|
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message ... > >> >What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen > >over > >> >the last 20 years or so? > >> > >> Banning smoking in pubs isn't the same thing as prohibition. > > >Er, yes it is. Have a look in the dictionary. > > > >Prohibition of smoking in pubs, just like prohibition of smoking on trains, in the > >workplace etc. *is* prohibition. . > > Nit-picking. Nope - it's correct modern day usage of the word. > In the context of drugs, normally "prohibition" means making the drug > contraband and illegal to possess. No, that's only used by people who want to draw a parallel between what was generally referred to "prohibition" (illegality of alcohol in the US about 80 years ago), and the illegality of other drugs now. I only ever hear it used in your context by people who campaign for legalisation of currently illegal drugs. > Local prohibitions, such as in pubs, restaurants, public area, are simply > quite sensible alternatives to total prohibition. Prohibitions are usually local. There's a sign in the local car park saying "ball games prohibited". That doesn't mean it's illegal to play ball games anywhere in the country, it refers to the car park only. There a notice on the bus saying "smoking prohibited". Doesn't mean you can't smoke in the street. > Should I be able to bring in a burning stick of incense into a pub and set it > down next to me because I like the smell? > > >Have you never seen "smoking prohibited" signs? It does *not* mean possession is > >illegal. > > Right, that's a local prohibition, not the same thing as making it totally > contraband. > > There's a BIG difference. Of course. Prohibition in the context of Al Capone's time is not how the word is usually used today. > >> If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition. > > >That would be total prohibition. There is currently prohibition of smoking in certain > >places, like pubic transport etc, and which will probably be extended to pubs. > > And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your > habit. Quite. So you're in favour of prohibition then.... -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
> wrote in message ups.com... > > > > Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then. > > > > > > The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive > > > sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, > > > > Nope. It reduces inhibitions, so someone who is a violent arsehole anyway is more > > likely to act in character. > > > > I've never know it turn genuinely sensible people violent. > > so you live in a plastic bubble then? I've known several people who > normally were pretty chilled out, but give them booze and they turn > into aggressive arseholes. I've known the opposite. People who are usually wound up have some booze and it relaxes them. Caffine makes me more aggressive, alcohol doesn't. > > > there are > > > no other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. > > > > How many people do you think drink alcohol at least once a week? What pecrentage of > > them do you think are violent as a result? > > a vastly higher proportion of users than for any other drug, including > crack, and steroids. What proportion? When I was in my late teens/to mid twenties, I used to drink loads of alcohol at least once a week, usually surrounded by loads of other people drinking loads of alcohol in a pub/club, and never once did I hit anyone, and never once did anyone hit me. Close contact with thousands of other drunk people, never any violence. I know it happens, but it's only noticeable because so many people drink. And like football hooligans, many people go out for the fight, the drinking is just the excuse. It's not the football that causes the violence. -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > > Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then. > > > > > > > > The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive > > > > sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, > > > > > > Nope. It reduces inhibitions, so someone who is a violent arsehole anyway is more > > > likely to act in character. > > > > > > > I've never know it turn genuinely sensible people violent. > > > > so you live in a plastic bubble then? I've known several people who > > normally were pretty chilled out, but give them booze and they turn > > into aggressive arseholes. > > I've known the opposite. me too, alcohol usually just makes me sleepy. > People who are usually wound up have some booze and it > relaxes them. yup, doesn't mean it can't have the exact opposite effect in others though. > Caffine makes me more aggressive, alcohol doesn't. around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > > > there are > > > > no other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. > > > > > > How many people do you think drink alcohol at least once a week? What pecrentage > of > > > them do you think are violent as a result? > > > > a vastly higher proportion of users than for any other drug, including > > crack, and steroids. > > What proportion? When I was in my late teens/to mid twenties, I used to drink loads > of alcohol at least once a week, usually surrounded by loads of other people drinking > loads of alcohol in a pub/club, and never once did I hit anyone, and never once did > anyone hit me. Close contact with thousands of other drunk people, never any > violence. so you never saw fights happening at kicking out time in town centers? because virtually everytime I've gone into a town center and stayed out all night on a friday or saturday night I've seen people being aggresive or violent. It's unavoidable, you go into any town center at night over any weekend and wander between bars I can guarantee you will see fights towards the end of the night. > I know it happens, but it's only noticeable because so many people drink. if you replaced all the drinking that goes on with pot smoking you wouldn't see a single fight on a friday or saturday night in town centers, you'd just see lots of people giggling. > And like football hooligans, many people go out for the fight, the drinking is > just the excuse. It's not the football that causes the violence. that's true in some cases but no where near all cases of alcohol related violence. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Pete nospam Zakel wrote: > In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes: > >"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message > ... > > >> And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your > >> habit. > > >Quite. So you're in favour of prohibition then.... > > In your use of the term, yes. I and my wife prohibit tobacco smoking in our > house. We don't support making tobacco illegal. > > We also prohibit playing of cricket, rugby, soccer (football), football > (American football), basketball and most other sports in our house. We > prohibit driving of cars in our house. We prohibit shooting of firearms in > our house. > > I imaging most pubs also prohibit shooting of guns on the premises, and lots > of other things. Why should prohibition of smoking of tobacco in a pubs be > seen as a dire thing? Because it should be up to the owner of the premises, or would you be in favour of banning smoking in my house? |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:05:45 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
> wrote: > wrote in message oups.com... >> > Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then. >> >> The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive >> sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, > >Nope. It reduces inhibitions, so someone who is a violent arsehole anyway is more >likely to act in character. I've never know it turn genuinely sensible people >violent. I agree. It never turned me violent. Alcohol does NOT make people violent. It just reduces the inhibitions of those already inclinded that way. >> Are you aware of what happened during alcohol prohibition in america, >> people who sold and produced booze were exceptionally violent (e.g. Al >> Capone) the same can not be said of the producers and distributors of >> alcohol now that it's legally available, when was the last time you >> heard about the owner of a bargain booze doing a drive by on a booze >> buster? > >Like I said before - the black market is an obvious cause of violence, but that's got >nothing to do with whether the drug causes violence amongst its users. Agreed. Fighting over the black market and enforcing business contracts (when there is no legal redress) are what causes drug-related violence - that and a bit of robbery from drug dealers who are regarded as fair game - just because they're drug dealers. |
JASBIRD, THE CROSSPOSTING CRETON STRIKE AGAIN
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:37:29 +1300, "st.helier"
> wrote: >But you ARE a crossposting creton of the first order. > >Notwithstanding the fact that you have been requested NOT to crosspost to a >newsgroup which you make no other contribution, you deliberately do so, >simply to inflame. > >YOU ARE A TROLL ! You are a fool. I don't post to the group to inflame anyone. Those people who are looking for an excuse to be inflamed can pick an feeble excuse they want - something will always inflame them. The cross-posting is there because you are not the only user of this newsgroup. It does not belong to you. Even if there is just one regular user who is interested in alcohol related news then that's OK by me. If my posts annoy you then just ignore them - as if they weren't there - is it too hard for you to do? Or are you just looking for something (anything) to vent your spleen over? >If you wish to comment on individual newsgroups, please do so - but >crossposting into an international group (to which you do not otherwise >contrinute) who discuss the appreciation of wine and food, and calling them >whingers (NOTE THE SPELLING BOZO!!!!!!!!!) is simply trolling. Not if the article posted is about alcohol. >Get a life, and take a not so subtle hint - STOP CROSSPOSTING !!!!! > >st.helier |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
In article .com> " > writes:
> >Pete nospam Zakel wrote: >> In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes: >> >"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message >> ... >> >> >> And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your >> >> habit. >> >> >Quite. So you're in favour of prohibition then.... >> >> In your use of the term, yes. I and my wife prohibit tobacco smoking in our >> house. We don't support making tobacco illegal. >> >> We also prohibit playing of cricket, rugby, soccer (football), football >> (American football), basketball and most other sports in our house. We >> prohibit driving of cars in our house. We prohibit shooting of firearms in >> our house. >> >> I imaging most pubs also prohibit shooting of guns on the premises, and lots >> of other things. Why should prohibition of smoking of tobacco in a pubs be >> seen as a dire thing? >Because it should be up to the owner of the premises, or would you be >in favour of banning smoking in my house? In private premises it should be up to the owner. In places open to the public, I am in favor of banning smoking. -Pete Zakel ) "Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings." |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Pete nospam Zakel wrote: > In article .com> " > writes: > > > >Pete nospam Zakel wrote: > >> In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes: > >> >"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > >> >> And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your > >> >> habit. > >> > >> >Quite. So you're in favour of prohibition then.... > >> > >> In your use of the term, yes. I and my wife prohibit tobacco smoking in our > >> house. We don't support making tobacco illegal. > >> > >> We also prohibit playing of cricket, rugby, soccer (football), football > >> (American football), basketball and most other sports in our house. We > >> prohibit driving of cars in our house. We prohibit shooting of firearms in > >> our house. > >> > >> I imaging most pubs also prohibit shooting of guns on the premises, and lots > >> of other things. Why should prohibition of smoking of tobacco in a pubs be > >> seen as a dire thing? > > >Because it should be up to the owner of the premises, or would you be > >in favour of banning smoking in my house? > > In private premises it should be up to the owner. > > In places open to the public, I am in favor of banning smoking. Why shouldn't a landlord be allowed to permit smoking on his premises? he owns the pub, the public doesn't have to come in if it doesn't want to. On buses and trains yes it should be banned, but only because people need to use them, and shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke, but no one is forcing anyone to go in to a pub, and as for staff if they don't want to work in a smokey environment they don't have to work in a pub that allows smoking. Plus if there is such a big demand for non smoking pubs how come there are so few given the current situation where landlords can choose to be non smoking if they want. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
> wrote in message oups.com... > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. Like with football matches, certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore sunlight reduces violence. > > > > > there are > > > > > no other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. > > > > > > > > How many people do you think drink alcohol at least once a week? What pecrentage > > of > > > > them do you think are violent as a result? > > > > > > a vastly higher proportion of users than for any other drug, including > > > crack, and steroids. > > > > What proportion? When I was in my late teens/to mid twenties, I used to drink loads > > of alcohol at least once a week, usually surrounded by loads of other people drinking > > loads of alcohol in a pub/club, and never once did I hit anyone, and never once did > > anyone hit me. Close contact with thousands of other drunk people, never any > > violence. > > so you never saw fights happening at kicking out time in town centers? Very rarely. > because virtually everytime I've gone into a town center and stayed out > all night on a friday or saturday night I've seen people being > aggresive or violent. It's unavoidable, you go into any town center at > night over any weekend and wander between bars I can guarantee you will > see fights towards the end of the night. Not my experience. Mostly people having fun. Occasional shouting match, very occasional violence. > > I know it happens, but it's only noticeable because so many people drink. > > if you replaced all the drinking that goes on with pot smoking you > wouldn't see a single fight on a friday or saturday night in town > centers, you'd just see lots of people giggling. That's what I see anyway... > > And like football hooligans, many people go out for the fight, the drinking is > > just the excuse. It's not the football that causes the violence. > > that's true in some cases but no where near all cases of alcohol > related violence. The vast majority I'd say. Alcohol doesn't turn people violent, but it might reduce the inhibitions of those who are violent anyway. -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote:
> > "brian bennett" > wrote in message > ... > > "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose > > consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. > > I feel more aggressive after drinking caffine. Alcohol relaxes me, I feel less > aggressive after drinking alcohol. you are a *single* data point -- thus irrelevant to the overall picture. > > After large > > doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may > > experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. > > So other drugs do cause violence then. "preexisting psychosis" -- kind of rare ya know. > > Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters > > the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms." > > So they don't know then. > > > "Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through pharmacological > > effects on behavior, through expectations that heavy drinking and > > violence go together in certain settings, and through patterns of binge > > drinking and fighting that sometimes develop in adolescence." > > In other words, alcohol only results in violence when combined with specific other > factors. In particular - when people go out *expecting* a fight, or looking for one, > alcohol can reduce their inhibitions and so give them the balls to do what they > wanted to do anyway. no, it says quite plainly that alcohol and violence are linked *pharmacologically* -- the other aspects are not *required* for alcohol to cause aggression. > It's never caused me to be violent. And I've been in close contact with thousands of > people who have consumed alcohol, often in large quantities, and I've never been a > victim of violence from those people. I've only ever even witnessed violence as a > (probable) result of alcohol 2 or 3 times. good for you1 and the same applies to most of us. that in no negates the *proven* ability of alcohol (all by itself) to increase agression in some number of its users. > The vast majority of adults in the UK use alcohol, and only a very tiny minority are > violent as a result. and the exact same thing applies to other drugs: even if there is some purported link between drug 'x' and agression, it is evidenced by only a small number of users. > > "Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: > > disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving > > buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug money and, > > more speculatively, social > > and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the > > surrounding communities." > > Indeed. Obviously any black market activity will be likely to have violence > associated with it. That's a separate issue to whether a drug causes violence. i didn't write the stuff -- merely pointed people to it. b -- citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves: http://cannabisconsumers.org "Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why: http://www.leap.cc |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
AlanG wrote:
> > On 9 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, " > > wrote: > > > > >Phil Stovell wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:09:49 -0800, wrote: > >> > >> > The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive > >> > sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, there are no > >> > other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. > >> > >> Alcohol + cocaine = smashed up pub. > > > >alcohol alone = smashed up pub - > I bet there was either loud music or sport on the telly to go with it. > I've no figures to back it up but it's something I've noticed over the > last 40 years that pubs with no juke box rarely have bother. Possibly > booze and pounding exciting music together can be a stimulous for > violence? i remember hearing of a study a few years back indicating that the combination of country-western music and alcohol was most likely to lead to violence. b -- citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves: http://cannabisconsumers.org "Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why: http://www.leap.cc |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote:
> > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. Like with football matches, > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. And as those > places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. > > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore > sunlight reduces violence. the major part of the problem is probably that alcohol simply interferes with one's ability to think and act civilized. we are all animals, primed in our core to survive -- and that drive to survive sometimes requires violent behavior. alcohol interferes with the minds' ability to keep biology in check. thus, it allows violent behavior to be expressed in situations where one's survival is *not* threatened. fortunately it's the exception rather than the rule among alcohol users -- as are all the sterotypes involving users of other intoxicants. b -- citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves: http://cannabisconsumers.org "Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why: http://www.leap.cc |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:50:42 GMT, brian bennett
> wrote: >AlanG wrote: >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, " >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >Phil Stovell wrote: >> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:09:49 -0800, wrote: >> >> >> >> > The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive >> >> > sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, there are no >> >> > other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. >> >> >> >> Alcohol + cocaine = smashed up pub. >> > >> >alcohol alone = smashed up pub - >> I bet there was either loud music or sport on the telly to go with it. >> I've no figures to back it up but it's something I've noticed over the >> last 40 years that pubs with no juke box rarely have bother. Possibly >> booze and pounding exciting music together can be a stimulous for >> violence? > >i remember hearing of a study a few years back indicating that the >combination of country-western music and alcohol was most likely to lead >to violence. > I've never heard of any studies but when I was a young man the violence on a weekend was confined to the two areas in town where the dance halls were. There was little violence anywhere else. Then pubs started getting in juke boxes :(. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
AlanG wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:50:42 GMT, brian bennett > > wrote: > > >>AlanG wrote: >> >>>On 9 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, " > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Phil Stovell wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:09:49 -0800, wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive >>>>>>sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, there are no >>>>>>other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. >>>>> >>>>>Alcohol + cocaine = smashed up pub. >>>> >>>>alcohol alone = smashed up pub - >>> >>>I bet there was either loud music or sport on the telly to go with it. >>>I've no figures to back it up but it's something I've noticed over the >>>last 40 years that pubs with no juke box rarely have bother. Possibly >>>booze and pounding exciting music together can be a stimulous for >>>violence? >> >>i remember hearing of a study a few years back indicating that the >>combination of country-western music and alcohol was most likely to lead >>to violence. >> > > I've never heard of any studies but when I was a young man the > violence on a weekend was confined to the two areas in town where the > dance halls were. There was little violence anywhere else. Then pubs > started getting in juke boxes :(. Its combination of women and alchol fuelled men competing for their attention. Simple, ban all women from city centres after 11pm, wouldn't be any trouble then. ;-) |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. err, actually that's exactly what it indicates, a correlation between being drunk and more violence happening, > Like with football matches, > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. then why does only 20% of the alcohol related violence happen in or around pubs, what about the other 80% of alcohol related violence that happens away from pubs? > And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. so it's the place, and not the drug they're consuming which is accepted as a known risk factor for commiting violent offense by virtually every one who has ever studied the issue. > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore > sunlight reduces violence. more violence happens at night than during the day because more people are drunk at night. > > > > > > there are > > > > > > no other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. > > > > > > > > > > How many people do you think drink alcohol at least once a week? What > pecrentage > > > of > > > > > them do you think are violent as a result? > > > > > > > > a vastly higher proportion of users than for any other drug, including > > > > crack, and steroids. > > > > > > What proportion? When I was in my late teens/to mid twenties, I used to drink > loads > > > of alcohol at least once a week, usually surrounded by loads of other people > drinking > > > loads of alcohol in a pub/club, and never once did I hit anyone, and never once > did > > > anyone hit me. Close contact with thousands of other drunk people, never any > > > violence. > > > > so you never saw fights happening at kicking out time in town centers? > > Very rarely. then you must be really inobservant. > > because virtually everytime I've gone into a town center and stayed out > > all night on a friday or saturday night I've seen people being > > aggresive or violent. It's unavoidable, you go into any town center at > > night over any weekend and wander between bars I can guarantee you will > > see fights towards the end of the night. > > Not my experience. Mostly people having fun. most people yes. > Occasional shouting match, very occasional violence. your 'experiences' aren't born out by *any* of the evidence > > > I know it happens, but it's only noticeable because so many people drink. > > > > if you replaced all the drinking that goes on with pot smoking you > > wouldn't see a single fight on a friday or saturday night in town > > centers, you'd just see lots of people giggling. > > That's what I see anyway... mostly yes, but there is a hell of alot of aggresion and violence, it is simply unavoidable late at night in the vast majority of town centers on friday and saturday nights. Ask any taxi driver. > > > And like football hooligans, many people go out for the fight, the drinking is > > > just the excuse. It's not the football that causes the violence. > > > > that's true in some cases but no where near all cases of alcohol > > related violence. > > The vast majority I'd say. yeah, but you don't know what you're talking about, as is made obvious by the fact we are even having this discussion. > Alcohol doesn't turn people violent, but it might reduce > the inhibitions of those who are violent anyway. it makes the violent more violent, that does not stop it making the non violent more likely to be violent. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:41:00 +0000, Sharky > wrote:
>AlanG wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:50:42 GMT, brian bennett >> > wrote: >> >> >>>AlanG wrote: >>> >>>>On 9 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, " > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Phil Stovell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:09:49 -0800, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The use of alcohol can turn otherwise sensible people into aggressive >>>>>>>sometimes even violent arseholes you must have noticed that, there are no >>>>>>>other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does. >>>>>> >>>>>>Alcohol + cocaine = smashed up pub. >>>>> >>>>>alcohol alone = smashed up pub - >>>> >>>>I bet there was either loud music or sport on the telly to go with it. >>>>I've no figures to back it up but it's something I've noticed over the >>>>last 40 years that pubs with no juke box rarely have bother. Possibly >>>>booze and pounding exciting music together can be a stimulous for >>>>violence? >>> >>>i remember hearing of a study a few years back indicating that the >>>combination of country-western music and alcohol was most likely to lead >>>to violence. >>> >> >> I've never heard of any studies but when I was a young man the >> violence on a weekend was confined to the two areas in town where the >> dance halls were. There was little violence anywhere else. Then pubs >> started getting in juke boxes :(. > >Its combination of women and alchol fuelled men competing for their >attention. >Simple, ban all women from city centres after 11pm, wouldn't be any >trouble then. ;-) You obviously have never encountered a horde of alcohol fuelled women on a hen night. Scary! |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
In article . com> " > writes:
>Why shouldn't a landlord be allowed to permit smoking on his premises? If it is a private premises, he may. >he owns the pub, the public doesn't have to come in if it doesn't want >to. OK, I walk by the pub. No-one is smoking, I enter and order a pint. Then someone comes in smoking. If I have a problem with that, you're saying I'm the one who should leave? -Pete Zakel ) "Down with categorical imperative!" |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
"brian bennett" > wrote in message ... > > > After large > > > doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may > > > experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. > > > > So other drugs do cause violence then. > > "preexisting psychosis" -- kind of rare ya know. How rare? Compared with the proportion of alcohol users who are violent? > > > Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters > > > the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms." > > > > So they don't know then. > > > > > "Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through pharmacological > > > effects on behavior, through expectations that heavy drinking and > > > violence go together in certain settings, and through patterns of binge > > > drinking and fighting that sometimes develop in adolescence." > > > > In other words, alcohol only results in violence when combined with specific other > > factors. In particular - when people go out *expecting* a fight, or looking for one, > > alcohol can reduce their inhibitions and so give them the balls to do what they > > wanted to do anyway. > > no, it says quite plainly that alcohol and violence are linked > *pharmacologically* -- the other aspects are not *required* for alcohol > to cause aggression. OK, but how common is violence caused by alcohol *without* the other factors? > > It's never caused me to be violent. And I've been in close contact with thousands of > > people who have consumed alcohol, often in large quantities, and I've never been a > > victim of violence from those people. I've only ever even witnessed violence as a > > (probable) result of alcohol 2 or 3 times. > > good for you1 and the same applies to most of us. that in no negates > the *proven* ability of alcohol (all by itself) to increase agression in > some number of its users. And some amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP users. > > The vast majority of adults in the UK use alcohol, and only a very tiny minority are > > violent as a result. > > and the exact same thing applies to other drugs: even if there is some > purported link between drug 'x' and agression, it is evidenced by only a > small number of users. Exactly. -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
> wrote in message ups.com... > > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. > > err, actually that's exactly what it indicates, > a correlation between being drunk and more violence happening, It doesn't indicate that alcohol causes the violence, any more than the game of football causes violence. > > Like with football matches, > > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. > > then why does only 20% of the alcohol related violence happen in or > around pubs, what about the other 80% of alcohol related violence that > happens away from pubs? That document you posted says around 50% of alcohol related assaults (other than domestics) occurred in or around pubs/clubs. It doesn't claim alcohol was the cause of these incidents. It includes mugging etc, do you think alcohol causes people to mug? > > And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. > > so it's the place, and not the drug they're consuming which is accepted > as a known risk factor for commiting violent offense by virtually every > one who has ever studied the issue. So why is it certain pubs/clubs are virtually guaranteed to have a fight every weekend, whereas in others it is very rare? Is there some difference in the beer they serve? > > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore > > sunlight reduces violence. > > more violence happens at night than during the day because more people > are drunk at night. The point is that is not proved by the simple fact that "violence is more likely in drunk people", any more than the lack of sunlight is proved responsible by the fact that violence is more likely at night. -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
|
Usenet ettiquette - cross-posting
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:53:18 +1300, "st.helier"
> wrote: >What is cross posting? >Crossposting refers to the sending of a note to more than one news group - >generally considered bad manners. Cross-posting is not generally considered bad manners. >Even if your comment may some relevance to more than one group, it is not >considered polite to assume that the 'other group' wish to hear it. If the topic is of relevance to all the groups it is definitely polite. >When replying to a cross post, it is usual to delete the other groups before >posting - only send to people that you know are interested. I send to everyone who may be interested. With USENET it is impossible to know who is interested beforehand as groups may have hundreds, if not thousands of subscribers. >There are exceptions, but it is usually better to go to each group in turn, >and ask your self "should I post this here?". Don't be silly. One posts to the group if one has something to say which is relevant to that group. >Once you've scanned the current discussions, you'll usually find that it is >neither helpful, not likely to be appreciated. No. The title a group often gives one a good idea of what is of interest to the group. The FAQ does not rule out the subjects I have posted about. >It is in extreme bad manners to crosspost into a newsgroup to which you do >not usually contribute, and continue to do so when requested to cease. Drivel. If maybe 10 people in a group object I may take notice of what they say. But I will certainly ignore one person. When that person is rude they can be guaranteed to be ignored. All the articles I have cross-posted to news:alt.food.wine are on topic; as far as I am concerned. Given that wine is frequently sold in pubs and other licensed premised my last post was very definitely on topic. It the post annoys you then ignore it, no one if forcing you to read anything. Stop behaving like a child by assuming you are the only person in the world that matters. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > > > > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. > > > > err, actually that's exactly what it indicates, > > a correlation between being drunk and more violence happening, > > It doesn't indicate that alcohol causes the violence, any more than the game of > football causes violence. that's causation not correlation. > > > Like with football matches, > > > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. > > > > then why does only 20% of the alcohol related violence happen in or > > around pubs, what about the other 80% of alcohol related violence that > > happens away from pubs? > > That document you posted says around 50% of alcohol related assaults (other than > domestics) occurred in or around pubs/clubs. here's a quote from the document "In each survey around one-fifth of violent incidents had taken place in or around pubs, bars and clubs." 1/5=20% of all alcohol related violence which is what was my whole point. > It doesn't claim alcohol was the cause of these incidents. it does however claim alcohol was involved in these incidents, and seeing as how alcohol is involved in 50% of all violent crimes, it would suggest that alcohol is a major risk factor for commiting violent crime. > It includes mugging etc, do you think alcohol causes people to mug? no but it makes them more likely to be more violent, and may help them get over their inhibitions to commit the offense in the first place. > > > And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. > > > > so it's the place, and not the drug they're consuming which is accepted > > as a known risk factor for commiting violent offense by virtually every > > one who has ever studied the issue. > > So why is it certain pubs/clubs are virtually guaranteed to have a fight every > weekend, whereas in others it is very rare? Is there some difference in the beer they > serve? the ages of customers, older people are vastly less likely to commit violent offences than young people. > > > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore > > > sunlight reduces violence. > > > > more violence happens at night than during the day because more people > > are drunk at night. > > The point is that is not proved by the simple fact that "violence is more likely in > drunk people", any more than the lack of sunlight is proved responsible by the fact > that violence is more likely at night. the fact that virtually every researcher who has studied alcohol and aggresion has found that alcohol is intimately related to an increase in aggresion, would suggest that alcohol has an effect on increasing violent tendencies. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Pete nospam Zakel wrote: > In article . com> " > writes: > > >Why shouldn't a landlord be allowed to permit smoking on his premises? > > If it is a private premises, he may. the landlord is a private owner of it and under the laws being proposed in the UK won't be allowed to, even if he wants to. > >he owns the pub, the public doesn't have to come in if it doesn't want > >to. > > OK, I walk by the pub. No-one is smoking, I enter and order a pint. Then > someone comes in smoking. If I have a problem with that, you're saying I'm > the one who should leave? if you have a problem with smoking and the landlord doesn't yes, it isn't your pub, you don't get to dictate what that landlord allows because he does own the place you don't, all you can do is choose not to go there afterall no one is forcing you to go into a smoking pub, if you have a problem go to a non smoking pub in the first place. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to > hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts > don't lie. > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm> > Violence down amid pub law change > Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell > by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours > coming in, figures show. Nothing new... the extension of pub opening times in Scotland proved this when pub opening limits of 10 pm were changed... in Edinburgh in some pubs changed to 1am or 2am in some places .... although I sometimes enjoyed drinking in the Subway in the Cowgate until 6am and, then afternoon openings were permitted long before they were in England... |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
> wrote in message oups.com... > > > > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > > > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > > > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > > > > > > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. > > > > > > err, actually that's exactly what it indicates, > > > a correlation between being drunk and more violence happening, > > > > It doesn't indicate that alcohol causes the violence, any more than the game of > > football causes violence. > > that's causation not correlation. Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. > > > > Like with football matches, > > > > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. > > > > > > then why does only 20% of the alcohol related violence happen in or > > > around pubs, what about the other 80% of alcohol related violence that > > > happens away from pubs? > > > > That document you posted says around 50% of alcohol related assaults (other than > > domestics) occurred in or around pubs/clubs. > > here's a quote from the document "In each survey around one-fifth of > violent incidents had taken place in or around pubs, bars and clubs." > 1/5=20% of all alcohol related violence which is what was my whole > point. But only when you include domestics. > > It doesn't claim alcohol was the cause of these incidents. > > it does however claim alcohol was involved in these incidents, and > seeing as how alcohol is involved in 50% of all violent crimes, it > would suggest that alcohol is a major risk factor for commiting violent > crime. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Are violent people more likely to be heavy drinkers, or are heavy drinkers more likely to be violent? Do people go out with the intention of drinking, and end up in a fight, or do people go out with the intention of having a fight and have a few drinks beforehand? I'm sure it's not 100% one or the other - but the point is surveys like the one you quote do nothing to answer the question of whether alcohol *causes* the behaviour. > > It includes mugging etc, do you think alcohol causes people to mug? > > no but it makes them more likely to be more violent, But less co-ordinated, slower etc. > and may help them > get over their inhibitions to commit the offense in the first place. But the point is they probably wanted to commit to offence in the first place. > > > > And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. > > > > > > so it's the place, and not the drug they're consuming which is accepted > > > as a known risk factor for commiting violent offense by virtually every > > > one who has ever studied the issue. > > > > So why is it certain pubs/clubs are virtually guaranteed to have a fight every > > weekend, whereas in others it is very rare? Is there some difference in the beer they > > serve? > > the ages of customers, older people are vastly less likely to commit > violent offences than young people. This split also occurs between pubs/clubs frequented by similar age groups. > > > > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore > > > > sunlight reduces violence. > > > > > > more violence happens at night than during the day because more people > > > are drunk at night. > > > > The point is that is not proved by the simple fact that "violence is more likely in > > drunk people", any more than the lack of sunlight is proved responsible by the fact > > that violence is more likely at night. > > the fact that virtually every researcher who has studied alcohol and > aggresion has found that alcohol is intimately related to an increase > in aggresion, would suggest that alcohol has an effect on increasing > violent tendencies. Rather than reducing the inhibitions in someone who is violent anyway? As many other depressants do? -- Andy |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
Andy Pandy wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > > > around half of all violent crime is commited under the influence of > > > > > > alcohol, are people drunk anywhere near half of the time? because if > > > > > > not, alcohol is related to an increase in violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf > > > > > > > > > > But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. > > > > > > > > err, actually that's exactly what it indicates, > > > > a correlation between being drunk and more violence happening, > > > > > > It doesn't indicate that alcohol causes the violence, any more than the game of > > > football causes violence. > > > > that's causation not correlation. > > Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. > > > > > > Like with football matches, > > > > > certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. > > > > > > > > then why does only 20% of the alcohol related violence happen in or > > > > around pubs, what about the other 80% of alcohol related violence that > > > > happens away from pubs? > > > > > > That document you posted says around 50% of alcohol related assaults (other than > > > domestics) occurred in or around pubs/clubs. > > > > here's a quote from the document "In each survey around one-fifth of > > violent incidents had taken place in or around pubs, bars and clubs." > > 1/5=20% of all alcohol related violence which is what was my whole > > point. > > But only when you include domestics. and that isn't violence? > > > It doesn't claim alcohol was the cause of these incidents. > > > > it does however claim alcohol was involved in these incidents, and > > seeing as how alcohol is involved in 50% of all violent crimes, it > > would suggest that alcohol is a major risk factor for commiting violent > > crime. > > What came first, the chicken or the egg? both. > Are violent people more likely to be heavy drinkers, or are heavy drinkers more > likely to be violent? or both. > Do people go out with the intention of drinking, and end up in a fight, or do people > go out with the intention of having a fight and have a few drinks beforehand? > > I'm sure it's not 100% one or the other - but the point is surveys like the one you > quote do nothing to answer the question of whether alcohol *causes* the behaviour. the violence wouldn't happen in alot of cases without the alcohol hence alcohol being involved in 50% of all violence, > > > It includes mugging etc, do you think alcohol causes people to mug? > > > > no but it makes them more likely to be more violent, > > But less co-ordinated, slower etc. and less responsive to painful stimulus, making them more able to cause more trouble than if they were sober. > > and may help them > > get over their inhibitions to commit the offense in the first place. > > But the point is they probably wanted to commit to offence in the first place. that only covers 5% of the violent incidents though. > > > > > And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk. > > > > > > > > so it's the place, and not the drug they're consuming which is accepted > > > > as a known risk factor for commiting violent offense by virtually every > > > > one who has ever studied the issue. > > > > > > So why is it certain pubs/clubs are virtually guaranteed to have a fight every > > > weekend, whereas in others it is very rare? Is there some difference in the beer > they > > > serve? > > > > the ages of customers, older people are vastly less likely to commit > > violent offences than young people. > > This split also occurs between pubs/clubs frequented by similar age groups. but pubs frequented by younger people are generally more aggresive, and have more trouble with violence. > > > > > It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, > therefore > > > > > sunlight reduces violence. > > > > > > > > more violence happens at night than during the day because more people > > > > are drunk at night. > > > > > > The point is that is not proved by the simple fact that "violence is more likely > in > > > drunk people", any more than the lack of sunlight is proved responsible by the > fact > > > that violence is more likely at night. > > > > the fact that virtually every researcher who has studied alcohol and > > aggresion has found that alcohol is intimately related to an increase > > in aggresion, would suggest that alcohol has an effect on increasing > > violent tendencies. > > Rather than reducing the inhibitions in someone who is violent anyway? As many other > depressants do? you mean like pot a depressant which makes otherwise aggresive people less aggresive? or how about smack, which makes people who are aggresive go on a nod like all other users of the drug, or how about benzodiazapenes, where aggresive people get really dopy and sleepy like all other users of the drugs. There is no other drug which has anything like the relationship with aggresive behaviour and violence that alcohol has. |
Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime
In k> within
uk.politics.drugs, 'Phil Stovell' wrote: >On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, wrote: > >> cocaine alone = boring arseholes talking shit > >I'd agree with that. Add in a bunch of pot to the equation and the shit you mention becomes incredibly repetitive, the recollection of issuing the exact same rant twenty minutes earlier disappears. Maybe one of the few times when weed could be said *not* to have a positive effect.. Still I suppose at least sleep should happen a bit sooner ;) Dave J. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter