They just can't leave us alone, can they?

Firstly, the Scottish "Government" wants to raise the age at which alcohol can be legally drunk to 21. Why? Because "we all know that Scotland as a nation has a drink problem and the implications of this are very serious - not least for our health." So because of the potential of some health problems caused by a few youngsters habitually over-drinking, they are considering banning all under-21s from drinking alcohol completely. And what exactly will stop them crossing the border to England - assuming the Union still exists - and getting drunk there and then coming back? Nothing.

And on the English side of the border the British Government - as we're not allowed an English one - wants to ban all cigarette vending machines and force cigarettes to be sold from under the counter. Like I said when this idea was originally suggested, banning the sale of cigarettes from vending machines or making them being sold from under the counter won't prevent under-aged - or just "young" - people from smoking. They have already banned smoking in public places and raised the smoking age from 16 to 18, but now that just isn't enough for them. It really is just a case of Nanny State bansturbation.

We can't they just leave us alone? It is our health and our money to do with as we please. Bansturbation won't help, and will just make the problem worse by increasing the mystique of smoking and cigarettes. The only way to reduce the bad effects of smoking and excessive alcohol consumption is through education about the effects it has on our body. Then leave us to make our own choices, whether they be good or bad.

Supermarkets sell alcohol. They have an entire section set aside for it, well marked and often sud-divided and sign-posted by type - beers, wines, spirits... - and people then choose to buy them because they want to drink.

Apparently it is a bad thing that they are allowed to do this.

It seems that us mindless proles just aren't clever enough and don't have a strong enough will be steer clear of these well-marked sections, and are instead "lured" into buying alcohol. After all, we're not Professors, so we couldn't possibly be able to resist the call of supermarket advertising and make our own decisions about what we want to purchase.

Alcohol is cheap - and often sold as a loss-leader by supermarkets - because people want to buy it. They don't want to "lure" people in to buying a product which will reduce their profit margins. The best people for that are the idiots who purchase "organic" and "free trade" produce, on which supermarkets can make up to 25% profit.

We all know that alcohol is bad for us should we drink way too much of it over a long period of time. We all know that. But we drink anyway, because we want to. Like the British Retail Consortium says, no-one buys alcohol accidentally. It is a conscious choice made by a rational human being.

It's not up to anyone else to tell us that we can't buy alcohol at a supermarket any more. Especially based on such a ridiculous basis as "health" or to "combat Britain's binge-drinking culture".

Just bugger off leave us alone, Professor le Grand.

Also go and read Mr Eugenides take on this story. Well worth a read.

Why won't they just leave us alone?

Why is it any business of the government what price supermarkets sell alcohol at? Why? If there was even one good reason, it might be acceptable to even a slight extent. But a good reason for this doesn't exist. At all.

If I want to drink alcohol, I will. And I am as I write this post. And yes, this is beer bought from a supermarket at their "cheap" price. If they want to sell alcohol as a loss-leader, that is their prerogative as a private business. If I want to buy and consume lots of cheap alcohol, that is my right as an individual.

And they blame the one good law that Labour have brought in in the last decade: 24-hour drinking. Not that it actually exists anywhere...

It's not up to the Nanny State what I do with my own body, whether or not they think it's bad. It is my work that earns me my money that I use some of to buy alcohol from the supermarket at the price which they want to sell it to me at. At what point in that is the government involved? I already pay tax on the money I have earned, and then more tax on the alcohol when I buy it.

I don't care that "[f]igures released last week showed that half a million people or 1,200 people every day - are being admitted to hospital each year after drinking too much." That's the choice of that tiny number of people who drink alcohol. They have drunk too much at that time. But so what? Everyone does it at some point. Anyone who claims never to have drunk too one at one time is either lying or seriously boring.

Supermarkets choose to sell their alcohol as a loss-leader [or to offer wine coupons] because they want to. And why is it anything to do with the government? It's their business for crying out loud!

Why won't they just leave us alone? Please?

The number of volunteers in Britain has fallen by a quarter in the past decade. I'm not overly surprised by that, even if a quarter is a large number. But I don't think that it can possibly be claimed to be directly the government's fault for failing to support them.

Volunteers don't volunteer because the government does or doesn't support them - they volunteer to do some good in their community or elsewhere. They volunteer to help others in some way. What the State thinks matters little to them.

Instead, it is indirectly the government's fault. This is because they have fostered a society of reliance on the State rather than the individual. At the same time as this, they have made it progressively harder to volunteer - CRB forms being quite possibly the biggest offender. Not because they are in themselves a bad idea, but just because the Criminal Records Bureau are so damn slow! They have also extended it to cover too many situations.

I am both a Scout leader and a St John Ambulance first aider. I don't do them for purely altruistic reasons, because I do them because it makes me feel good to have done them. There are two ways that people decide to become Scout leaders or otherwise involved in the Movement: (a) Their children join Scouts and they get dragged in, or (b) they are Scouts and want to give others the chance to do it. That's my reason. I am a Scout leader because I want to pass on the fantastic knowledge and experience that I got as a Beaver, Cub, Scout and Venture Scout. I want todays children to be able experience it as well.

Some people forget - or simply don't realise - that Scout leaders and first aiders don't get paid. They get nothing from doing it but the experience and knowledge that they are doing something good. It was fantastic to see the Scout contingent in the Remembrance Sunday parade yesterday and the voice-over reminding people of this fact - it is all voluntary.

The reason the number of volunteers has declined is because the government has indirectly stifled independent charity in favour of State redistribution. But nobody works for the State for free, yet thounsands will work for charities for free. The amount of paperwork surrounding volunteer charities needs to shrink, and it needs to be simplified. Or else the volunteer won't be just an endangered species, but an extinct one.

Source: The Telegraph

This isn't paternalism, and it certainly isn't libertarian!

How can this be defended, at all, and by anyone? The proposals are absurd and certainly cannot be said to fit under the term "libertarian paternalism". The libertarian bit, for starters, is just utterly opposite to this very idea. And neither it is paternalistic because paternalism isn't that totalitarian.

This is nothing short of a totalitarian idea. Despite the charade of a claim that this is "preserving individual choice", that individual choice is subject to their approval - certainly if you want to smoke it is. Why should I have to apply, and pay, for a permit to allow me to kill myself with tobacco smoke? Why should there be an "exercise hour" that I choose or not choose to participate in? If I want to exercise more than walking to the fridge to get another beer, I will as and when I want to. Not when the State says I should.

This idea is proposing nothing short of a totalitarian state, where you can't do anything without the permission of your "betters" who run the State. This is an Nanny State proposal, and any claim that it "preserving individual choice" is utter bollocks. It quite obviously isn't.

It's not paternalistic, it certainly isn't libertarian. It is nothing short of totalitarian.

How on earth did they reach this conclusion?

So they want more government control over us, now extending into our eating and exercise habits - despite admitting that they have absolutely no clue how to do it?

Saying that the individual is not to blame for their own obesity is like saying that it's not waters fault it's wet. Only they can decide what they eat and how much they exercise. Yes there are some genetic signposts that make some more prone to obesity that others, but that is simply not a good enough excuse.

Likewise, you can't blame society. Just because lots of people are fat doesn't mean that it is why one particular person is. Being obese is, rightly, regarded as being a bad thing. How many obese celebrities are there?! In that world, it's the opposite which is the problem. Society does not deem your weight, size or body-fat content. Only the individual can through eating and exercising appropriately.

The only person to blame for obesity is the tub of lard themselves. They either eat too much, the wrong stuff, or don't exercise enough. No-one force-feeds them fast food. No-one ties them to the couch. The only person who is to blem for their condition is themselves - and to suggest otherwise is utterly wrong.

Also, even if it wasn't the individuals fault for their obesity, it still wouldn't be the job of Nanny State to come in and "take action". Espiecally when they have absolutely no idea what they could possibly do anyway - bar banning all bad food and enforcing exercise.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

Drive in a green way!

Lessons in "eco-driving"? What the hell is "eco-driving"? And why should the government give people lessons in it anyway?

Why won't they just leave us all alone? Trying to force us to drive in a "green" way, though driving lessons, has just got to be counter-productive in terms of carbon-output anyway, since the amount generated taking these lessons is bound to more than that saved by "eco-driving" itself. Not to mention that the Commission for Integrated Transport probably used more carbon in researching and making their report than will ever be saved by it. We'd probably all be environmentally better off if they hadn't done anything at all. We'd certainly be better off in every other way.

Source: The Times

More attempts to make people stop smoking, this time using pictures:

Why are they doing this? Aren't the current 'warnings' such as "smoking kills" etc. good enough? Why do they want to change it all? And what do they expect it to achieve? Either the government think that smokers are too stupid to read, hence the pictures, or they are on a crusade against people making their own choices.

People will not stop smoking because of a few nasty pictures, any more than they will due to a line of text telling them how bad smoking is for them - something smokers already know. Yet they actually made a mistake on at least one of the new warnings - the one I've used in the picture [right] says "Smoking causes fatal lung cancer". The truth is actually that smoking can, potentially, cause lung cancer - which may or may not be fatal. But I suppose that wouldn't fit on quite so easily.

Smoker choose to do so. The government has already tried almost everything to stop them from doing so - that constant addition of tax, the ban on smoking in public spaces, the first attempt at warning labels, and probably many others I've forgotten. These new warning labels will make no difference to those who smoke and those who want to smoke. They already know it's bad for them, they already know that it is addictive. Yet they smoke anyway.

What business of the government's is it to stop them from harming themselves? The government's job stops at the education of the potential risks. After they have done that, it is up to the individual to make their choice. To smoke or not to smoke, to drink or not to drink. That is the question, and the answer can only be made by the individual themselves.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

Should any books be banned?

"The Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers, says Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders...
The call to treat the Koran in the same way as Adolf Hitler's biography, which has been banned by the Dutch for over 60 years, is the latest in a long line of Islam controversies sparked by Mr Wilders, who lives under tight security after murder attempts by suspected Islamist terrorists." (The Telegraph)

Comparing the Koran, a religious text, to Mein Kampf is a direct attempt to cast Islam as a fascist and dictatorial religion, a fact belied by the large number of "moderate" Muslims, and the large number of Islamic religious leaders, with no central authority figure - unlike most other "mainstream" religions. You could also claim that the Bible encourages [or at least has caused] murder, such as the witch hunts of Early Modern Europe. But I have absolutely no intention of making my argument on this basis. Instead I wish to ask this question: What are books?

Books are the repositiory of thought in a written and printed form. They offer text in a way that can be perused and interpreted by the individual. They do not dictate what an individual can or should do. You can, and should, read books from as many political views as possible. I have read Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto, but I am by no means a Communist, or even share any of their views. I've read Hobbes, Burke, Rousseau, and Locke too. A book does not, and cannot, make a person do anything. It can, and they do, offer excuses for people to do and believe things, but they do not give people views.

Why should any book be banned because it esposes unconventional views, or support for something - anything - we find reprehensible nowadays? This is censorship, and something which we are supposed to be above in this day and age. Unless a book is nothing more than a hate-filled invective, on what possible basis could, or should, it be banned? The principles of freedom of speech and freedom of press should mean that few, if any, books are banned.

I have read neither the Koran nor Mein Kampf - which is, by all accounts, a boring and stodgy read - but I can see no basis for the banning of either of them. No books should be banned on the basis that Wilders is claiming, or any other. Like Tom Paine points out, it is rather ironic that the leader of the "Freedom Party" should call for the banning of a book. I can see absolutely no reason why the Koran should be banned anywhere - and the same for Mein Kampf. Like making Holocaust denial a crime, it is just wrong. They don't need to be banned, just ridiculed.

Source: The Telegraph

Yet another load of interfering rubbish from this government:

"Muslim or Christian guest house owners who refuse to accept homosexual couples must impose a "sleeping together ban" on all other guests, the Government says.
As the holiday season gets under way, Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.
If gays are turned away, the only way a Christian or Muslim guest house owner can lawfully stay in business is if he or she offers single bedrooms to all guests - straight or gay." (The Telegraph)

To start with, I don't think that hotels or guest houses are at all right to refuse their services to gay couples. But this is a really stupid idea. To say that you won't let a gay couple share a room is as bad to refuse to let a black couple do the same. It is bigotry. But for the government to say that "either you let gay couples share a room, or no-one" is just absurd.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a leading Church of England liberal, said:

"It is nonsense for the Government to allow any loopholes for religious homophobia... Bigotry is bigotry whether it's dressed up in the language of faith or not."

This is indeed true - bigotry is bigotry, whether or not based on religion. But I think the demand for what amounts to a sex ban is ridiculous, and taking government interfering to yet another level.

Note: I'm not supporting hotels who refuse to rent rooms to gay couples, but I don't think that it is the government's job to force them to do so or go out of business. Society can, and should, do that by avoiding such hotels and guest houses.

Source: The Telegraph

The revelations are coming thick and fast today on cabinet ministers and their "youthful" drug use. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary started this off by admitting that, when asked whether or not she had ever smoked cannabis, saying:

"I have. I did when I was at university. I think it was wrong that I smoked it when I did. I have not done for 25 years."

This has now been followed by revelations from Alistair Darling that he had smoked cannabis "occasionally in my youth", Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andy Burnham, who had smoked it "once or twice at university", Hazel Blears who tried cannabis "once or twice when very young," and, surprisingly, Ruth Kelly as well.

And my comment, as I said when David Cameron was accused of smoking cannabis, is: So what? Who cares? So you smoked cannabis when you were at university? Many people do. Politicians can have pasts too! It may have mattered in the past, but not any more.

It is all due to the government wanting to reclassify cannabis back to a Class B drug, and being able to point the finger at David Cameron for not having answered whether or not he has smoked cannabis in his past. This sort of mass "coming out" will protect them all from any negative repercussions from these "revelations", but also makes them wide open to the sort of joke I have used as the title of this post. By doing this, they don't necessarily win or lose anything, except for maybe a bit of disgruntlement from some especially anti-drug campaigners.

It is amusing that all the politicians who admit having tried cannabis also all say that they didn't enjoy it, or that it didn't do anything for them. What a load of bollocks they're talking! People wouldn't do it if it had no effect, and be refusing to admit that they liked it even the tiniest bit gains them no points back from the anti-drugs squad or wins them any from those who have or do smoke cannabis.

Reclassifying cannabis back up to Class B isn't going to work very well, and their justifications for it on the grounds of fears that its use is linked to psychotic illness, depression and suicide among young people are pretty slim. I've pretty much come round to thinking that cannabis should be legal, since it barely seems to have any worse effects than drinking alcohol or cigarette smoking, and being legal would cut down the extent to which it is a "gateway drug".

At what age should people be able to drive, and what restrictions should be put on them?

"The minimum driving age must be raised from 17 to 18 to stop young people "killing themselves and others", MPs have said.
The Commons transport committee also wants learner drivers to spread lessons over a year before taking the test and a complete alcohol ban for new drivers.
Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night, the report adds.
The government said it would not rule out adopting the proposals." (BBC)

Why should the minimum driving age be 18? What is the point of making it older - and adding stupid new qualifications to the license? The proposals in the Transport Select Committees report include:

• people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18

What is the point of this? Some learn fast, and are naturally good at driving and need very few lessons before they are ready [like my older brother] and some really aren't very good and need a lot of lessons [like me].

• drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus

See above. Some people need more lessons than others. Setting a "minimum" means that those who learn fast have to wait, and those who learn slower could be pushed into taking a test before they are ready.

• extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be

The hazard-perception part of the theory test is really badly made, badly thought out, and doesn't work. I have taken the test [twice*], and it is pointless. It doesn't explain how you should tell the computer that you see a hazard properly - and there are far more hazards than the computer training could recognise anyway! Computer simulation doesn't "encourage better habits" at all. It does nothing useful - real driving on the road does that.

• a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test

Why? In my experience, new drivers very rarely drink at all when driving. It is the older drivers who do so, as they are more confident in their driving ability. Placing this sort of extra limit on new drivers is a stupid idea. Why should new drivers get singled out for this sort of discrimination?

• banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test
  

No, no, no no no. You can't make new drivers second class motorists. Not only that, this sort of restriction is pretty much unpoliceable. Besides, what difference does this make to road crashes?!

The MPs' report also points out that:

"[A]lthough just one in eight licence holders is aged under 25, a third of drivers killed are under 25.
This rises to a half of all drivers killed at night." (The Telegraph)

And how is that particularly surprising? The under-25s tend to be less experienced drivers than the over-25s, so they are inevitably going to have more crashes and more deaths. They also tend to have older cars with less good, and fewer, safety features.

Don't pick on the young drivers in this way. It won't have any benefit in the long, and help no-one. More young drivers will continue to get killed in road crashes than older drivers. This will not change however much extra training you insist they have, or however many restrictions you out on their driving. When it comes down to it, new drivers tend to obey more road laws than the "experienced" drivers.

* Passed both times. Need to take it again, though, as this one has expired. I've only had one practical test, mainly because I don't have the time for lessons, and continual moving between towns means I don't have the chance to take the test, considering the absurd waiting lists - 6 weeks plus!
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times

Want to eat a burger? Pizza? Chips? It may cost you more from now on:

"More than 3,000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented in the UK each year if VAT was slapped on a vast range of foods, say Oxford researchers.
A 17.5% rise on fatty, sugary or salty food would cut heart and stroke deaths by 1.7%, the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health said.
One of the researchers declared the time was right to debate a "fat tax"." (BBC)

So more than 3,000 people effectively kill themselves through eating food that is bad for them. So what? People know that fatty foods are bad for them if they eat too much. People know that much of this could be offset though exercise, and that eating healthier stuff would be better for them anyway. But people choose to do it. If more than 3,000 people want to cause their own death each year, what business of the government to interfere?

This is especially amusing considering that it has also been revealed that free fruit doesn't give any long term benefits:

"A government scheme to give free fruit to schoolchildren may not result in any long-term health benefits, say experts.
The government has spent millions of pounds giving daily free fruit or vegetables to four to six-year-olds in state schools in England.
But researchers found that while vitamin levels were initially boosted, they fell away after a few months." (BBC)

So now they know that giving people free healthy food won't make any real benefits, they're going to try to the other tactic - making them pay extra to eat unhealthy foods.

If people want to kill themselves through eating too much fatty stuff, smoking, drinking, or anything else, it is not the governments job to interfere. At all. Making us pay more for what we want will not prevent us from having it. Education of the bad effects of doing it is the only way - and even that needs to be done in a non-preaching manner. Saying don't drink/smoke/eat fatty foods because it's bad will not make people not drink/smoke/eat fatty foods. Providing information on the downsides of too much drinking/smoking/eating fatty foods is far more likely to make people thing about and rectify their lifestyles. But it is, and must remain, their choice.

One of the most amusing things about the idea of a "fat tax" is that "the idea was dismissed in 2004 by former prime minister Tony Blair as too suggestive of a "nanny state""!

Sources: BBC - article 1, article 2

"A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit."
- Alan Johnson, Health Secretary

A plethora of "No Smoking" signs have now gone up across England, outside all "enclosed public spaces". But England is not going to be "smoke-free," like Alan Johnson claims, unless somehow smoking was made illegal without any of us noticing. The ban, now in place [since 6am this morning], only exists in enclosed public spaces. There is no provision or legal standing for the prevention of smoking in other places. However, this hasn't of course stopped some councils, who have unilaterally decided to extend the ban to playgrounds and parks. This is, however, not legally enforceable. Councils do not have the ability or right to prevent people smoking there.

Smoking is only illegal inside - not outside. Thus England certainly won't be "smoke-free" - the smokers will simply all move outside. What it will mean is that doorways and beer gardens become pretty much the preserve of smokers. Whilst some smokers will kick the habit due to the law and a disgusting attempt to get children to morally blackmail their parents, I very much doubt that the vast majority will.

This sort of authoritarian ban will not make England "smoke-free" at all. Instead, it will simply persecute a minority for having a legitimate habit - quite disgusting, yes, but legitimate. And that is simply wrong. If you want a "smoke-free country" then make smoking illegal, Alan Johnson. Actually bite the bullet. We all know that that is what you and Labour want to do.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

The smoking ban in England comes into force at 6am tomorrow [Sunday], from which time all enclosed public spaces must be smoke-free, or face a large fine. Some pubs have erected outdoor areas for smokers, and at least one plans simply to provide hi-vis jackets for the use of smokers. And one other plans to attempt to circumnavigate the ban by becoming the official embassy of an uninhabited island. Some pubs also plan to offer passive resistance to the ban by continuing to allow smoking on their premises.

For myself, I am both very much looking forward to the ban and despising it. As I have written before, I very much dislike smoking - but it is the market which should decide whether or not pubs allow smoking through their choice of watering hole, not the government though draconian legislation. If the law had even some way for pubs to continue to allow smoking - such as through a certain level of ventilation and the granting of a licence - I could offer little argument against it, and would certainly feel far less inclined to oppose it considering my dislike of smoke. But it does not, and is thus an authoritarian law which has no place in Great Britain.

There are only a few short hours in which freedom to smoke - indeed to freedom to choose - exists in England. For in eight hours time, the smoking ban will come into effect. I wonder what will be next on their list of things to ban? Probably alcohol next, as I predicted before, because it is "bad" for us - and thus we should not be allowed to do it. Well fuck them. They better not even fucking dare to think of it.

Gordon Brown has been speaking to Newsnight, and has said that he has learnt his lessons about using top-down government, and thus presumably excessive state control. He said:

"I have learned a lot in the last ten years. I have learned that top-down, 'pulling the lever solutions' are not always the ones that are going to work best...
"You really have to involve people and build a national consensus, if you are going to solve the challenges of the future...
"We have got, in the modern world, to be able to draw on something wider than just Westminster if we are going to govern effectively." (BBC)

But has he really? I would be surprised. There certainly hasn't been abating of Nanny State legislation recently, and neither has Gordo appeared to have been moved to reduce state control in and through his own departments legislation.

Over the last ten years, Gordon has hardly been Mr Deregulation, has he? Instead he has been far more Mr Extend-State-Control. Businesses are drowning under reams of red tape, and the paperwork this produces has probably killed many hundreds of trees...

Whilst most of us know and realise that excessive state control helps no-one, and usually in fact hurts more than it helps. That Gordon has realised that people want less regulation and is thus trying to paint himself in that picture is definitely a good thing, as it means that he will at least think twice before adding more state control during his [hopefully short] tenure as Prime Minister. But I very much doubt that he will be relinquishing any of the control he has already pulled into the grasp of his Great Clunking Fist. Will there be no more top-down government from Gordo? We can hope, but I very much doubt it.

Source: BBC

Why am I just not at all surprised at this story?

"The government is considering a ban on the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes because it believes they encourage children to take up smoking.
The move is part of a new wave of antitobacco legislation being considered by Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, to maintain momentum in the campaign against smoking after it is banned in enclosed public places from July 1.
Other planned curbs on tobacco sales include outlawing the display of cigarettes in newsagents and supermarkets and removing cigarette vending machines from pubs.
Hewitt believes the measures should be targeted at preventing teenagers from becoming hooked on cigarettes." (The Times)

It is just another really bad thought out and completely unnecessarily intrusive idea.

Smoking is not illegal, and therefore the government should stay away from dictating how people who choose to smoke do it. They may wish to buy packets of ten, twenty, or any other number that is made - and that is their choice. They are already telling people that they can't smoke in pubs - and virtually all other public spaces - from July 1. Is that not enough dictation into how and where people who choose to smoke do it?! Obviously not for Nanny State.

Next they'll be saying that off-licences can't sell beer in single cans or even packs of four or cider in bottles less than 5 or 10 litres in size!

If you really think about it, why would packs of ten make teenagers more likely to smoke? Surely eradicating them would cause more to smoke? After all, twenty is twice as many cigarettes as ten, and if you've spent so much money on them, you might as well smoke them... I just can't see how packets of ten cigarettes can cause teenagers to smoke any more than any other size, especially since packs of twenty cost less per cigarette than ten-packs. If this stupid idea every made it into law, I would fully support, and laugh heartily, if tobacco companies produced packs of 12 or something instead.

Why is Patricia Hewitt saying this sort of stuff anyway? Everyone knows she will be out of a job from June 27!

Image by Cigarette Packet Generator
Source: The Times

Why is it anything to do with the government, or politics at all, whether or not supermarkets give customers money-off vouchers for wine - or anything else, for that matter? It really isn't. Yet that still just doesn't stop them:

"Tesco's policy of sending money-off vouchers to customers who buy a lot of wine has been questioned during a Commons grilling over loyalty schemes.
Chairman of the influential Commons home affairs committee, John Denham, said the supermarket giant's Clubcard scheme could encourage alcohol abuse.
But Tesco's Nick Eland insisted the firm marketed goods responsibly...
Mr Denham questioned whether this [sending out wine coupons] was a "responsible" approach to marketing, "in view of the government's alcohol strategy this week"." (BBC)

Why does it matter if they send out wine vouchers to those who drink a lot of wine? People tend to buy what they want, so offering them coupons for more of the same is a good thing for the customer and for the company, as then they come back and buy more!

People are not stupid, however much certain people may think that they are. They know that alcohol can be bad for them. They really don't need to be told. The normal customer won't drink more just because they got some money off, but will just mean that they spend less of their own money on what they would otherwise had bought.

No matter how much the state wants to control how much people drink, it is really nothing to do with them. I will drink what I bloody well want to drink. I know it can have bad effects - but so can everything else. I don't drink wine very often anyway, but lager - and unfortunately Tesco's don't seem to send out coupons for that [although that reminds I do have a wine coupon I haven't used yet...].

Source: BBC