (Anyone can give a gift of alcohol perfectly legally).

So the state is moving towards the arbitrary confiscation of private property from law abiding citizens.

huzzah! for liberty.

And you really seem to have swallowed the line that the puritans are dealing. So what if people want to get pissed and show their arses? What harm does it do to you? To repeat Terry’s quote of JS Mill:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”

But the perspective to be followed is that figures do show that we have overcome the real problem of the alcopop generation (of which I guess I am one, just) of the early 2000’s and got our drinking back to levels a decade ago. Something certainly needs to be done based on what we know, but that something is cultural change…something Labour have actually been directly walking in the wrong direction from given that they have managed to change culture out of pubs and bars and in to homes from supermarkets, or on to the street if you’re a youngster.

Labour have brought elements of this problem on themselves, and the 24 hour licensing was a way to try and reverse that…however such a change will take another decade to truly have any effect just as Labours increasing taxes on alcohol and forcing people out of licensed premises has ended up doing.

Insert joke about the Bullingdon club here.

When is there going to be a Liberally Conspiratorial Imbibation?

Well said, however - there is the slight consideration about whether binge drinkers should expect the state to pick up the pieces (which of course leads to that tiresome debate about whether the state should administer to the self-inflicted)

I still like to binge drink occasionally - and still expect the state to treat my alcohol related gastritis and hiatus hernia. However, neither of these mild illnesses - nor my drinking affect my ability to do my job, and more importantly pay my taxes. And I’m 41 FFS !!

Ultimately though, it’s about snobbery. The old story about the University Rugby team getting drunk being ‘high spirits’ while the unemployed being drunken louts still holds true today - as it did when I was young enough to vomit up a stomach full of cider.

Come on, Sunny, start organising.

xD.

I’m always up for direction action, especially that which involves alcohol.

I’m so getting drunk and obnoxious tonight.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant

There really is no need for further discussion.

Can I have zinfandel instead of Merlot?

I wouldn’t venture into the hellhole that is the typical NHS hospital myself - I have seen what some friends and relatives have gone through.

“If not exactly civil, this is at least a legitimate concern and the nursing profession, unsurprisingly, is up in arms at the slur.”

Slur? So they all scrub up properly then? Right.