Which is you. Yes, you with the glass in your hand. Don't put it down as if it's got nothing to do with you, we know you were drinking from it just now.
SURGEON John Crozier operates on some of the 1500 Australians sent to hospital every week as a result of alcohol and can't understand why wine should sell for as little as $2 a bottle.Oh, fuck me, not that "cheaper than water" crap again. Look, Doc, if there is something fundamentally wrong with that it's that companies feel able to charge ridiculous amounts of money for bottles of water with a mountain on the front, which some people are clearly prepared to pay.
''If a bottle of water is more expensive than a bottle of wine, something is fundamentally wrong,'' says Dr Crozier.
Assuming for the moment, Dr Crozier, that it's really top quality water, the very finest blend of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen to be found, then wouldn't a fairer comparison with wine be something like a $100+ bottle of 2002 Nuit St George than three quarters of a litre of Chateau Lafaeces you picked up for a couple of bucks? And if in fact the water is no better than what comes out the tap then wouldn't a fair comparison of the cost of a bottle of cheap piss be with the price of tap water?
Of course that wouldn't support the doctor and his friend's plans for you drinkers.
Dr Crozier, a surgeon at Sydney's Liverpool Hospital, has added his voice to the growing clamour from health groups for heavier taxes, particularly on wine.I can't answer Michael Thorn any better than The Daily Mash put it more than two years ago:
The result is that alcohol tax reform is now likely to get a serious hearing at the October tax summit.
Wine attracts a tax of about 7¢ a standard drink, compared to 28¢ tax on full-strength beer and 91¢ on alcopops.
Michael Thorn, chief executive of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, says the significant increase in alcohol intake by Australians - up by about 15 per cent in the past decade - meant that too many people were drinking too much.
"As an adult, I think a reasonable daily limit is me drinking as much as I fucking want.Besides which, cheap wine might not even be the problem.
"If it affects my work I'll get sacked. If it affects my relationships I'll be all lonely and sad.
"And as for my health, following a quick glance at my tax bill I've decided that the NHS will treat me and the government can keep its fucking opinions to itself."
... Stephen Strachan, who heads the Winemakers Federation of Australia, rejects the focus on wine tax as ''dishonest''.Naturally another Righteous doesn't see it in terms of who's buying it, just that it's too cheap as far as he's concerned.
Mr Strachan said a 2008 government survey showed that wine was not the choice of young ''risky'' drinkers, although it was for older men and women.
''We are only picking on it because is so grossly cheap and I don't see how anyone can defend wine at 30¢ a standard drink,'' said Professor Daube, who is director at the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth.I can defend it quite easily. First comparisons with water are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Second, what people spend their money on is up to them, not you, and talking about extra costs to the public health system is a bit iffy when they've paid for that healthcare in advance and under threat of force - if they had to pay for it on an ad hoc basis maybe they wouldn't drink as much. Third, the health care system is a fine one to lecture the wine industry and its customers when it's apparently unable to stop its patients from drinking the fucking sanitiser gel in hospital wards. And fourth, have you lot failed to notice what's happened where these paternalistic attitudes have banned or restricted or imposed minimum prices on alcohol to save drinkers from themselves? Yes, that's right, they end up smuggling the stuff, making moonshine, and sniffing, or even drinking, things like meths and petrol instead. Face facts, people want to get off their dials. Stop them because of the harm one option can do and they're more than willing to choose an even more dangerous alternative, and if that's one which the rest of society simply can't do without then you have a worse health problem than if you'd done nothing at all.
Not that any of that stands even a remote chance of swaying opinion among the Righteous - as the C.S. Lewis quote in the sidebar has it, tyrannies acting for the good of their victims can be the most oppressive and those who torment us for our own good will never stop because they do it with the approval of their own consciences. As the title of this post suggests I'm aiming this more at the drinkers than the anti-drinkers. Drinkers may not have seen it coming but are the new smokers and have been for a while, and I feel that's in no small part due to the fact that drinkers were largely too quiet and too reticent to speak up for the smokers when the bans began coming in. Those like me who neither smoke nor drink are not safe either - we know the takeaway fans and salad dodgers are next in the firing line and even those who aren't really fat but could lose a couple of kilos will eventually cop their turn. The neo-puritans, as Lewis warned, will not stop unless they are made to stop.
Their strategy is plain, divide and conquer, and their weapon of choice is piecemeal denormalisation of anything and everything they disapprove of - which is a growing list. They split the smokers off from the drinkers, and now they're splitting the drinkers off too along with anyone not of the approved weight. If you don't want your own lifestyle to come under attack then you have no choice - you must stand with those who are already fighting for the freedom to do as they've done. Drivers must stand with cyclists, cyclists with joggers and gym freaks, joggers must stand with salad dodgers, salad dodgers with drinker and drinkers with smokers.
Hang together or hang separately, folks. Those are the only options.
Logging you in...
Paul · 715 weeks ago
Well, quite. Whenever I actually raise this with people that use this nasty, insidious soundbite - even beer fans use it - all I get is stuttering and an icy stare. Beer isn't cheap - a 2% can of lager in the local supermarket will set you back about 90p. Hardly cheap, then, is it? I don't drink the 'cheap piss' you refer to but, whatever is said, it isn't cheaper than water. It can't be. If you're referring to especially expensive brands of bottled water, then yes, it will be less expensive. But no-one seriously expects someone to compare a bottle of Perrier next to a can of Foster's. So, yes, the type of person that drinks Foster's will drink either tap water or won't drink water at all.
Besides which, cheap wine might not even be the problem.
As is said - my parents drink cheap wine and cheap cider (you know, the crappy stuff that comes in crates at Aldi). This is what older drinkers tend to have a lot of the time - it's not actually that cheap, i.e. they could produce far more potent stuff themselves cheaper if they wanted to - but they don't.
Younger people tend to focus more on Jägermeister, RTDs and vodka 'shots' more than anything. I'm a minority, being a real/craft beer fan.
And that's the problem with idiot doctors like the fella above - he's not interested in the alcohol culture, he doesn't see people as different demographics, he can't tell the difference between the 70-year-old fella with cap and pint of Tooheys Old and gangs of illiterate twentysomethings on the rampage with bottles of vodka.
(Incidentally, I'm not from Australia but you have a lot of lovely stouts being produced down that part of the world - must visit Australia sometime.)
Stop them because of the harm one option can do and they're more than willing to choose an even more dangerous alternative, and if that's one which the rest of society simply can't do without then you have a worse health problem than if you'd done nothing at all.
Yeah, but they're not aiming this at those people AE - they're not aiming this at serious alcoholics. They know that those people really don't care about what they do to themselves, and if anything, it helps for them to marginalise them from regular society even more, as though they weren't marginalised enough already.
No, they're aiming it at normal drinkers, who perhaps might have a couple of pints of best bitter of an evening, though over the past ten years I've noticed that these people have been drinking less and less. Four pints of a sub-4% bitter is seen as too much by many of those people. That is not a lot of beer. You can easily see a situation arising in the next couple of years where three pints will be too much, and the spiral will go downwards. People will get pissed but the older generation, many of whom who will do as they're told in public, will just drihk at home more I'd imagine. Sort of a bit like the 'secret smoker' concept on one of the other blogs.
Drinkers may not have seen it coming but are the new smokers and have been for a while, and I feel that's in no small part due to the fact that drinkers were largely too quiet and too reticent to speak up for the smokers when the bans began coming in.
A lot of drinkers I know really welcomed the ban, and cannot see the same thing happening to themselves. They ridicule the concepts that I put forward and say they're very responsible drinkers, and perhaps they should have one less this evening. In ten years they'll see I was right to raise those alarm bells. They can't see what's right in front of them, so I have little sympathy. Problem is that 'discouraging' or bullying people into drinking doesn't work - all that happens is that people drink anyway and ignore it as much as they can but when they can't, they become increasingly miserable about it. A lot of the problems we have in our society, I believe, are far more to do with the reception these traits get from the general public and other people rather than the actual problems themselves.
The neo-puritans, as Lewis warned, will not stop unless they are made to stop.
Indeed. I wonder if they'll start on sexual health any time soon? Perhaps then, people will understand? Because every sexual encounter, unprotected or not, carries risk of transmitting disease.
I can stand with the gym freaks, no problem, but what if they don't want me to stand with them because I'm a disgusting fat bastard? In fact, I think you're wrong on this AE - I think the gym freaks are being set up as exemplars of the New Way. They see being fit as a human duty, a right to the state almost, and that anyone who is fat is a disgrace to themselves.
Angry_Exile 90p · 715 weeks ago
You said it yourself - they don't distinguish between serious alcoholics and almost anyone else who ever drinks alcohol. To them someone who has a beer or two or a glass or two of wine or a couple of scotches most evenings is no different to an alcoholic, while casual drinkers and weekend drinkers are no different to a binge drinker. All drinkers are in the firing line... except of course if they're in the medical or lobbying profession and lecturing other people about their drinking. Those drinkers, and only those ;) , are responsible and can be trusted to moderate their consumption. Everyone else must be treated as a single group and nannied according to the habits of the worst of them. The pollies don't mind because any Pigovian tax they are "reluctantly persuaded" to impose to tackle this will of course hit the largely responsible majority, and happily for governments they tend to have more money.
... I think the gym freaks are being set up as exemplars of the New Way...
They think they are, and from a physique p.o.v. they may be - all very Kraft durch Freuden - but if they think that there will be nothing about their lives they too will be expected to change they're foolishly optimistic. Take vitamins and supplements, for example, as many of them do. Only a short while ago Denmark was in the news for 'banning' (it wasn't quite a ban) Marmite and Vegemite because of the added vitamin content and concern that consumers will exceed recommended daily allowances, especially if they're popping the vitamin pills. It's not too many steps from that line of thinking to vitamin pills being far more tightly regulated because all gym rats must be treated in the same way as the dumbest ones who wreck their own livers through excessive vitamin A intake.
And do those same folks like using a bicycle? How do they feel about mandatory helmet laws (an Aussie invention I believe) because the nannies don't trust them to assess the risks of cycling themselves? How might they feel about being made to get registrations as proposed recently in New York? Perhaps it'd be easier to take up jogging, but then they might have to confine themselves to a maximum distance per week to avoid the risk of early joint failure. It'd be ironic for us sofa surfers but we'd probably be too busy sweating through our minimum weekly distance. As for those gym fans' entertainment choices, their preference for books, movies and games can be as varied as those of the rest of us, and so just as likely to attract the attention of someone who disapproves and demands they pack it in. Probably for the good of the chiiiiiiiildren.
The bottom line is that there's a whip out there for everybody, and if those currently not on the receiving end think that this blissful state of affairs will continue they are very much mistaken.
Paul · 715 weeks ago
To them someone who has a beer or two or a glass or two of wine or a couple of scotches most evenings is no different to an alcoholic...
Yes, but They define what the term alcoholic is. So someone who likes a few bottles of stout most evening is placed in the same category has someone who drinks all day every day and who can't function in a morning without a bottle of wine.
Angry_Exile 90p · 715 weeks ago
Paul · 715 weeks ago
Problem is that these groups often overlap - i.e. a lot of people who drink lots at the weekends are 'binge drinkers' (i.e. people who drink too much) but at the end of the day, as long as they aren't bothering other people with their drinking (i.e. being violent/abusive or causing people hassle), or are unable to fulfil their ordinary duties (holding down their jobs, looking after their kids and so on) then it's not really anything of anyone else's business. In some cases their relatives might raise concern and sometimes it's well founded but other times it isn't.
except of course if they're in the medical or lobbying profession and lecturing other people about their drinking. Those drinkers, and only those ;) , are responsible and can be trusted to moderate their consumption.
Firstly: that's a terrible laugh - my former GP eats far, far more unhealthily than I (I'd never actually care but I did when I saw her in the supermarket the week after lecturing me about my weight) and another former GP told all his patients to not drink but he was quite high in the BMA (with its cheap wine club!), so one stops listening to those people.
Secondly: we've been here before. The Video Recordings Act 1984? That was ridiculous and it's even more ridiculous in its second incarnation - the anti-drink/tobacco/food craze. It's a moral panic. The public in Anglophone countries loves being told what to do. Interestingly, you seem to see much less of this in non-Anglophone nations in Europe, though I believe it's spreading there too. As for Denmark - I loved being there, and I really enjoyed the orderliness tempered with freedom that they had there. It seems they are going down our road of regulation and telling others how to behave in their private lives though.
They think they are, and from a physique p.o.v. they may be - all very Kraft durch Freuden - but if they think that there will be nothing about their lives they too will be expected to change they're foolishly optimistic.
The problem I'm trying to get at is that these people seem not to actually have serious interests that they don't want to lose. I'm sure serious enthusiasts would be horrified, but many of them won't - they just won't take supplements if they're told not to. They have no interests in life that they can't easily be persuaded out of doing. It's that demographic of people I am talking about here. Though, yes, the EU vitamin supplements idea is an argument well worth raising with the more serious amongst them.
As for those gym fans' entertainment choices, their preference for books, movies and games can be as varied as those of the rest of us, and so just as likely to attract the attention of someone who disapproves and demands they pack it in.
I refer to the VRA and 'nasties' - the point is that these choices are perfectly legitimate, but if the 'majority' (often corralled into being by an influential, highly-paid lobbying minority) then you're stuffed. Basically, what the influential lobbying group wants at the time, they get.
The bottom line is that there's a whip out there for everybody, and if those currently not on the receiving end think that this blissful state of affairs will continue they are very much mistaken.
Yes, but they either can't see that or they can change their opinions each and every time to 'meld in', or meekly submit. It's those people I am on about.
But, yes, for any person that is a living, breathing, thinking being there are lots of whips out for people like myself. I can think of at least five or six, and that's without even doing any thinking whatsoever.
Angry_Exile 90p · 715 weeks ago
Indeed, and it's those people, or rather their equivalents among the drinkers in this case, that the post was aimed at. I have smoked and drank, though the whips weren't the reason I gave up either, but I'm also a meat eating, motoring, warble gloaming sceptic and recreational shooter who likes the occasional computer game. There's four or five major areas of non-compliance with demands of various righteous sub-groups before we even get onto my diet and the bit of surplus weight I know I could stand to lose. Even if I bought a gym membership and/or pounded the pavements those other whips would still be there, and they're there for the people in the gyms and on the jogging tracks right now. But as you correctly point out, too many don't know about it.
Time we brought it to their attention, wouldn't you say?
Reinhard · 715 weeks ago
Let's think about the similarities between alcohol and smoking before the health nazis got at it.
1. Used to be really popular
2. Lot of people did it socially
3. Was not the government's business whether people did it
4. Outright ban was laughed out of pubs
5. Advertised a lot during sports events
6. Had genuine health risk associated
7. Generated huge government revenue
I don't think I need to go on. The health lobby seem to have turned genuine care about people avoiding cancer into a cult of the health conscious. That is why they will never stop at tobacco - religious fervour is pushing them on and they are merely doing it under the pretext of health. A hundred years ago the pretext was puritanism. In reality they have turned health into their god, created the demons of cancer and heart disease to frighten people into line and now they're running with it for as long as they can. Their doctrines are the supporting science, no matter how tenuous. And they will not stop. We already know their next target is fat, followed by meat. Throughout history there have been such people, and we are under a wave of them: greenies and healthists. They come because people stop questioning, stop defending, and stop thinking. They have caused this as well, with educational reform and social engineering. We have allowed this to happen because we lost our vigilance. We have laughed them off and they have gone away and worked and raised funds and distributed propaganda so that when next we looked no one believed otherwise. We ought to be ashamed that we have let it get this bad.
This occurred to me when I spent a few minutes thinking about why people come out with this rubbish sure as the Sun rises in the east.
Angry_Exile 90p · 715 weeks ago