The artical "'All-you-can-drink' pub offers facing ban" in BBC News mandatory identification in the government's recommendations to combat a drinking problem and introduced the inspection.
The artical also mention that "It is estimated alcohol abuse in England and Wales kills 40,000 people and costs the economy £55bn every year."(¶7) "Alcohol misuse leads to serious ill-health, premature death and is linked to violence and anti-social behaviour. It also costs the NHS millions of pounds every year," (¶19)
As my thinking, the alcohol drinking problem is happening in a lot of countries, every year there're a large group of people die in accidents after they got drunk. Drinking alcohol is not a serious problem, but the problem is after drinking alcohol, the people can't control themselves not to do the dangerous things, so it's a good for the goverment to combat the drinking problem; It can solve some promblem and life.
__________ References
"All-you-can-drink" pub offers facing ban (2010, January 19). BBC News. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8465939.stm
Alina,I also support people who want to solve drinking habbit.I consider that it 's a good way to improve your life.Whatever they drink it 'll be a reflection to their health.Therefore the goverment should support peoplt to stop drinking if they want people in their country have a good health.
ReplyDeleteThe all-you-can-drink promotion sounds like a very bad and dangerous idea. Therefore, I agree with the Brit government to ban the offering. How can a pub takes responsibilities of what their customers might do after drink all that they can and leave the place? It's not like other kinds of buffet, an all-you-can-eat restaurant causes no harm to its clients except for getting fat, right?
ReplyDeleteShould pubs be responsible for what their customers do after they leave? If the pub is responsible, not the drinker, should the same thinking apply to other sales? For example, should car sellers be responsible for the bad driving of their customers after they leave the sales room? If not, what is the relevant difference between selling cars and selling alcohol that makes one seller responsible for the use or result of the product but not the other?
ReplyDelete(I'm not saying there is not a problem, but I am worried about the reasoning, and teh justice of the government's response.)
I don't think it's a good idea. In mauy societies, lots of people are having relationship through drinking alcohol together. Of course, drinking alchohol leads many problems, bur the result should go to the person who druned a lot. How come government regulate the saling of pub? I think that alcohol, itself is not a problem.
ReplyDeleteI think the government is looking at this problem with an indirect solution.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn’t it stop selling all the alcohol?
So, the problems solved.
Besides, puting the resposibilty on the price may not be a sensible idea and it is just other inconclusive discussions made by gorernment, hoping that the problem can solve per se.
The all-you-can-drink promotion can be implied as a "Let's get drunk and get wild, people!" promotion, so it actually is encouraging people to get more drunk, more wild, more likely to cause problems or commit crimes, and the most dangerous thing is to drive under the influence of alcohol(DUI). Encouraging people to get drunk while knowing exactly they’ll drive themselves home is the same as handing people guns knowing precisely they’re planning to kill someone or themselves. If the gun shopkeeper acts this way he’ll be sent to jail as a supporter of the murderer. So, what is the difference? It’s both sending people to death! I don’t mean that the pub must stop selling alcohol but at least don’t encourage people to drink more and more, to no limitation like that. It just shows the intention.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, selling cars is not encouraging people to drive badly or hit other people and bad driving is not the responsibility of cars sellers, actually, it’s the responsibility of licensing offices.
I like Roong's well argued disagreement.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if drunk driving is the problem. Very few people in Western countries do that. The problem in the UK, and also Australis, is people getting drunk and being obnoxious in public, or committing crimes of violence, usually domestic.
WHilst I think that getting drunk is stupid, I don't think it is a reason to punish people any more than eating unhealthy fatty pork leg (very delicious, but I'm sure it's also very unhealthy) should be punished. Cheap alcohol will certainly encourage some people to drink more, but since the majority of heavy drinkers, and even drunks, don't actually commit crimes, I don't think it is the same as selling someone a gun knowing that they are planning to use it to commit murder. If the pub did know who was going to commit a crime when they used alcohol, then it would be reasonable to punish them, but pubs don't normally know which 5 out of the 100 drinkers are going to go home and bash their wives rather than just destroy themselves as they have fun with their friends any more than the gun seller knows which of 5% of his customers will use the gun to rob a bank or kill an unwanted husband.
Although alcohol, like any addictive drug, can contribute to crime, I think it's the actual crime that should be punished, not possible causes. But education and encouragement to use less drugs are good things.
Is it wrong, wrong enough to punish, to encourage people to do something stupid but generally accepted if it only harms themselves?
(I added the phrase but generallly accepted after thinking about it for a moment.)
The last paragraph from the article Alina wrote about says that "earlier this month, a Commons health select committee report estimated that a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol would prevent 3,000 deaths a year."
ReplyDeleteDoes this fact, which is probably about right, justify setting a minimum price for alcohol of 50p (about 30 Baht) per unit?
Should Thailand do something similar?