Europe to crack down on ‘passive drinking’, says leaked report

Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield

The campaigns to combat the effects of ‘passive smoking’ are widely
credited for Europe’s growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
concept of ‘passive drinking’ as their killer argument.

I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
environmental or social toll of alcohol, the ‘harm done by someone
else’s drinking’. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
European Union alcohol strategy later this year.

Dr Peter Anderson, the report’s lead author, who has a background in the
World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
addiction. ‘You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug…. But when you talk
about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
powerful’ (1).

The draft report doesn’t mince its words when it comes to estimating the
social harms of alcohol. ‘The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to
1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
recently for tobacco.’ (2) The report further highlights the broader
social cost of drinking, with the proviso that ‘these estimates are
subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol’.

continued ...
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>

= = = = = =
Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
<http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
<http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
(ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.

Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
of illegal drugs.

In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report

> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
on the table is the norm of most meals.

Axel

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:24:10 GMT, wrote:

>In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>> Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>
>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
>on the table is the norm of most meals.

Just a few years ago smoking was the norm and fully accepted except by
a few eccentrics.

--
Brave New Britain

wrote:
> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>
>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>
>
>
>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>
> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>
> Axel
>


Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.

john2

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:

wrote:
>> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>>
>>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>>
>>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>
>> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
>> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>>
>> Axel
>
>Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
>something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
>
>john2

No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
agree with that statement)

The problems a
1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
vulnerable?
2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
(minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]

You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
the government have no right to tell me what to do".

Jasbird wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
> >>
> >>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> >>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
> >>
> >> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
> >> on the table is the norm of most meals.
> >>
> >> Axel
> >
> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
> >
> >john2
>
> No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
> it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
> agree with that statement)
>
> The problems a
> 1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
> vulnerable?
> 2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
> victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
> fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
> (minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
> greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]
>
> You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
> drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
> haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
> arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
> the government have no right to tell me what to do".

People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
track of how
many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
alcohol beverages a day).
Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
(get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
drinking more strictly.
I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
is already mandatory and it would be a small step to link it to a
licence-system to engage in certain risky activities (like drinking,
driving or using soft-drugs).
'Social security systems' like these can also be seen as a powerful
argument for a completely transparant and fully accountable government
in order to prevent abuse of technology that invades public privacy.

In uk.legal name > wrote:

> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
> track of how
> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
> alcohol beverages a day).
> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
> drinking more strictly.
> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.

Interesting proposal. However it would only tend to encourage
home brewing and distilling.

Probably linked to organised crime which is what happened when
America implemented total prohibition.

Axel

"name" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jasbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>> >>
>> >>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to
>> >>>make
>> >>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>> >>
>> >> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where
>> >> wine
>> >> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>> >>
>> >> Axel
>> >
>> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
>> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
>> >
>> >john2
>>
>> No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
>> it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
>> agree with that statement)
>>
>> The problems a
>> 1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
>> vulnerable?
>> 2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
>> victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
>> fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
>> (minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
>> greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]
>>
>> You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
>> drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
>> haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
>> arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
>> the government have no right to tell me what to do".
>
> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
> track of how
> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
> alcohol beverages a day).
> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
> drinking more strictly.
> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
> Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> is already mandatory and it would be a small step to link it to a
> licence-system to engage in certain risky activities (like drinking,
> driving or using soft-drugs).
> 'Social security systems' like these can also be seen as a powerful
> argument for a completely transparant and fully accountable government
> in order to prevent abuse of technology that invades public privacy.
>
People who want to drink will do so, it's the nonsensical drug war mentality
all over again. The only way is to change social attitudes towards binge
drinking. Let's face it, it's the binge drinking circuits in town centres
that are where the visible problems exist, not a bottle or two of wine with
a meal.
As for criminal behaviour, how about responsibility and proper consequences,
if you drink and drive and cause an accident then expect a lengthy spell in
custody. If you kill someone it's manslaughter and the penalty should be
appropriate. At the moment in the UK the treatment of drunk drivers involved
in accidents is bizarre to say the least, maybe it has something to do with
the fact that historically the authoritarian types were the worst offenders.

name wrote:
>
> Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> is already mandatory
>
Ah, that explains it. You have already accepted a state of slavery. Poor
you.

In > within
uk.politics.drugs, 'Jasbird' wrote:

>1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
>vulnerable?

Don't. It's called evolution.

Smack em down when they harm others but otherwise let them do as they
will. When are we going to quit this desire to live as children for the
whole of our lives?

Dave J.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 wrote:

> Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> reduces risk of coronaries.

Except those studies were flawed.

<http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.drugs/msg/d8e6f980b32e35a4?&hl=en>

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"

In article > john2 > writes:
>Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
>something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.

And a meta-study has recently shown that the alleged increase in life span
reduced coronary disease risk goes away when you factor in people who stop
drinking for health reasons.

In other words -- you have to include people who stopped drinking because
the alcohol caused them harm in the group of "drinkers", not the group of
"non-drinkers". Doing that results in no net benefit for alcohol use.

-Pete Zakel
)

"The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go
to erase it."
-Glaser and Way

Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
> In article > john2 > writes:
> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
>
> And a meta-study has recently shown that the alleged increase in life span
> reduced coronary disease risk goes away when you factor in people who stop
> drinking for health reasons.
>
> In other words -- you have to include people who stopped drinking because
> the alcohol caused them harm in the group of "drinkers", not the group of
> "non-drinkers". Doing that results in no net benefit for alcohol use.
>
> -Pete Zakel
> )
>
> "The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go
> to erase it."

Put thee fuc*ing clock right:-( Grrrrrr

Granville

Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
Paul
"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>
> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>
> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>
> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>
> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
> powerful' (1).
>
> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>
> continued ...
> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>
> = = = = = =
> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>
> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
> of illegal drugs.
>

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:50:46 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
wrote:

>Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
>your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
>led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
>glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
>
>Paul

If you actually read the article - which I guess you didn't (hence the
top post) - you'll discover that these are not my views nor even those
of the article's writer (Waterfield).

This is what the safety fanatics at the European Commission are talking
about. By all means live your life in ignorance. You are under no
obligation to be aware of what's happening in the world - until it hits
you were you weren't expecting it. No one made you read anything.

>"Jasbird" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>>
>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>
>> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>>
>> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
>> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
>> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
>> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>>
>> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
>> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
>> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
>> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
>> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>>
>> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
>> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
>> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
>> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
>> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
>> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
>> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
>> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
>> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
>> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
>> powerful' (1).
>>
>> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
>> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
>> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
>> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
>> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
>> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
>> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
>> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>>
>> continued ...
>> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>>
>> = = = = = =
>> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
>> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
>> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
>> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
>> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
>> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
>> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
>> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
>> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
>> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>>
>> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
>> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
>> of illegal drugs.
>>
>

Well Jas if the link to the article worked, I would have read it,
unfortunately it didn't, besides from your remarks, you are offensive and
lacking in social skills. Besides why post on a news link for food and wine.
This is a place for those who enjoy food and wine to exchange tasting notes,
experiences, and promote the enjoyment of food and wine.

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:50:46 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
> wrote:
>
>>Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
>>your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
>>thoughts
>>led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
>>glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
>>
>>Paul
>
> If you actually read the article - which I guess you didn't (hence the
> top post) - you'll discover that these are not my views nor even those
> of the article's writer (Waterfield).
>
> This is what the safety fanatics at the European Commission are talking
> about. By all means live your life in ignorance. You are under no
> obligation to be aware of what's happening in the world - until it hits
> you were you weren't expecting it. No one made you read anything.
>
>>"Jasbird" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>>>
>>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>>
>>> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>>>
>>> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
>>> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
>>> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
>>> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>>>
>>> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
>>> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
>>> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
>>> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
>>> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>>>
>>> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
>>> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
>>> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
>>> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
>>> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
>>> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
>>> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
>>> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
>>> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
>>> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
>>> powerful' (1).
>>>
>>> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
>>> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
>>> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
>>> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
>>> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
>>> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
>>> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
>>> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>>>
>>> continued ...
>>> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>>>
>>> = = = = = =
>>> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
>>> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
>>> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
>>> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
>>> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
>>> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
>>> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
>>> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
>>> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
>>> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>>>
>>> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
>>> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
>>> of illegal drugs.
>>>
>>
>

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:15:41 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
wrote:

>Well Jas if the link to the article worked, I would have read it,
>unfortunately it didn't, besides from your remarks, you are offensive and
>lacking in social skills. Besides why post on a news link for food and wine.
>This is a place for those who enjoy food and wine to exchange tasting notes,
>experiences, and promote the enjoyment of food and wine.

I didn't twist your arm to make you read this.

If you think the news is irrelevant then just ignore it.

Apologies for the broken link. They have rejigged their site design.
It'e possible that they changed it since first visited. Here is the
working link:
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/>

Paul Parker wrote:

> Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
> led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
> glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.

You can prove anything with statistics.
90% of teetotal scientists think that moderate drinking is moderately harmful.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

"Paul Parker" > wrote in message
news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
> thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
> Paul

And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the consumer's
health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking, on the other hand,
even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the health of the smoker and
those around him.

No comparison at all.

Bob

Bob Howes wrote:

>
> "Paul Parker" > wrote in message
> news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> > Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not
> > push your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine.
> > Such thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> > mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy. Paul
>
> And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
> moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the
> consumer's health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking,
> on the other hand, even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the
> health of the smoker and those around him.

Whee have you gained your knowledge of the injuries caused by small
amounts of smoke?
The lungs are made to be self healing a bit of smoke will not do any
harm at all.

> No comparison at all.

Wrong.

--
wigwambam

Bob Howes schreef:

> "Paul Parker" > wrote in message
> news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> > Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> > your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
> > thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> > mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
> > Paul
>
> And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
> moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the consumer's
> health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking, on the other hand,
> even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the health of the smoker and
> those around him.
>
> No comparison at all.
>
> Bob

Most tobacco smokers are addicts, as opposed to most alcohol users that
are not addicted.
But most pot smokers on the other hand are not addicts and the damage
inflicted by smoking pot is also relatively minor in comparison to
tobacco (or alcohol for that matter).

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>
> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Does that mean that the next time I visit France and order a diet Coke at
MacDonalds they won't serve me a Kronenberg instead?

Tom S
www.chateauburbank.com

On Sat, 27 May 2006 10:30:44 GMT, Jasbird > wrote:

>Europe to crack down on ‘passive drinking’, says leaked report
>
>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield

The working link is he
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/>

Apologies for the broken link. They have rejigged their site design.
It's possible that they changed it since I visited.