How many times have you finished work, and gone for a pint before heading home? A drink with your mates or a 'sundowner' with your significant other.
The pub is the centre of community for most British villages, towns and cities. There are other 'centres', such as church, community centres, schools and local groups, maybe, but the pub is that one place where everyone gathers to meet friends or make new ones. All this is slowly dying. Our pubs are closing at an astonishing rate, with nothing in the pipeline to replace them.
This is not just about the closure of local business, although that is an issue too, but it is about the loss of a community centre, a home from home, for many people.
My local has just closed. This was a place that I met friends for a catch up and arranged to go with friends for nights out at the weekend. Now it is closed and people are displaced.
OK, why are pubs closing? That is a question that I've been unable to get a consistent answer to, but the one consistency is that the business could no longer support itself - trade having dropped off to a point where the business was running at a loss.
Why?
This is where answers are divided. There are a lot of reasons. Currently, the world is in a recession. The UK is in a recession. People are less able to afford as much luxury. With less people out, particularly at weekends, the businesses are suffering.
Another question then. Is the lack of people going out, all down to recession? Doubtful.
Changing trends, more restaurants, cheaper alcohol in supermarkets and the ban on smoking in public places are all likely contributors to the demise of socialising in pubs, but why and how did this all take place. In my opinion, they are all linked.
As the western world became more health conscious, spending time in smoky bars was considered less attractive to many, especially non-smokers. The pubs countered this by introducing non-smoking areas, or even completely non-smoking venues, and this was a good move, in my view, to give choice to everyone. It worked too. Pubs were busy, as they attracted the people who 'chose' that venue. Price was less important (pre recession) and facilities were taken more into consideration.
Then a couple of years ago, the world changed, and smoking was virtually outlawed, almost overnight. OK, a generalisation, but it paints the picture in my eyes.
People began staying home, inviting friends around. We can still smoke at home and the proof is there that where we could once smoke in pubs, we are now smoking at home and therefore drinking at home too. Supermarkets were the winners. Their cheaper prices, often under-cutting even the off-license, made perfect sense to those of us that wanted to enjoy a smoke with our pint.
What was not considered was what effect all this 'stay at home' socialising would have on our lovely pub culture. Pubs began closing one day per week, in some cases, or laying off staff to keep their heads above water in others. The customer base got less and less and although there was always the passing trade to keep things going, it was never going to replace the regular customers that had now stopped coming. The only way ahead was down hill.
Now, we are losing around 60 pubs every week in the UK. Last year, almost 30,000 people lost work because of this decision. There are at least a dozen pubs in my local area (Uxbridge / South Bucks) that have closed in the past year.
In my opinion, a disgraceful decision, badly implemented and impossible to maintain without further losses.
Long live personal choice.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Friday, 6 March 2009
Well, that's another fine mess you've got us into.....Nanny State
How do I begin this one?
How do I write this post without fear of contradicting any previous entry?
Call it what you will, but it came to me like a bolt from the blue. Maybe I'm lagging behind the times but for me it was a revelation.
For a few years and more now, the population of the UK have had a bee in their bonnet surrounding the 'Nanny State' idea. Most of us at one time or another have thrown our arms up in the air and said something like 'just another barmy plan from the Nanny State'. Central government have taken it upon themselves to treat the population, at large, like children. We're warned about the dangers of this and prevented from doing that. For instance, all the little warnings we see on food, alcohol and tobacco (actually tobacco is no longer a little warning, it a graphic picture of the inside of a lung or lining of a throat), but the point is there. We are told how to behave, guided in our day to day existence by rules and regulation.
Many of these rules and regulations are restrictive in a social or health & safety arena, and as such, lend themselves to the idea of a nanny state as they remove the 'risk' of a certain individual making the wrong decision about his / her life. Some rules have become blended into legislation and so the line between nanny state and police state are blurred. Political correctness plays a part too.
Parents are scared to allow their children out of sight, especially at night, because of the risk of danger to the child firstly, but also a risk of themselves being caught up in legislation that might see them imprisoned for their childs' actions.
Responsible adults with children at home are in fear of having the smallest amount of alcohol incase they're viewed as being unfit parents.
CCTV cameras are posted EVERYWHERE to track our movements and keep an eye on what we're up to
Gov't agencies can consolidate information held about us on a variety of databases, to enable them to investigate individuals further than by using data held legitimately alone can do
The TV warns us to reduce / increase our GM, Salt, Sugar, Fat, Carbohydrates, Polyunsaturated Fat, Calories, Saturated Fats, Protein, Vitamins. Get your 5 a day.
An independent think tank, the Kings Fund, published a report in 2004 saying that most of the British public wanted a Nanny State. I say that is absolute rubbish. The report might be a representation of the 1000 people surveyed, but 1000 out of 60,000,000 is not representative in my view, not to any respectable proportion anyway.
The UK Gov't are acting like strict parents, telling us don't when what they should be doing is warning, providing information, giving us the tools to make informed decisions about our own lives.
What was the revelation then? What is all of this about?
I've spent a lot of time putting it in black and white, telling everyone I know, making the statements that everyone else spouts off, but the revelation I've had is that while the content of those statements is correct as far as I'm aware, it was the targetting that was incorrect.
It's is not the Government that are to blame.
The blame for the way this nation has become lies fairly and squarely at the door of every man and woman in the land. OK, more specifically, it is the fault of the 80s generation in particular, but the 70s and the 90s had their input too. Mainly it was my generation - the 80s school-leavers.
When I left school, the North East of England was a fairly depressing place. The region is a beautiful part of England, closer culturally to our Scot cousins than to our English brothers, and has so much to offer the world in ways too numerous to list here. The people are genuine, hospitable, hard-working. The countryside is beautiful, vast, varying and full of history. In 1982 when I left school and joined the RAF, the NE of England was an unemployed wasteland, closed down industry and depressed school-leavers. I wasn't the only one to leave the region for opportunities elsewhere.
All over the UK, people were in a migrating mood. The 1980s were a migration period for the British human species. Where before, most people were happy with living close to family because work was availalbe, following the collapse of industry, people were looking further afield for work. OK, that is not the fault of the people, but the natural course of events that followed most certainly is.
Let's take it back a couple of years, to my early 'teens, so we're talking 1976 onwards. 1976, the summer of heat, the drought, long hot days and water shortages. I have some great memories of that year, carefree, 11 years old, and I spent much of most of those summer days with my friends on our bikes, riding the 3 miles each way from our village to the coast, leaving our bikes on the beach while we swam in our jeans in the North Sea. Brrr!
Today, in 2009, I doubt this would be allowed.
Firstly, riding a push-bike along main roads, shared with cars, lorries, buses, would be unthinkable for an 11 year old today.
Then there's the unsupervised minors, on a beach, in the sea angle to look at, considering that every street corner and cubby is populated by child molesting wierdos, it would seem.
Of course, swimming without any life guard is an issue too. There were no lives to guard - it wasn't that kind of beach.
Swimming in the North Sea, just south of Newcastle, is not a recommended pursuit either, it's not exactly the Med.
All this shows is that opinions are vastly different today than they were 30 years ago. Those of us that are now into our 40s see the UK as a place where our freedoms have been curtailed, reduced, removed in some cases....
...and it is all our fault.
We grew up in a world where our parents had grown up, and their parents before them. Of course there was migration in the 60s, the 50s, the 40s and so on, industrial migration where whole families uprooted and moved county, or even country, to find work and accommodation in a new town, city or nation, but in the main, we grew up in our parents world, and they in theirs and so on. Because of this, traditions and cultural ways of life were passed down generation to generation. Tips for survival, if you like, were indoctrinated into us by the moral superiority of our elders. As we enter adulthood, we make our own way in the world, but still guided by the paternal instincts of our kin.
During the 80s, this process changed more than it had been affected at anytime hitherto. Speaking purely from the point of view of someone that grew up in NE England, but there seemed to be a huge shift in migration, and many young men, in particular, moved away to start elsewhere. Work, or lack of prospects more specifically, was the driver for this, but once it started, it seemed that it snowballed. Suddenly, there were a lot of people living outside of their comfort zone, having to truly fend for themselves with little or no parental guidance. As adults, we will like to depend on something.
The Government moved along too. New politicians came onto the scene, men and women who also had their roots in the 80s migration. Men and women who have seen the possible changes that can be made, and became involved in the political process themselves. The shift was complete.
Politicians spoke to us in our language, they courted us with the same emotions that had let us down, they began to replace the parental and community model that we had grown up with, but had left behind.
We allowed it to happen.
We allowed it to happen.
Freud said 'Tell me about your mother', and I used to laugh when I heard that. What has my mother to do with anything, I'd think. But it is so true. The guidance we would receive, be it good or bad, came from the family unit, and the extended family unit, then from interaction with friends and the rest of the human race in turn. By endorsing the mass individual migration of the 80s, we have destroyed the family unit and because of that, community is weaker, social interactions are fewer, social malpractice is on the rise.
Unfortunately, while recognising the errors of our ways, I can also see the path ahead, and it is not a pretty one. Things will become more restrictive, more prohibitive.
We are now seeing parents being sent to prison because a child has persistently avoided school. But parents are being unjustly accused of being unfit here. They are themselves a product of their world, and their world has not taught them the values that my world taught me. This is not the governments fault
We allowed it to happen.
Now, I'm not about to attempt to incite any kind of rioting here, and I am not a political antagonist, but I am a voice in my nation. We cannot allow this to happen any longer. Unfortunately, we cannot stop it by simply writing a blog, but my hope is that I can plant a seed, bring some emotion to the subject, start talking about it. We need to change direction.
I hate to think of the lost generation. They are the product of our mistakes, and that makes me feel absolutely heartbroken. There are too many broken promises living in their 20s, trying to make sense of a world from which they know nothing different, and it is not fair to them, nor to us, nor to the future generations that are to come.
Children abandoned by community have grown into adults that care nothing for community.
It is an alien concept to many
How do we begin? Oh dear,, I'm right back at the top again.
We begin by talking, reaching out, creating community.
But is that right? Community evolved over many generations. We destroyed it in one.
How can we put that right? Should we try? Is there any better way?
Humans are social animals. We need community. Let us make sure we generate the right kind of community, a physical, social and interactive human community and get our nation and our people, back on track.
How do I write this post without fear of contradicting any previous entry?
Call it what you will, but it came to me like a bolt from the blue. Maybe I'm lagging behind the times but for me it was a revelation.
For a few years and more now, the population of the UK have had a bee in their bonnet surrounding the 'Nanny State' idea. Most of us at one time or another have thrown our arms up in the air and said something like 'just another barmy plan from the Nanny State'. Central government have taken it upon themselves to treat the population, at large, like children. We're warned about the dangers of this and prevented from doing that. For instance, all the little warnings we see on food, alcohol and tobacco (actually tobacco is no longer a little warning, it a graphic picture of the inside of a lung or lining of a throat), but the point is there. We are told how to behave, guided in our day to day existence by rules and regulation.
Many of these rules and regulations are restrictive in a social or health & safety arena, and as such, lend themselves to the idea of a nanny state as they remove the 'risk' of a certain individual making the wrong decision about his / her life. Some rules have become blended into legislation and so the line between nanny state and police state are blurred. Political correctness plays a part too.
Parents are scared to allow their children out of sight, especially at night, because of the risk of danger to the child firstly, but also a risk of themselves being caught up in legislation that might see them imprisoned for their childs' actions.
Responsible adults with children at home are in fear of having the smallest amount of alcohol incase they're viewed as being unfit parents.
CCTV cameras are posted EVERYWHERE to track our movements and keep an eye on what we're up to
Gov't agencies can consolidate information held about us on a variety of databases, to enable them to investigate individuals further than by using data held legitimately alone can do
The TV warns us to reduce / increase our GM, Salt, Sugar, Fat, Carbohydrates, Polyunsaturated Fat, Calories, Saturated Fats, Protein, Vitamins. Get your 5 a day.
An independent think tank, the Kings Fund, published a report in 2004 saying that most of the British public wanted a Nanny State. I say that is absolute rubbish. The report might be a representation of the 1000 people surveyed, but 1000 out of 60,000,000 is not representative in my view, not to any respectable proportion anyway.
The UK Gov't are acting like strict parents, telling us don't when what they should be doing is warning, providing information, giving us the tools to make informed decisions about our own lives.
What was the revelation then? What is all of this about?
I've spent a lot of time putting it in black and white, telling everyone I know, making the statements that everyone else spouts off, but the revelation I've had is that while the content of those statements is correct as far as I'm aware, it was the targetting that was incorrect.
It's is not the Government that are to blame.
The blame for the way this nation has become lies fairly and squarely at the door of every man and woman in the land. OK, more specifically, it is the fault of the 80s generation in particular, but the 70s and the 90s had their input too. Mainly it was my generation - the 80s school-leavers.
When I left school, the North East of England was a fairly depressing place. The region is a beautiful part of England, closer culturally to our Scot cousins than to our English brothers, and has so much to offer the world in ways too numerous to list here. The people are genuine, hospitable, hard-working. The countryside is beautiful, vast, varying and full of history. In 1982 when I left school and joined the RAF, the NE of England was an unemployed wasteland, closed down industry and depressed school-leavers. I wasn't the only one to leave the region for opportunities elsewhere.
All over the UK, people were in a migrating mood. The 1980s were a migration period for the British human species. Where before, most people were happy with living close to family because work was availalbe, following the collapse of industry, people were looking further afield for work. OK, that is not the fault of the people, but the natural course of events that followed most certainly is.
Let's take it back a couple of years, to my early 'teens, so we're talking 1976 onwards. 1976, the summer of heat, the drought, long hot days and water shortages. I have some great memories of that year, carefree, 11 years old, and I spent much of most of those summer days with my friends on our bikes, riding the 3 miles each way from our village to the coast, leaving our bikes on the beach while we swam in our jeans in the North Sea. Brrr!
Today, in 2009, I doubt this would be allowed.
Firstly, riding a push-bike along main roads, shared with cars, lorries, buses, would be unthinkable for an 11 year old today.
Then there's the unsupervised minors, on a beach, in the sea angle to look at, considering that every street corner and cubby is populated by child molesting wierdos, it would seem.
Of course, swimming without any life guard is an issue too. There were no lives to guard - it wasn't that kind of beach.
Swimming in the North Sea, just south of Newcastle, is not a recommended pursuit either, it's not exactly the Med.
All this shows is that opinions are vastly different today than they were 30 years ago. Those of us that are now into our 40s see the UK as a place where our freedoms have been curtailed, reduced, removed in some cases....
...and it is all our fault.
We grew up in a world where our parents had grown up, and their parents before them. Of course there was migration in the 60s, the 50s, the 40s and so on, industrial migration where whole families uprooted and moved county, or even country, to find work and accommodation in a new town, city or nation, but in the main, we grew up in our parents world, and they in theirs and so on. Because of this, traditions and cultural ways of life were passed down generation to generation. Tips for survival, if you like, were indoctrinated into us by the moral superiority of our elders. As we enter adulthood, we make our own way in the world, but still guided by the paternal instincts of our kin.
During the 80s, this process changed more than it had been affected at anytime hitherto. Speaking purely from the point of view of someone that grew up in NE England, but there seemed to be a huge shift in migration, and many young men, in particular, moved away to start elsewhere. Work, or lack of prospects more specifically, was the driver for this, but once it started, it seemed that it snowballed. Suddenly, there were a lot of people living outside of their comfort zone, having to truly fend for themselves with little or no parental guidance. As adults, we will like to depend on something.
The Government moved along too. New politicians came onto the scene, men and women who also had their roots in the 80s migration. Men and women who have seen the possible changes that can be made, and became involved in the political process themselves. The shift was complete.
Politicians spoke to us in our language, they courted us with the same emotions that had let us down, they began to replace the parental and community model that we had grown up with, but had left behind.
We allowed it to happen.
We allowed it to happen.
Freud said 'Tell me about your mother', and I used to laugh when I heard that. What has my mother to do with anything, I'd think. But it is so true. The guidance we would receive, be it good or bad, came from the family unit, and the extended family unit, then from interaction with friends and the rest of the human race in turn. By endorsing the mass individual migration of the 80s, we have destroyed the family unit and because of that, community is weaker, social interactions are fewer, social malpractice is on the rise.
Unfortunately, while recognising the errors of our ways, I can also see the path ahead, and it is not a pretty one. Things will become more restrictive, more prohibitive.
We are now seeing parents being sent to prison because a child has persistently avoided school. But parents are being unjustly accused of being unfit here. They are themselves a product of their world, and their world has not taught them the values that my world taught me. This is not the governments fault
We allowed it to happen.
Now, I'm not about to attempt to incite any kind of rioting here, and I am not a political antagonist, but I am a voice in my nation. We cannot allow this to happen any longer. Unfortunately, we cannot stop it by simply writing a blog, but my hope is that I can plant a seed, bring some emotion to the subject, start talking about it. We need to change direction.
I hate to think of the lost generation. They are the product of our mistakes, and that makes me feel absolutely heartbroken. There are too many broken promises living in their 20s, trying to make sense of a world from which they know nothing different, and it is not fair to them, nor to us, nor to the future generations that are to come.
Children abandoned by community have grown into adults that care nothing for community.
It is an alien concept to many
How do we begin? Oh dear,, I'm right back at the top again.
We begin by talking, reaching out, creating community.
But is that right? Community evolved over many generations. We destroyed it in one.
How can we put that right? Should we try? Is there any better way?
Humans are social animals. We need community. Let us make sure we generate the right kind of community, a physical, social and interactive human community and get our nation and our people, back on track.
Friday, 9 January 2009
2009 - time for change?
Dear readers,
I don't want to be a doom and gloom merchant, so I hope that is not how things come across, but as a member of this community - race - species - I'm becoming more and more sceptical of the world around us.
Around 2200 years ago, there was a surge of activity out of a city called Rome. They had evolved into an ordered society, created the structure that people need to support their lives. We call it community, from the word 'commune' or social / habitual gathering. The structure that the Romans created, which was in turn based on the model derived over time by the Achaeans, Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians (evenually becoming the Greek Empire), is the same basic structure of society that we consider the model of the 'modern' world today.
Those with influence, money or often by genealogy, would be drawn into politics or the military or both. The Senate collected these policy makers in one place, and as democracy evolved, these would become elected members whose role was to represent the common people for the good of their community, town, city, state, EMPIRE!!!
There is a fine line between power for the country and power for the common good. What is more pertinent? Nationalists would conclude that the good of the country comes first. Evolutionist, maybe, or maybe those with higher ideals, might argue that the common good - the good of humanity is a higher ideal.
My philosophy in life is, and will always be, live life for you, your way, for your happiness, but with the caveat of being to the benefit of your family, your friends, your acquaintences, your colleagues and co-workers and to the rest of humanity in that order.
The idea of the Roman and Greek Empires were of a common good, but the ideal used to get there was often persecution and forced change. What has changed today?
Factions in our world would force their ideals on those that do not subscribe to them. I am not pointing this remark in any one direction, but in all directions. Life is for living, not for fighting. Life is a wonderful one-off opportunity for each and every man, woman and child on this earth. We spend too much time opinionating about others. Why? Because the propogators of opinion demand we think that way.
I've travelled our world extensively, luckily because I have a job that facilitates such activity, and I applaude the difference around our planet. I applaude the cultural diversity of people, but moreso, I applaude the individualism of the human character. Why is this not nurtured?
I respect and understand the need for common ideals - it is the basis of society as we know it, and was started by the Greek and Roman leaders to bring their neighbours into line. As their Empires grew, so new neighbours became targets for the oppression. Some succumbed graciously, some felt a need to fight. Therein lies the issue of difference of opinion. The difference is manifested as a national or cultural or political or religious ideal, but in fact, it is all propoganda. It is all enforced ideals handed down over generations of manipulative powerful policy makers. It is all a control mechanism.
The human race is wonderful, exciting and above all, concious of its' own existence. We imagine, we dream (granted, animals dream too), but it is the imaginative element of our conscience that is unique. As a species, we can do anything we please, within the bounds of some common laws. Those laws, granted, are also a control mechanism, but they are there for the 'common good'. Murder is illegal, rightly so. Theft of the property of another person is illegal, rightly so. These are the sorts of base laws I'm referring to, but outside of that, people should be free to choose their own path, destiny, life.
I understand and respect the need for government. The job of government is to protect the state to which they are elected. Maybe this is an old fashioned concept, and this is where we need to change our world.
We, the people of this planet are in charge. We have elected others to represent us, but not to control us. They are there to protect the 'common good', but it is up to each wonderful individual person on this earth to run their own lives, make their own decisions, decide their own fate, using some base laws to protect them and others in this process.
Don't hurt anyone - they have as much right to live as do you
....and hurt can be taken in many forms - this one base law is all that we need. The rest is down to us to put right.
We have come a long way in two millenia, since the 'modern age' began. We have achieved so much for such a short time. The developments made in construction to protect our people from the elements, technology, whether iT or the fabrication of tools to aid our development, transportation, from the invention of the wheel to ocean going galleons and more recently fuel powers luxury liners, and even our move into the realms of powered flight in the last 100 years is a remarkable achievement for a single species.
What else is possible? If we don't change our expectations, and stop fighting for idealistic goals that are neither realistic nor achievable, we will only move forward to our own destruction.
The world must change, and to do so, we much change our path. Change our expectations and the path will right itself.
Where do we go from here? I don't know, but if any of what I've written provokes thought or ideas in any one of the unique human brains out there, write back and let's make a difference now, before it's too late.
I don't want to be a doom and gloom merchant, so I hope that is not how things come across, but as a member of this community - race - species - I'm becoming more and more sceptical of the world around us.
Around 2200 years ago, there was a surge of activity out of a city called Rome. They had evolved into an ordered society, created the structure that people need to support their lives. We call it community, from the word 'commune' or social / habitual gathering. The structure that the Romans created, which was in turn based on the model derived over time by the Achaeans, Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians (evenually becoming the Greek Empire), is the same basic structure of society that we consider the model of the 'modern' world today.
Those with influence, money or often by genealogy, would be drawn into politics or the military or both. The Senate collected these policy makers in one place, and as democracy evolved, these would become elected members whose role was to represent the common people for the good of their community, town, city, state, EMPIRE!!!
There is a fine line between power for the country and power for the common good. What is more pertinent? Nationalists would conclude that the good of the country comes first. Evolutionist, maybe, or maybe those with higher ideals, might argue that the common good - the good of humanity is a higher ideal.
My philosophy in life is, and will always be, live life for you, your way, for your happiness, but with the caveat of being to the benefit of your family, your friends, your acquaintences, your colleagues and co-workers and to the rest of humanity in that order.
The idea of the Roman and Greek Empires were of a common good, but the ideal used to get there was often persecution and forced change. What has changed today?
Factions in our world would force their ideals on those that do not subscribe to them. I am not pointing this remark in any one direction, but in all directions. Life is for living, not for fighting. Life is a wonderful one-off opportunity for each and every man, woman and child on this earth. We spend too much time opinionating about others. Why? Because the propogators of opinion demand we think that way.
I've travelled our world extensively, luckily because I have a job that facilitates such activity, and I applaude the difference around our planet. I applaude the cultural diversity of people, but moreso, I applaude the individualism of the human character. Why is this not nurtured?
I respect and understand the need for common ideals - it is the basis of society as we know it, and was started by the Greek and Roman leaders to bring their neighbours into line. As their Empires grew, so new neighbours became targets for the oppression. Some succumbed graciously, some felt a need to fight. Therein lies the issue of difference of opinion. The difference is manifested as a national or cultural or political or religious ideal, but in fact, it is all propoganda. It is all enforced ideals handed down over generations of manipulative powerful policy makers. It is all a control mechanism.
The human race is wonderful, exciting and above all, concious of its' own existence. We imagine, we dream (granted, animals dream too), but it is the imaginative element of our conscience that is unique. As a species, we can do anything we please, within the bounds of some common laws. Those laws, granted, are also a control mechanism, but they are there for the 'common good'. Murder is illegal, rightly so. Theft of the property of another person is illegal, rightly so. These are the sorts of base laws I'm referring to, but outside of that, people should be free to choose their own path, destiny, life.
I understand and respect the need for government. The job of government is to protect the state to which they are elected. Maybe this is an old fashioned concept, and this is where we need to change our world.
We, the people of this planet are in charge. We have elected others to represent us, but not to control us. They are there to protect the 'common good', but it is up to each wonderful individual person on this earth to run their own lives, make their own decisions, decide their own fate, using some base laws to protect them and others in this process.
Don't hurt anyone - they have as much right to live as do you
....and hurt can be taken in many forms - this one base law is all that we need. The rest is down to us to put right.
We have come a long way in two millenia, since the 'modern age' began. We have achieved so much for such a short time. The developments made in construction to protect our people from the elements, technology, whether iT or the fabrication of tools to aid our development, transportation, from the invention of the wheel to ocean going galleons and more recently fuel powers luxury liners, and even our move into the realms of powered flight in the last 100 years is a remarkable achievement for a single species.
What else is possible? If we don't change our expectations, and stop fighting for idealistic goals that are neither realistic nor achievable, we will only move forward to our own destruction.
The world must change, and to do so, we much change our path. Change our expectations and the path will right itself.
Where do we go from here? I don't know, but if any of what I've written provokes thought or ideas in any one of the unique human brains out there, write back and let's make a difference now, before it's too late.
Monday, 15 October 2007
Drug Abuse and a Path to Prevention
Today, October 15th, 2007, a senior police office in the UK; Wales to be accurate; announced that he was backing a plan to legalise Class A drugs in an attempt to control, and surely protect, those unfortunate enough to have become involved in such practice, and subsequently become addicted to a way of life which is slowly killing them.
Most, if not all, drug addicts will tell you that if they could, they'd quit. Saying 'quit' and carrying it out are two very very different acts.
I have a drug problem, and I'll openly admit it. I smoke tobacco. I drink alcohol. Without wanting to openly incriminate myself to the world, I have also 'dabbled' with some other, less socially acceptable substances, but have not, thankfully, ever become addicted to them in the way I've become so with regard to booze and fags.
I consider myself a strong willed person, and feel that if I put my mind to it, I could quit smoking. My alcohol intake is moderate and by no means a problem. I drink socially and with meals, but do not depend on it for any other reason.
These drugs are considered 'socially acceptable', although current legislation in the UK, and increasingly across Europe, the US and other parts of the world is making it less so. The danger is that tobacco, and to some regard, alcohol, is in danger of joining the ranks of Cannabis, Cocaine and maybe even Heroin as socially unacceptable. They are addictive, and with the law making it harder and harder to 'light up' in a social environment, means that eventually the entire 'social drug' scene will be driven underground.
Tobacco and alcohol, to my knowledge, are unclassified, unlike Cocaine and Heroin as Class A and Cannabis to a lesser extent.
I applaude this senior Police Officer, for not only bringing the discussion to the fore, but for his courage to put his name to the plan with the possible career repercussions it could bring him. Damaging to say the least, this man has shown bravery over common sense in a world that is increasingly being legislated against.
Putting cigarettes and booze to one side for the moment, the 'illegal' drugs have a number of problems associated with them that makes 'kicking the habit' more difficult. Apart from the addictive qualities of certain drugs, there is a Kudos associated with their use, peer pressure and the obvious pleasure they bring to the person partaking in the act.
The effect of legalising the supply of Class A drugs would not be endorsing their use. The purpose of this legislation would be to bring the drug world into the real world. Overnight, it would remove 'dirty' drugs from the street. It would, to a certain extent, remove the Kudos associated with obtaining and using drugs. Most importantly, it would significantly reduce the danger of overdose and death from people injecting substances that they have absolutely no idea what it contains, but only interested in the effect or satisfying the urge of addiction.
Going back to the first part of this post, most people addicted to Heroin would tell you that they 'want' to give up. Treatment for the withdrawal from Heroin is expensive, if not painful.
Proper withdrawal programs could be drawn up for addicts with medical grade drugs being prescribed and properly administered in gradually reduced doses to patients. Safe withdrawal under supervision would be much easier and the 'stigma' associated with being a user would be removed, albeit gradually.
Let us back Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom. Not to turn our nation into a country of drug users, but to help the law help those that are most at risk from addiction - never mind Keep Britain Tidy, but more a case of Get Britain Clean.
And of course, with the use of illegal drugs being reduced, the supply and demand chain would be broken down, and the police could be properly used to reduce real crime on the streets of our nation making it a safer place for ALL of us to live and enjoy.
Most, if not all, drug addicts will tell you that if they could, they'd quit. Saying 'quit' and carrying it out are two very very different acts.
I have a drug problem, and I'll openly admit it. I smoke tobacco. I drink alcohol. Without wanting to openly incriminate myself to the world, I have also 'dabbled' with some other, less socially acceptable substances, but have not, thankfully, ever become addicted to them in the way I've become so with regard to booze and fags.
I consider myself a strong willed person, and feel that if I put my mind to it, I could quit smoking. My alcohol intake is moderate and by no means a problem. I drink socially and with meals, but do not depend on it for any other reason.
These drugs are considered 'socially acceptable', although current legislation in the UK, and increasingly across Europe, the US and other parts of the world is making it less so. The danger is that tobacco, and to some regard, alcohol, is in danger of joining the ranks of Cannabis, Cocaine and maybe even Heroin as socially unacceptable. They are addictive, and with the law making it harder and harder to 'light up' in a social environment, means that eventually the entire 'social drug' scene will be driven underground.
Tobacco and alcohol, to my knowledge, are unclassified, unlike Cocaine and Heroin as Class A and Cannabis to a lesser extent.
I applaude this senior Police Officer, for not only bringing the discussion to the fore, but for his courage to put his name to the plan with the possible career repercussions it could bring him. Damaging to say the least, this man has shown bravery over common sense in a world that is increasingly being legislated against.
Putting cigarettes and booze to one side for the moment, the 'illegal' drugs have a number of problems associated with them that makes 'kicking the habit' more difficult. Apart from the addictive qualities of certain drugs, there is a Kudos associated with their use, peer pressure and the obvious pleasure they bring to the person partaking in the act.
The effect of legalising the supply of Class A drugs would not be endorsing their use. The purpose of this legislation would be to bring the drug world into the real world. Overnight, it would remove 'dirty' drugs from the street. It would, to a certain extent, remove the Kudos associated with obtaining and using drugs. Most importantly, it would significantly reduce the danger of overdose and death from people injecting substances that they have absolutely no idea what it contains, but only interested in the effect or satisfying the urge of addiction.
Going back to the first part of this post, most people addicted to Heroin would tell you that they 'want' to give up. Treatment for the withdrawal from Heroin is expensive, if not painful.
Proper withdrawal programs could be drawn up for addicts with medical grade drugs being prescribed and properly administered in gradually reduced doses to patients. Safe withdrawal under supervision would be much easier and the 'stigma' associated with being a user would be removed, albeit gradually.
Let us back Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom. Not to turn our nation into a country of drug users, but to help the law help those that are most at risk from addiction - never mind Keep Britain Tidy, but more a case of Get Britain Clean.
And of course, with the use of illegal drugs being reduced, the supply and demand chain would be broken down, and the police could be properly used to reduce real crime on the streets of our nation making it a safer place for ALL of us to live and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)