Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

An alcohol ban would have caused full societal breakdown imo.

The polis would have loved it mind. You only have to remember the massive hard ons they get when they find a 6 pack of stella on a supporters bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

"Good idea" may have been the wrong phrase. "Banning alcohol sales to ensure a better compliance with National restrictions which may, or may not, have a beneficial effect on a wider aim of reducing the number of fatalities from a previously unknown virus but would have denied a proportion of the population the opportunity of indulging in an entirely unnecessary drug for the duration and could, in this light, have been seen on balance to have been a positive measure" might have been better, but I'm not sure it would fit P&B's current binary environment - or the reasoning skills of many of its users.

TL;DR; Is Tennent's more important than yer Granny?

How does me having a few cans in the house kill anyone's grandparents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Szamo's_Ammo said:

Absolutely.

If only I thought you were joking..

One thing this whoile shambles has shown is a complete breakdown of societal responsibility. More extreme than masks, but similarly, a temporary ban on alcohol would have had no. or negligible effect on you personally, but over the nation I would be confident it would have seen higher levels of compliance with other restrictions. Yeah, it would impact many people, but Covid also impacts a lot of people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

 Surprising (not) wee red dot - even less surprising is the lack of a post explaining why it was given. Haven't got the balls to comment until the gang get here, wee man? Pathetic, just like your cheerleaders.

It's a coloured circle on a football forum - who gives a tinker's cuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

a temporary ban on alcohol would have had no. or negligible effect on you personally, but over the nation I would be confident it would have seen higher levels of compliance with other restrictions. Yeah, it would impact many people, but Covid also impacts a lot of people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

Alcohol ban wouldn't be viable as you'd risk harm to people with an alcohol dependancy.

None of the four people in my family who have died/are on the way thanks to drink were ever harmed by not having a drink. Crashing cars when pissed, getting into ill-advised fights when pissed, cheating on their partners when pissed, battering younger family members when pissed, setting fire to their bed/furniture when pissed - all pretty harmful.

Not having a drink? Not so much, unless you count the withdrawal symptoms from a drug which you voluntarily decided to engage with, having seen the effect it was having on others. And that's not harm, that's the consequences of a self-inflicted addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

If only I thought you were joking..

One thing this whoile shambles has shown is a complete breakdown of societal responsibility. More extreme than masks, but similarly, a temporary ban on alcohol would have had no. or negligible effect on you personally, but over the nation I would be confident it would have seen higher levels of compliance with other restrictions. Yeah, it would impact many people, but Covid also impacts a lot of people.

I didn't have a drink between March and August actually but most people would be able to envisage the huge societal resistance and hostility an alcohol ban would cause.

It's not just the alcoholics on the street that a lot of people don't care about. It's the workers who need to have a bottle of wine every night to wind down and the mummies who need their drinky-poos once the kids are in bed.

Illegal warehouses selling and serving booze would only increase the chance of the virus spreading.

Would you want the schools open to full capacity at the same time as the alcohol ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

ETA: Surprising (not) wee red dot - even less surprising is the lack of a post explaining why it was given. Haven't got the balls to comment until the gang get here, wee man? Pathetic, just like your cheerleaders.

This might be one of the most tragic things I’ve ever read. It’s a wee red dot on an internet forum, mate. I think you might need some fresh air. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the four people in my family who have died/are on the way thanks to drink were ever harmed by not having a drink. Crashing cars when pissed, getting into ill-advised fights when pissed, cheating on their partners when pissed, battering younger family members when pissed, setting fire to their bed/furniture when pissed - all pretty harmful.
Not having a drink? Not so much, unless you count the withdrawal symptoms from a drug which you voluntarily decided to engage with, having seen the effect it was having on others. And that's not harm, that's the consequences of a self-inflicted addiction.
Suppose we'll be withdrawing the methadone from heroin addicts then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Szamo's_Ammo said:

I didn't have a drink between March and August actually but most people would be able to envisage the huge societal resistance and hostility an alcohol ban would cause.  Just like most people envisaged how the whole pandemic malarkey would unfold?

It's not just the alcoholics on the street that a lot of people don't care about. It's the workers who need to have a bottle of wine every night to wind down and the mummies who need their drinky-poos once the kids are in bed. "Need"? That's an alcoholic, right there. Penthouse or pavement, no difference - it's no less a problem (and sometimes much more of one) if it is affordable.

Illegal warehouses selling and serving booze would only increase the chance of the virus spreading. Aye, we're living in 1920's Chicago, right enough. I can see a rise in home-brewing, but speakeasies?

Would you want the schools open to full capacity at the same time as the alcohol ban? Nope.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:
7 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:
None of the four people in my family who have died/are on the way thanks to drink were ever harmed by not having a drink. Crashing cars when pissed, getting into ill-advised fights when pissed, cheating on their partners when pissed, battering younger family members when pissed, setting fire to their bed/furniture when pissed - all pretty harmful.
Not having a drink? Not so much, unless you count the withdrawal symptoms from a drug which you voluntarily decided to engage with, having seen the effect it was having on others. And that's not harm, that's the consequences of a self-inflicted addiction.

Suppose we'll be withdrawing the methadone from heroin addicts then?

Ideally, yes. Methadone, as is well documented, is, in itself, much more damaging than the drugs it is used to "treat". Managed withdrawal is the way forward, but any reasonably successful addiction treatment costs money, which yer Mail readers won't have spent on "junkie scum" while we can't afford to house homeless veterans - who, btw, overwhelmingly also have substance issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...