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.

The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
target alcohol-related crime.

The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
November to allow extended drinking hours.

Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
of the changes.

Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.

To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
drinking between 12 November and Christmas.

With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
types of offence, the figures show.

However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
opening hours from these figures alone.

He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
again."

When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
least six months.

At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
two hours.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:

> Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.

This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

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.
>
I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.

> The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
> include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
> target alcohol-related crime.
>
> The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
> November to allow extended drinking hours.
>
> Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
> of the changes.
>
I would agree with the police.

> Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
> the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
> affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.
>
> To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
> police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
> drinking between 12 November and Christmas.
>
> With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
> down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
> types of offence, the figures show.
>
> However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
> possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
> opening hours from these figures alone.
>
> He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
> now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
> when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
> again."
>
> When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
> forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
> least six months.
>
> At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
> thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
> two hours.
>
I fully supported the deregulation of pub opening hours and I am sure that
over the long term it will reduce alcohol related violence but it is a bit
too soon to expect to see any changes from official statistics.

It reminds me a bit of the Gun Control Network (sic) who were crowing over
the reduction in armed crime in 1998, claiming it was due to the
confiscation of target shooters' pistols. It turned out the 98 figures were
atypical and we have seen serious year on year increases since then, which
the GCN has not been so keen to brag about.

Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>
> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>
> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> Save Gales Brewery
> http://www.savegales.org.uk/

didn't you make a wager on the outcome?

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

Harry The Horse wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
> longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.
>
> > The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
> > include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
> > target alcohol-related crime.
> >
> > The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
> > November to allow extended drinking hours.
> >
> > Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
> > of the changes.
> >
> I would agree with the police.
>
> > Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
> > the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
> > affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.
> >
> > To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
> > police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
> > drinking between 12 November and Christmas.
> >
> > With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
> > down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
> > types of offence, the figures show.
> >
> > However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
> > possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
> > opening hours from these figures alone.
> >
> > He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
> > now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
> > when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
> > again."
> >
> > When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
> > forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
> > least six months.
> >
> > At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
> > thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
> > two hours.
> >
> I fully supported the deregulation of pub opening hours and I am sure that
> over the long term it will reduce alcohol related violence but it is a bit
> too soon to expect to see any changes from official statistics.
>
> It reminds me a bit of the Gun Control Network (sic) who were crowing over
> the reduction in armed crime in 1998, claiming it was due to the
> confiscation of target shooters' pistols. It turned out the 98 figures were
> atypical and we have seen serious year on year increases since then, which
> the GCN has not been so keen to brag about.

the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
alcohol.

having a *choice* will allow people to act more responsibly -- while
forcing them to drink booze only ensures a continuation of young people
drinking to the point of losing control.

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

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:

> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>>
>> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>>
>> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
>> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>>
>> Save Gales Brewery
>> http://www.savegales.org.uk/
>
> didn't you make a wager on the outcome?

Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!

>
> b
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:
>
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>>>
>>> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>>>
>>> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
>>> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>>
>> didn't you make a wager on the outcome?
>
> Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....3e1bbd3?hl=en&

Bloke called Francis Burton. "Kev" witnessed it. A year isn't up yet
though so you've got a little while to wait before collecting. I'll bet
you 10GBP that you do though.

--

http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html

brian
> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> alcohol.

Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:
>
> > Phil Stovell wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
> >>
> >> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
> >>
> >> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> >> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
> >>
> >> Save Gales Brewery
> >> http://www.savegales.org.uk/
> >
> > didn't you make a wager on the outcome?
>
> Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!
>
> >
> > b
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> Save Gales Brewery
> http://www.savegales.org.uk/

hmmmm, short term memory problems? ;^)

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

wrote:
>
> brian
> > the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> > sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> > of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> > alcohol.
>
> Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
> lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

not bloody likely -- drug users exhibit very strong tendencies in the
drugs they use, and some of them (like crack, heroin and pcp) are just
*extremely* unpopular:

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/big-pic/index.htm

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

In article .com> writes:
>brian
>> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
>> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
>> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
>> alcohol.

>Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
>lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.

To your second point: won't happen. Crack "epidemics" always fail to continue
because it becomes very obvious to others what becomes of crack addicts and
they refuse even to try it.

-Pete Zakel
)

"God made the integers; all else is the work of Man."

-Kronecker

"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
> >> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> >> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> >> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> >> alcohol.
>
> >Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
> >lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?
>
> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.

Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.

--
Andy

"Phil Stovell" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>
> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>
> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.

What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they ban
smoking in pubs?

What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen over
the last 20 years or so?

--
Andy

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>
>"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
>> >> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
>> >> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
>> >> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
>> >> alcohol.

>> >Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
>> >lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

>> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
>> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.

>Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.

Not strange at all. It has nothing to do with legal status, but with a
property unique to alcohol.

Numerous studies have shown that the only drug that tends to provoke increased
violence in users is alcohol.

-Pete Zakel
)

"Public nudity is the evil the state seeks to prevent."

-William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they ban
>smoking in pubs?
>
>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.

If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition.

-Pete Zakel
)

Nothing is faster than the speed of light...

To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before
the light comes on.

Andy Pandy wrote:

> "Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> > >> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> > >> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> > >> alcohol.
> >
> > >Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
> > >lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?
> >
> > To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
> > black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.
>
> 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, there are
no other drugs that do the same in anything like way alcohol does.

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?

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:40:32 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
> wrote:

>> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
>> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.
>
>Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.

That's because alcohol is very atypical in its propensity to induce
violent behaviour. Most other drugs do not.

--
Cynic

Beware!! this message was crossposted

Salut/Hi Jasbird,

le/on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>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.

Ah, but will the half backs like it too?

Or are you illiterate as well as provocative.

Oops, I should take my own advice.

DFTT
http://i1.tinypic.com/mr4osm.jpg

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:36:53 +1300, "st.helier"
> wrote:

>Do not feed the troll.

hypocrite.

>If you really MUST respond to this rubbish, please delete the newsgroup(s)
>to which you do not subscribe.
>
>Otherwise, take a look at - http://i1.tinypic.com/mr4osm.jpg
>
>st.helier

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

OK, I admit it, I was wrong about the wingers. But I still think
I'm right to take an optimistic view of human nature and to
assume that good news is good.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:36:14 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
> wrote:

>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.
>>
>I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
>longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.
>
>> The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
>> include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
>> target alcohol-related crime.
>>
>> The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
>> November to allow extended drinking hours.
>>
>> Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
>> of the changes.
>>
>I would agree with the police.

I would disagree with them (nearly always). The police were
wrong on this one. They predicted a rise in violence and mayhem
with the deregulation of opening hours. They are bound to say
that the DECLINE in violence has nothing to do with the
deregulation because they will NEVER admit that they are wrong.

"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Andy Pandy"
> writes:
> >What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they
ban
> >smoking in pubs?
> >
> >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. .

Have you never seen "smoking prohibited" signs? It does *not* mean possession is
illegal.

> 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.

--
Andy

"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
> >> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
> >> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.
>
> >Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.
>
> Not strange at all. It has nothing to do with legal status, but with a
> property unique to alcohol.

Ah yes of course - "alcohol is unique" so doesn't fit the arguments used about
illegal drugs. Probably all drugs have unique properties.

> Numerous studies have shown that the only drug that tends to provoke increased
> violence in users is alcohol.

Really? Not anabolic steriods, for instance?

--
Andy

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:58:51 +0000, Andy Pandy wrote:

> What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates
> if/when they ban smoking in pubs?

It won't make much difference - smoking tobacco is still legal. The
tobacco smokers will just have to congregate outside, just like the
cannabis smokers do now.

> What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've
> seen over the last 20 years or so?

It's not so much a case of increasing prohibition - smoking is still
legal. It's increasing education and the removal of the "macho" status.
James Bond no longer orders his shaken but not stirred with a cigarette
dangling out of his mouth, like he did when I was young and impressionable.

If you look at the films from the 1950s and early 60s all the
sophisticates smoked.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:06:02 -0700, Pete nospam Zakel wrote:

> Not strange at all. It has nothing to do with legal status, but with a
> property unique to alcohol.

I'd disagree that it's unique to alcohol. Other CNS depressants have the
same effect. GHB, for example.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

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. Happened to a pub near me, in rural
Hampshire. It recently re-opened as a family friendly pub and the coke
heads seem to have gone elsewhere (which I'll avoid if I find it by
accident).

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:59:12 +0000, Andy Pandy wrote:

> anabolic steriods

Another good example.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Claude) wrote:

>In article >,
(Jasbird) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Jasbird >
>> *Date:* Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 GMT
>>
>> <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.
>>
>> <snip>
>> Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
>> of the changes.
>> <snip>

> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=376596&in_page_id=1770>

Commentry by Jasbird:

£2.5 million per 6 weeks equates to about £105 million over a
year to cut violent crime by 11%. Using Davis' "logic", spending
less than a £1 billion we could entirely eliminate violent
crime!! So why didn't the Tories do that when they were in
power? Because Davis is talking out of his arse again. The cops
and Tories predicted an increase in violent crime with the
deregulation of pub hours. That hasn't happened. Now Davis (and
Claude) are desperately looking for something to explain away
the fall.

= = = = = =
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=376639&in_page_id=1770>

'Bogus figures' back alcohol reform
08:35am 9th February 2006

Under fi Charles Clarke has been accused of publishing
misleading crime figures to back recent alcohol reforms

The Government has been accused of using "bogus, inappropriate
and spun" figures to back up its controversial 24-hour drinking
reforms.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke took the unusual step of
publishing violent crime figures two months early to support
claims that a crackdown on alcohol-related crime had been
successful.

The data indicated an 11 per cent fall in violent crime in
December, compared with October, including a 21 per cent fall in
serious violent offences as a result of the £2.5 million
campaign involving police and trading standards officials.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said of the figures: "What
this shows is that if you put more bobbies on the street you
will cut crime. However, these figures are a result of a
six-week crackdown on violence which cost £2.5 million - what
happens when this money runs out?

"The Government should not use these bogus, inappropriate and
spun statistics to justify its 24-hour drinking proposals -
especially just after the Home Secretary admitted how concerned
he was that Government crime statistics were confusing.

"They should wait and assess the effect of longer drinking hours
over a 12-month period at least."

He added: "Licensing officers up and down the country have told
us that it is too early to assess the impact of extended
licensing on crime. They also told us that cold weather means
less people tend to go out and less trouble is caused - we have
just experienced one of the coldest winters in nine years."

The Home Office also named and shamed the supermarkets with the
poorest record for selling booze to underage children.
High-class chain Waitrose performed worst, selling alcohol in 22
per cent of cases where trading standards officers deployed
under-18s in 6,000 secret test purchases.

Second worst was Somerfield with 20 per cent, followed by the
Co-op with 17 per cent. Tesco and Sainsbury's both sold alcohol
to children in 16 per cent of cases, and Morrisons in 15 per
cent. Asda had the best results with just 7 per cent. In all,
the tests found 29 per cent of on-licence and 19 per cent of
off-licence premises were selling drink to minors, and the
supermarket average was 17 per cent.

The Home Office also officially released figures for the same
companies for the alcohol crackdown which took place last
summer. It showed there had been significant improvements since
then, when Tesco had sold alcohol to children in 53 per cent of
test purchases. Mr Clarke said the initiative had been a success
and pledged that police would continue similar work "on a daily
basis".

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>I would agree with the police.
>
> I would disagree with them (nearly always). The police were
> wrong on this one. They predicted a rise in violence and mayhem
> with the deregulation of opening hours.
>
And I thought that their prediction was a load of old baloney but one
month's worth of data doesn't prove anything - one way or the other.

> They are bound to say
> that the DECLINE in violence has nothing to do with the
> deregulation because they will NEVER admit that they are wrong.
>
But they haven't said that. They have said that it is too early to say,
which it is.

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 - has happened a few times near me.
cocaine alone = boring arseholes talking shit - never seen someone get
violent on coke on it's own unless they've been on a long binge and are
getting paranoid, alcohol can do that after a few hours..

> Happened to a pub near me, in rural
> Hampshire. It recently re-opened as a family friendly pub and the coke
> heads seem to have gone elsewhere (which I'll avoid if I find it by
> accident).

Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:59:12 +0000, Andy Pandy wrote:
>
> > anabolic steriods
>
> Another good example.

violence is only a problem with anabolic steroids if the person has
been using them for prolonged periods of time, it doesn't happen after
short periods of use, certainly not within a few hours of first use.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:26:09 -0800, wrote:

> cocaine alone = boring arseholes talking shit

I'd agree with that.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

Andy Pandy wrote:
>
> "Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
> > >> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.
> >
> > >Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.
> >
> > Not strange at all. It has nothing to do with legal status, but with a
> > property unique to alcohol.
>
> Ah yes of course - "alcohol is unique" so doesn't fit the arguments used about
> illegal drugs. Probably all drugs have unique properties.
>
> > Numerous studies have shown that the only drug that tends to provoke increased
> > violence in users is alcohol.
>
> Really? Not anabolic steriods, for instance?
>
> --
> Andy

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose
consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large
doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may
experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis.
Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters
the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms."

"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."

"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."

Source: Psychoactive Substances and Violence by Jeffrey A. Roth

Series: Research in Brief, US Dept. of Justice

Published: February 1994

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

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?


> has happened a few times near me.
>cocaine alone = boring arseholes talking shit - never seen someone get
>violent on coke on it's own unless they've been on a long binge and are
>getting paranoid, alcohol can do that after a few hours..
>
>> Happened to a pub near me, in rural
>> Hampshire. It recently re-opened as a family friendly pub and the coke
>> heads seem to have gone elsewhere (which I'll avoid if I find it by
>> accident).

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article > "Andy Pandy"
> writes:
>> >What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they
>ban
>> >smoking in pubs?
>> >
>> >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.

In the context of drugs, normally "prohibition" means making the drug
contraband and illegal to possess.

Local prohibitions, such as in pubs, restaurants, public area, are simply
quite sensible alternatives to total prohibition.

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.

>> 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.

-Pete Zakel
)

"The new Congressmen say they're going to turn the government around. I
hope I don't get run over again."

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
>> >> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
>> >> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.
>>
>> >Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.
>>
>> Not strange at all. It has nothing to do with legal status, but with a
>> property unique to alcohol.

>Ah yes of course - "alcohol is unique" so doesn't fit the arguments used about
>illegal drugs. Probably all drugs have unique properties.

Yes, almost all drugs have unique properties. For example, cannabis seems to
be unique in that it doesn't seem to be able to cause a fatal overdose.

Alcohol appears to be unique in its propensity to cause violence in users.

>> Numerous studies have shown that the only drug that tends to provoke increased
>> violence in users is alcohol.

>Really? Not anabolic steriods, for instance?

Almost all the studies of anabolic steroid use have shown that "roid rage" is
a myth and doesn't actually occur.

-Pete Zakel
)

"You worry too much about your job. Stop it. You are not paid enough
to worry."

In article > Phil Stovell > writes:
>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. Happened to a pub near me, in rural
>Hampshire. It recently re-opened as a family friendly pub and the coke
>heads seem to have gone elsewhere (which I'll avoid if I find it by
>accident).

Yup, alcohol causes violence, cocaine keeps the violent alcohol user from
passing out.

-Pete Zakel
)

"Cauliflower is nothing but Cabbage with a College Education."

-Mark Twain

"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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

The vast majority of adults in the UK use alcohol, and only a very tiny minority are
violent as a result.

> "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.

--
Andy

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

--
Andy

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.

> > 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.

> > 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.

no, but it has a hell of alot to do with the overall level of violence
attributable to a drug.

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?

-Pete Zakel
)

Non-Reciprocal Laws of Expectations:
Negative expectations yield negative results.
Positive expectations yield negative results.