No booze with Brown?
Gordon Brown is seriously considering making it illegal for under-21s to buy alcohol from shops and off-licences, which would be another smack in the face for freedom after the blanket smoking ban introduced this month. The idea has the distinct ring of the headline-grabbing but ultimately unsubstantial policy announcements beloved of Blair. However, while it is unlikely to have much impact on violence, as it purports to, it is significant as part of a substantial process of erosion of individual (and collective) freedom by the Labour government, with policies often based on the most short-termist and reactionary thinking. Once again young people have found themselves scapegoated. Brown does not appear to realise that such a ban would a) only move the violence in our society elsewhere and b) make alcohol even more dangerously appealing for young people (as will the rise to 18 years for cigarettes). Mr. Brown has learnt nothing from prohibition, or from the ‘war on drugs’, which they haven’t won yet. Fools.
I suggest a drunken riot in protest. Non-violent direct action my inebriated ass. ;)
On the other hand, I’ve always been curious as to what would win in a “fair fight” between booze and E. Make alcohol class A!
This government has come up with some bizarre ideas but this one ranks among the very worst. Under 18’s easily get booze now by getting others to buy it for them. How much easier will it be for 19-20 year olds, given in many cases it would harder to distinguish if they’re over 21 or not anyway?
If the worry is that young people are abusing alcohol then it should be asked why they’re doing it. As you say, to try and just ban people from getting access never works.
This is a ridiculous piece of legislation that is being considering. However, I would like to bring up a point about the smoking ban. I am a smoker and I support the ban which, it would appear, the author of the blog does not. To work behind a bar with hundreds of people blowing smoke in your direction is extremely unhealthy and unpleasant-even for smokers. Workers in pubs, bars and the like should not be subject to this. Far enough, it is an arse for me, many people I know and smokers in general but I dont mind if it means the workers’ job is made ever so slightly easier.
No, I do not support the ban!
I would agree that workers should not HAVE to labour in a smoky environment. But freedom from polluting smoke for some can be accomplished without so severely curbing the freedom of other workers to smoke. There should be a choice of both smoking and non-smoking pubs, clubs etc. A government bill which enforced a quota in every town is not inconceivable, if rather difficult to implement. Such a compromise, ideally under the leadership of the working class, I could certainly support.
Smoking is a filthy habit, but even if one argues that ‘the means (a state ban) justifies the ends (smoke-free workers)’, such prohibition measures by the bourgeois state never work anyway. Communists argue for the decriminalisation of heroin and crack; that does not mean we encourage their use. The working class needs to rid itself of destructive drug use (including cigarettes) by itself. In the event of an upsurge in consciousness, when the class begins to organise itself as the germ of a new society, excessive and/or dangerous drug use would simply be too socially embarrassing.