Friday, 23 March 2012

Why attack this man's small pleasure?

****


There we are in the checkout queue at Morrisons. Ahead of us is an elderly gentleman with a small basket of goods – a pack of bacon, a couple of small tins, some apples and a couple of cans of beer. All this grocery was taken from the shelf filled with goods being cleared out and hugely discounted.

The beer? That was at 45p a can – well under the proposed minimum price. Somehow, I don’t think this elderly man was going to “pre-load” himself before heading out on the town to create mayhem and disorder! He’s much more likely to be a poor pensioner who, once a week, buys a couple of cans to drink while watching racing on the telly.

Yet, minimum pricing will target him – he will pay extra. Or more likely, buy just the one can. How exactly does making this man pay more help anyone, save any life or reduce any crime? What benefit does society get from making this man’s life just a little more expensive, just a little less pleasant? I can see none but with minimum prices that is what we get.

...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The aristocratic class of experts and false-prophets pushing for bans, prohibitions, price fixing and elimination of property rights, rights to socially assemble, rights to freely market and advertise - they are all morally bankrupt and thus no pleading to sense of morality or ultimate harm done to a fellow human being because of liberties stolen will have any effect on such souless, gutless, life sucking vampires in charge of government and the bureaucracy that rules over us with an iron fisted glove. You make a valid point. But the morally bankrupted and politically corrupted elites in charge have no way in which to discern the difference between evil and good, so there is no way the message can get through to them. They are lost beyond all hope of redemption.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Minimum pricing means that out of date, or damaged, beer is no longer allowed to be put in the bargain bin. Yet another restraint of trade from the coalition.

UKIP phones are apparently ringing off the hook this week. ;)

Anonymous said...

Why attack this man's small pleasure?


It used to be that normal behaviour was decided for the most part by normal people.
But that was before lobby groups persuaded politicians that they alone should decide what was normal for us.

For example-

"Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full

We don't get a say.


Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: "We have to start de-normalising alcohol - it is not like other types of food and drink."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12599471

Once again,this seems to have been started by the previous government that we thought we had got rid of.

Supermarket shoppers could face 'walk of shame' to alcohol checkout counter in bid to curb growing binge-drinking culture - 2008

"Stores would have to create the 'alcohol-only' areas manned by specially-trained staff.
This would hopefully deter shoppers from making excessive purchases by putting them under the scrutiny of fellow customers."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079515/Supermarket-shoppers-face-walk-shame-alcohol-checkout-counter.html


Teetotallers are the 'new pariahs' - Health Secretary warns on Britain's drink habit - 2009

'Non-drinkers are often subjected to the same disdain that non- smokers were 30 or 40 years ago - they are the odd ones out at the office party, watching the football in the pub, at the family celebration."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163092/Teetotallers-new-pariahs--Health-Secretary-warns-Britains-drink-habit.html

You can see what they were up to.
A small reduction on an out of date tin of beer?
Healthists when they get started don't to do compromise, even tiny ones.Better to crush it.


[Article 8]

24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments.

If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately,
Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal."
http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

And now they are moving onto food.