Scottish Parents could be arrested if their children drink alcohol on family days out

12357

Comments

  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    Resonance wrote: »
    Agreed.

    Not only have we got the nanny state, we seem to have developed a nanny population as well.

    As you say, just get on with your own life and don't worry about what others do that's of no consequence to you. People would be a lot happier that way.

    Unfortunately alcohol use does effect others, even indirectly.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    will do what the hell i want with my life it's my life nobody has the right to control it.

    That isn't true though, is it? Plenty of people have the right to control you. It happens probably thousands of times a day, depending on how you spend your days.

    I'm not sure where your anger comes from but I'm getting the impression you have some wider issues with society/politics in general rather than just the topic being discussed here.
  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    What would I do where?

    Well one expert says chocolate is good for you and one says it is bad for you so which expert do you believe?
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    Not at all. It has nothing to do with the government. I respect people's opinions on subjects which they have studied to great lengths and are very knowledgeable in. Why wouldn't I? I hate it when people have a strong opinion without knowledge or when people are arrogant enough to think they know better than experts.

    Problem is 'experts' get things wrong all the time. They aren't some kind of infallible god. Also a lot of so called experts are funded by vested interests to arrive at the desired result. Also 'experts' disagree with each other most (all) of the time. So which 'expert' are we to believe.

    On this subject there will be experts that say they right approach is to give kids alcohol in a controlled environment and make them less likely to become problem drinkers. There will also be experts that say if a drop of booze passes a kid's lips they will likely become raging alcoholics. There will also be 'experts' that lie between the two examples.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    EvieJ wrote: »
    Unfortunately alcohol use does effect others, even indirectly.

    And there are already laws to protect against this. This ban is unnecessary.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    And there are already laws to protect against this. This ban is unnecessary.

    Yet there is still a problem. Children learn from those around them who have in many cases grown up with a very unhealthy attitude to alcohol consumption. The culture needs to change.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Resonance wrote: »
    Agreed.

    Not only have we got the nanny state, we seem to have developed a nanny population as well.

    As you say, just get on with your own life and don't worry about what others do that's of no consequence to you. People would be a lot happier that way.

    Unfortunately, each person doesn't live their life in a bubble where their actions only affect themself and nobody else. People's actions have different degrees of direct and in-direct effects on other people, I think that's why laws are in place.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    steveh31 wrote: »
    Well one expert says chocolate is good for you and one says it is bad for you so which expert do you believe?

    I'd have assumed that it has benefits and negatives. So, the sugar content would be bad for your teeth and the fat(?) content would be bad for you as well. Then there may be health benefits put forward by another claim. I'd weigh the evidence up and decide whether the pros outweigh the cons. I'm not overly keen on chocolate so this example is a bit of a moot point for me.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    That isn't true though, is it? Plenty of people have the right to control you. It happens probably thousands of times a day, depending on how you spend your days.

    I'm not sure where your anger comes from but I'm getting the impression you have some wider issues with society/politics in general rather than just the topic being discussed here.

    only one group of people have the right to tell you what to do and control you and that is law enforcement no 1 else does.

    but one power the police do not have is telling you what you can eat.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Resonance wrote: »
    Problem is 'experts' get things wrong all the time. They aren't some kind of infallible god. Also a lot of so called experts are funded by vested interests to arrive at the desired result. Also 'experts' disagree with each other most (all) of the time. So which 'expert' are we to believe.

    On this subject there will be experts that say they right approach is to give kids alcohol in a controlled environment and make them less likely to become problem drinkers. There will also be experts that say if a drop of booze passes a kid's lips they will likely become raging alcoholics. There will also be 'experts' that lie between the two examples.

    Allow them alcohol in the controlled environment of their own home or with a meal in a restaurant or pub seems to be a sensible approach. I think seeing under-18s (or anyone) drinking in a public place is pretty anti-social behaviour. Just my opinion.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    only one group of people have the right to tell you what to do and control you and that is law enforcement no 1 else does.

    Em, I think we're getting on to semantics here.

    Two points:

    1. This thread IS about potential laws being introduced/enforced though. Your previous post said 'Nobody has the right to control (my life.)' Now you've contradicted that and said that 'law enforcement' can control you. Which is it?

    2. I'd argue that lots of people have the right to tell you what to do and control you to different degrees in various ways, whether it be a shopkeeper, ticket collector, person in their own property, even person on the street. You would perhaps be correct in saying only 'law enforcement' can actually enforce that but everyone has the right to tell you what to do in various circumstances.

    What a strange route you have dragged this discussion down. I fear you must bring the same spiel to any law-based discussion on here.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    EvieJ wrote: »
    Yet there is still a problem. Children learn from those around them who have in many cases grown up with a very unhealthy attitude to alcohol consumption. The culture needs to change.

    Exactly but you are not going to change culture by banning things.

    You change culture by bringing the issue into the open and showing kids from a young age the better way to enjoy a drink, ie slowly and with food.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    I'd have assumed that it has benefits and negatives. So, the sugar content would be bad for your teeth and the fat(?) content would be bad for you as well. Then there may be health benefits put forward by another claim. I'd weigh the evidence up and decide whether the pros outweigh the cons. I'm not overly keen on chocolate so this example is a bit of a moot point for me.

    There is a lot of nonsense out there about fat and it is being spread by so called experts. Things are not as simple as fat = bad.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    steveh31 wrote: »
    It is illegal if the police apply for certain zones to be alcohol comsumption free.

    What other things would you like to be made illegal out of curiosity?

    We have one in the town centre, people soon find the places out of view of the CCTV and you rarely see any police in the town centre especially since they closed the police station and moved to one outside town.

    When there were traffic wardens you could work out the CCTV blind spots by seeing where they hung around talking to their friends.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is a lot of nonsense out there about fat and it is being spread by so called experts. Things are not as simple as fat = bad.

    Yeah I find dietary advice very difficult to follow but some of it is fairly obvious in terms of junk food/healthy food, so I tend to make sure I'm doing ok on the obvious stuff.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    EvieJ wrote: »
    Unfortunately alcohol use does effect others, even indirectly.

    Agreed, I have no problem with people wasting their money on alcohol but I think it should be illegal to be drunk in a public place. I don't see why normal people should have to put up with drunken behaviour.
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There is a lot of nonsense out there about fat and it is being spread by so called experts. Things are not as simple as fat = bad.

    Yes, even the 'experts' are coming round to that idea now.

    Not long ago the 'experts' reversed their previous suggestions that you should use margarine instead of butter. Now margarine is the unhealthy option apparently.

    Still, I guess that's of little comfort to the people who have been following the 'experts' advice on it for decades.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    Exactly but you are not going to change culture by banning things.

    You change culture by bringing the issue into the open and showing kids from a young age the better way to enjoy a drink, ie slowly and with food.

    No body is banning alcohol. Alcohol laws as they are are not helping the problem, something has to change. Some parents are not responsible enough to lead by example.
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Drinking alcohol can very quickly lead to anti-social behaviour so I think it is sensible and perfectly reasonable for alcohol consumption to be confined to private places and public places with a licence, where they have the appropriate facilities and procedures to deal with any anti-social behaviour.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Resonance wrote: »
    Yes, even the 'experts' are coming round to that idea now.

    Not long ago the 'experts' reversed their previous suggestions that you should use margarine instead of butter. Now margarine is the unhealthy option apparently.

    Still, I guess that's of little comfort to the people who have been following the 'experts' advice on it for decades.

    i just eat and drink what i like,
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lundavra wrote: »
    Agreed, I have no problem with people wasting their money on alcohol but I think it should be illegal to be drunk in a public place. I don't see why normal people should have to put up with drunken behaviour.

    It is illegal 1872 (Licensing Act 1872 & Criminal Justice Act 1967). It's impossible to enforce though, because how do you legally define drunk?
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Resonance wrote: »
    Yes, even the 'experts' are coming round to that idea now.

    Not long ago the 'experts' reversed their previous suggestions that you should use margarine instead of butter. Now margarine is the unhealthy option apparently.

    Still, I guess that's of little comfort to the people who have been following the 'experts' advice on it for decades.

    Where do you make your judgements on if not from the advice of experts?

    (That isn't a threatening question, it sounded a bit threatening after I'd read it. I'm genuinely interested as to on what basis you make your decisions?)
  • doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i just eat and drink what i like,

    I think most of us do that, that doesn't make you the maverick revolutionary you'd like to believe.
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    Where do you make your judgements on if not from the advice of experts?

    (That isn't a threatening question, it sounded a bit threatening after I'd read it. I'm genuinely interested as to on what basis you make your decisions?)

    Tbh I ignore most of it. Mainly because there's so much conflicting 'expert' advice there is no way of knowing the truth. One year something is unhealthy according to consensus of the 'experts' and the next year it's not.

    You only have to look at the fairly recent advice on fruit/fruit juice. For decades they've been saying get fruit and veg down your kids. Five a day, seven a day etc. Now the sugar in fruit is going to kill you off. A lot of schools have even banned pupils drinking fruit juice

    I'd rather just live my life and let the 'experts' have their to and fro on what they think we should or shouldn't be doing.

    I'm not worried anyway. I don't want to live to 101, sitting in my own pee in a care home.
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    el_bardos wrote: »
    It is enforced, it’s what the police would usually call “drunk and incapable”, in other words you can’t look after yourself any more.

    Being drunk and incapable is a separate offence to being drunk in a public place. So yeah being drunk and incapable or disorderly is a lot easier to enforce.

    There's also a law about being drunk in charge of a 7 year old (or younger).
Sign In or Register to comment.