That’s the “smokers” and the “drinkers” done, then, now for the “eaters”.

Michael Winning

…and lifted from the comments below:-

It says over at the Legiron’s place that Colchester down south somewhere is going to make a ghetto for “drinkers”. Well we did see it coming and we did diddly-squat about the bastards in councils and Westminster, untl it’s now too late.

Then it will be the “reluctant non-cyclers”, challenged by “motorists”.

Funny that, I never hear drivers calling themselves motorists, only the bureaucrats do that.

3 responses to “That’s the “smokers” and the “drinkers” done, then, now for the “eaters”.

  1. Pingback: Liberty, Rules, Regulations & Culture Norms | Thinking

  2. Michael Winning is right about the government and the ‘banning of’ smoking in public places, but I am not sure that the government wants to ban drinking in places that are known to be drinking places, pubs for instance.

    The theme from Colchester is this:
    “Drunks in Colchester could be given a “booze zone” under controversial plans to keep problem drinkers away from other members of the public.

    The so-called “wet-zone” would allow problem drinkers to be given somewhere where they are free to consume alcohol without fear of being moved on by police, but away from shoppers and tourists.

    The zones are popular in cities in the United States where they have been used successfully to keep drunks away from areas that are popular with visitors.

    Tim Young, from Colchester Borough Council, said: “If they want to go and drink somewhere and not cause harm then perhaps we can find them a place to do so”. nks-to-be-given-booze-zone-so-they-can-drink-in-pe ace.html

    I used to work for the NHS; you should see A&E after hours on a Friday and Saturday night. Chilling that people are so drunk and disorderly that they have to have immediate medical care – which is paid for by taxes – for themselves or someone else they have inflicted their out of control behaviour on; think health and police costs.

    Right, that is not the main problem, easy to rectify charge the people for their costs. Same goes for obesity related state funded problems and any problem that is cost to the state by personal inaction, heart by-pass for free but still smoking, liver disorder but still drinking, such diseases cost the state, us our taxes, to rectify without any responsibility required by the persons concerned. Free will but not free-riding. Time to be responsible. Time to take up the mantle of what liberty and it’s brother, responsibility, really means, and the price we pay when individuals do not go by the ‘rule of law’ and liberty.

    That is their choice – to be out of it spewing up and or fighting and causing both police and other groups to focus upon them; whilst gran or granddad is getting mugged and beaten for a few quid in their home, or some poor woman is being raped, no police to spare at the moment as they are dealing with drunken persons – aged anywhere between 16-65; alcoholics in the street are ‘drunks’ and their age tend to veer towards ‘older’. Just saying.

    So should the villages, towns and cities provide a “booze zone” for the drinkers? As I said, just walk about at night in any village, yes they have their booze problems, town or city and you would presume it was a “booze zone” already. So will drinkers be herded to a set place, yes a ghetto, and not be permitted anywhere else if they are drunk? Presumably non-drinkers can frequent the ghetto – at risk to their health, through being spat at, spewed on, picked a fight with or just trying to help a drunk walk to the taxi rank, the drunk falls over, blames the helper and it’s litigation time. Would it not be more applicable to put the cost onto the out of control boozer and or addict, the individual who is expressing his or her liberty to act as he or she does? How?

    By having those acting in such a way to have a financial cost to consider, after all such disorder and actions and following ‘consequences’ dealt with by the police, fire brigade, paramedics, hospital workers, social services are paid for by out taxes:

    When said person is found to be disorderly they should be either escorted home or to a police cell, depending on the state of the disorder, and when they have come to, normally the next day, they are faced with a charge, not a prison or community service charge after they have maybe gone to court, depending if they have been ‘arrested’ or not, but there and then for the cost of police time.
    The same for those who end up in A&E and are seen to and sent home = charged them with the cost of NHS and police services.
    The same for A&E admittance and have to stay overnight = charge them with the cost of NHS and police services.
    We should make the ‘offender pay – financially – for the cost of the crime he/she has committed’, not make drinking too much a crime, thus ghettoizing the drinkers, it is the outcome of that action, boozing, which can become a crime. Moving boozers on from hanging around and mucking about keeps them doing the same thing. How many times do they have to be moved on before they commit a crime because they are drunk? Charging them for the cost of their actions, well it would break them or make them.

    Of course well-to-do boozers will happily pay the costs, so you could say that I am targeting the low paid, those on benefit etc.. If that is the main group who cause the costs in the first place, you could compare it to a speeding fine. We have a fine for that and do not claim it to be unfair because a Clegg or a Cameron can afford the fine but a Ed or a Tony cannot, you committed the crime you pay the price. If only those who could afford the costs committed the crime, a possible outcome of my theory, then we would still have the costs paid and more fool them.

    I do not know if the above argument is Libertarian, I am still studying the ‘subject’ but thought I would throw my views in with the ‘big boys’.