Thursday, September 14, 2006
Stupid state type "thinking"
The Times reports here on a demand from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (why do we need a council for this? Surely taking lots of them quickly would be sufficient?). The council calls (in a report unfortunately called Pathways to Problems, don't we want paths to solutions?) for a lower permitted alcohol limit for drivers aged under 25.
The reason given is because: "they are more likely to be involved in fatal drink-drive crashes than older drivers". On the face of it, it seems plausible and good, the nice state looking out for us again, but unless those involved in these crashes have a blood alcohol limit between 50 and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood then lowering the limit would make no difference. Naturally this point is beyond the grasp of thereporter storyteller Anthony Browne, Chief Political Correspondent and he makes no mention of this matter quite why he just accepts any old pap that's fed to him by a government body is a mystery, I'd wager if I produced a "report" it'd be subject to massive scrutiny assuming it wasn't "filed" in the bin.
There's more in the report, but none of the figures justify lowering the limit, things such as: "Drink-drive deaths are at their highest since 1992, claiming 590 lives last year. The death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years, despite general improvements in road safety." Maybe, but these people are over the current limit, lowering the limit isn't going to magically lower consumption; people don't decide to drink to say a set amount over the limit. The government might think in terms of the limit, but normal people don't.
"It said that Britain’s youngsters are some of the worst abusers of drink and drugs in Europe." Maybe, but how is lowering the drink drive limit going to do anything about that? Why not try giving them something worthwhile to work for instead of qualifications easier to obtain than toilet paper and degrees that fit you to work in call centres? Perhaps if society was less vacuous they might not get quite as tanked up on drugs and booze. Of course they might also start thinking and we can't have that can we?
"It concluded that if this lower limit proved successful, it should be extended to all drivers. Britain has one of the highest alcohol limits in Europe". Getting to the real agenda? Just how would success be measured? By people submitting to it? So if they ignored it, would it be deemed a failure? What if you can't classify it as a success, shouldn't you then advocate withdrawal of the lower limit even for those under 25? If not why should we continue to implement a failure? As for Europe, Who cares about what they do in Europe? This is Britain and we'll do what we want. If you think the system in Europe is better, you go and live there and take your report with you.
The "saving lives" just had to be mentioned: "Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents backed calls for a reduction in the alcohol limit, but said it should apply to all ages. A spokesman said: “Studies show that cutting the limit to 50 milligrams would save 65 lives and 230 serious injuries a year.”" I say: until we discover immortality, it's impossible to "save lives" you can only change the way people die.
Significantly: "Stephen Ladyman, the Road Safety Minister, said ... : “We continue to believe that education, robust enforcement and tough penalties are the most effective ways of persuading people.”" You can put this on the short list of crimes where the government argues for "robust enforcement and tough penalties", but why should these be used if community punishments and or ASBOs are so effective? Why not rehabilitation and confronting offending behaviour? We all know these don't work, and the hypocritical government know it too that's why they won't introduce them for these crimes.
The reason given is because: "they are more likely to be involved in fatal drink-drive crashes than older drivers". On the face of it, it seems plausible and good, the nice state looking out for us again, but unless those involved in these crashes have a blood alcohol limit between 50 and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood then lowering the limit would make no difference. Naturally this point is beyond the grasp of the
There's more in the report, but none of the figures justify lowering the limit, things such as: "Drink-drive deaths are at their highest since 1992, claiming 590 lives last year. The death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years, despite general improvements in road safety." Maybe, but these people are over the current limit, lowering the limit isn't going to magically lower consumption; people don't decide to drink to say a set amount over the limit. The government might think in terms of the limit, but normal people don't.
"It said that Britain’s youngsters are some of the worst abusers of drink and drugs in Europe." Maybe, but how is lowering the drink drive limit going to do anything about that? Why not try giving them something worthwhile to work for instead of qualifications easier to obtain than toilet paper and degrees that fit you to work in call centres? Perhaps if society was less vacuous they might not get quite as tanked up on drugs and booze. Of course they might also start thinking and we can't have that can we?
"It concluded that if this lower limit proved successful, it should be extended to all drivers. Britain has one of the highest alcohol limits in Europe". Getting to the real agenda? Just how would success be measured? By people submitting to it? So if they ignored it, would it be deemed a failure? What if you can't classify it as a success, shouldn't you then advocate withdrawal of the lower limit even for those under 25? If not why should we continue to implement a failure? As for Europe, Who cares about what they do in Europe? This is Britain and we'll do what we want. If you think the system in Europe is better, you go and live there and take your report with you.
The "saving lives" just had to be mentioned: "Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents backed calls for a reduction in the alcohol limit, but said it should apply to all ages. A spokesman said: “Studies show that cutting the limit to 50 milligrams would save 65 lives and 230 serious injuries a year.”" I say: until we discover immortality, it's impossible to "save lives" you can only change the way people die.
Significantly: "Stephen Ladyman, the Road Safety Minister, said ... : “We continue to believe that education, robust enforcement and tough penalties are the most effective ways of persuading people.”" You can put this on the short list of crimes where the government argues for "robust enforcement and tough penalties", but why should these be used if community punishments and or ASBOs are so effective? Why not rehabilitation and confronting offending behaviour? We all know these don't work, and the hypocritical government know it too that's why they won't introduce them for these crimes.
Tags: MSM, state thinking, crime and punishment
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
