SOCIETY for an ADDICTION FREE EUROPE (SAFE) in association with ADDICTION RECOVERY TRAINING SERVICES (ARTS) (self-help recovery training for voluntary and O.S.T. addicts) and ADDICTION WITHDRAWAL ADVISORY SERVICES & HELP (AWASH) (helping involuntarily addicted patients to recover from their drug medication)
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Life Crippling Alcohol
CURRENT U.K. ALCOHOL LAWS ENCOURAGE SCHOOL
AGE CHILDREN’S BOOZE PROBLEMS,
TEACHING THEM SLOW AND DIFFICULT, AND
DEVELOP FUTURE DEMAND FOR MANY
OTHER ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES.
just a couple of decades ago the legal drinking age was reduced from
21 to 18 in the political hope of increasing the size of the group of
voters supporting the party of the government then in power, official
backing was unfortunately added to today’s increasing problems of
binge drinking – particularly amongst our teenage youngsters.
whilst this change aggravated the increasingly damaging behaviour of
mainly young people on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, this is
not the root cause of the escalation in infant, child and youth
drinking over the last several decades, a situation underlined by the
25% increase in deaths from liver failure reported in March 2012.
It is not just as a result of the legal but irresponsible public
drinking of the 18 to 21 year olds, but is rooted in the stupidly
naïve LEGALISED drinking of our children of 5 to 17 years of age
which has been gnawing away at Britain’s productivity, educational
progress, reputation and very survival for decades !
Council and national statistics on 5 to 17 year old’s drinking
habits are both horrendous and frightening, and the behavioural
results and lasting damage which follow are even worse.
from many British schools reveal that children as young as five are
using alcohol, that nine year olds and above confess to having been
drunk on many occasions, and that just under half of the age range
from 5 to 17 inclusive have drunk alcohol fairly regularly, and
continue to do so - all quite legally - when with parental approval !
THIS, OF COURSE, IS ALL BEFORE THEY REACH THE SO-CALLED “LEGAL
OF 18 YEARS.
is now 83 years since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, set out
to protect the rights and morality of those under 21 and to protect
children from neglect and abuse.
in those 83 years practically NOTHING has been done by successive tax
hungry governments to improve that protection.
Act laid down that it was illegal to allow children below 5 years of
age to drink alcohol at home or anywhere else.
EXTREMELY SMALL START TOWARDS LOGICAL AND HUMANE MEASURES.
unfortunately, as already indicated above, at that time (and still
today) busy, ill-informed or unconcerned Home Secretaries (as well as
other Ministers) have failed to fully consider the extremely
dangerous implications of allowing children from 5 years and up to
drink alcohol at home or at a friend’s house “with (so-called)
obviously did not know, as we now do today, that whilst the bodies
and brains of older persons can be more resilient, the developing
bodies, brains and minds of those below 21 years of age suffer
serious retarding of growth and efficiency, leading to slower
comprehension, poorer memory, erratic classroom and playground
behaviour, poorer sports performance, youth criminality and a
reducing standard of attainment at examinations and in employment.
did they recognise that because a child’s firsttaste
of beer, wine or spirits is usually a “yeuck” off-putting
experience, the child’s strong desire to be “grown-up” and
emulate its parents then necessitates that he or she must persevere
with getting used to the taste, and then getting to like it and its
“funny” intoxicating effects.
OTHER WORDS, A 13 YEAR LONG PERIOD FOR TRAINING TO USE ALCOHOL WAS,
LEGALLY GRANTED AT HOME.
years in which to get used to the harsh bitterness of beer, the
burning fire of spirits, the tainted sourness of wine and the
intoxicating effects from “funny” through disorientating and on
to retching, fighting, falling over and feeling lousy, whilst also
messing up your environment and your life.
darned good training it has proved to be, helped by:
booze producers sweetening their drinks to suit young palates,
successive governments failing to control alcohol strengths,
24/7 licensing hours,
cheap drinks “happy hours”,
bulk buy discounted supermarket retailing, and,
the encouraging of total drinking freedom 3 years sooner at age 18
instead of 21 in an everincreasing
number of licensed premises.
THE PROOF OF THE DRINKING LESSONS OUR CHILDREN HAVE LEGALLY
LEARNED AT HOME IS NOT ONLY WEEKLY DEMONSTRATED IN OUR TOWN CENTRES,
BUT ALSO IN THE EVER RISING ILLEGAL USAGE OF CANNABIS AND OTHER EVEN
MORE ADDICTIVE AND DAMAGING SUBSTANCES.
relationship between DRINK and DRUGS MUST
be quoted because, when surveyed, a significantly large majority of
13 to 17 year olds admitted that the first time they were persuaded
to try smoking cannabis was immediately after having had 1 or 2 beers
or other alcohol IN THE SAFETY OF THEIR OWN OR A FRIEND’S HOME, and
a similar number of them admitted that this applied to their second
nearly half of those who had been persuaded to “make a first try”
when drinking, went on to use cannabis again, some only now and then,
but most of them on a fully addicted basis.
also asked: “Would
you have tried the cannabis on that first occasion if you had not
Practically all of them replied - in one way or another - that they
didn’t think so.
PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL OF ALL TYPES IS THAT IT CHANGES AND QUICKLY
REDUCES THE RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL, EMOTIONAL CONDITION AND JUDGEMENT
OF THE DRINKER, THUS NO LONGER PROTECTING HIM OR HER FROM IRRATIONAL
DECISIONS AND ACTIONS.
follows that children allowed to drink alcohol from 5 years on, by
the time they have reached 12 or 13 are already consuming 6-packs of
beer or bottles of something with friends IN ONE OF THEIR HOMES.
that when a “mate” produces a cannabis spliff during an evening
comprised of video games and legal
drinking, three-quarters of them find saying “YES” to cannabis
far easier than saying “NO”.
THEIR FIRST EXPERIMENTS WITH ALCOHOL HAD BEEN AT 21 YEARS INSTEAD OF
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 WHAT A VASTLY DIFFERENT WORLD IT WOULD BE !
as many teenagers would be on cannabis, andnot
as many would fail and have to re-sit their GCSEs and “A” levels.
And not as many would drop out of university, or give up sport. We
would have more better athletes. There would be a drop in road and
other accidents, less teenage crime, less premature juvenile deaths
and shorter queues of methadone prescribed youngsters at Job Centres
THERE WOULD BE FAR FEWER TEENAGE GIRLS LEAVING SCHOOL EARLY TO BRING
UP THEIR BABIES.
the minimum price of alcohol starts to tackle the SUPPLY part of the
equation, but DEMAND REDUCTION has always been the more significant
monitoring factor in any marketplace.
course it’s far less than 1% of children who start at 5 years old
with a “special treat” at aunty’s wedding or birthday, but its
up to 16% who have started by 10 years, 50 to 60% by 15 years and 80%
by 17 years.
by the time they reach the legal drinking age of 18 their consumption
is already at binge levels.
increasing minimum pricing may help.
reduce the number of licensed premises and their hours of business.
reduce the maximum permitted strengths of alcoholic drinks, but also
PLEASE reduce the size of the market DEMAND by making the legal age
for drinking ANYWHERE
– including at home – at least 18 years or better still 21 –
thus supporting sensible parents by giving them the power to say to
their kids “NO,
IT’S AGAINST THE LAW”,
and the right or even the duty to lock their pantries and booze
cupboards is a first massive step in the direction of Thursday,
Friday and Saturday night sanity and a population of school-children
with a far brighter future.
the same time as lifting the suppressive effects of alcohol off our
younger children’s learning, performance and enjoyment of life,
because youth alcohol home usage has proved the most significant
gateway to starting cannabis and
new booze laws can begin to have a significant effect on drug
consumption as well as on alcohol usage.
those countries where it IS
illegal for children of any age to be allowed alcohol
at home - so that the parents (not the kids) are those responsible for
the enforcing of the law - police and the authorities have found it is
necessary to randomly raid family homes every night.
tell tales and point fingers, and every recently guilty set of
parents in each town or city, WHOSE CRIME IS THOROUGHLY EXPOSED IN
THEIR LOCAL PRESS, is enough to make the law work extraordinarily
WHAT ABOUT “HUMAN RIGHTS” MANY MAY BLEAT.
people have a right to do what they like at home, and parents are
entitled to bring up their kids as they see fit.”
NO, THEY ARE NOT.
law does not allow the sexual abuse of children in the family. It
does not allow parental assault on children. It does not allow them
to be used as child labour.
parent cannot supply illegal drugs to a child, but IT IS MAINLY
IT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL
TO DO SO that parents often regrettably have few reservations about
allowing their kids to use alcohol.
have these sanctions, which are built on key principles, for the
protection and nurturing of a new generation, in order to uphold and
improve upon the democratic rights and freedoms of the majority.
law accepts that children up to the age of culpability do not know
right from wrong. And on this basis, children of 10 years and under
totally rely upon parents or guardians to protect them from all
physical and emotional harm, including the development of habits
which have the potential to adversely affect the rest of their life.
10 years the child has legal responsibility for his or her own
conduct and condition, but with the drinking laws as they stand, it
is totally permissible for teenagers to drink and even get drunk
every day without being held responsible for their actions.
if it were illegal for ANYONE to drink alcohol ANYWHERE
under the age of 18, or better still, 21 years, then both the parents
would feel the need to exercise responsibility over their choices and
actions, thus helping us move towards the drug-free society we all
basically need and want.
the truth is that NO HOME SECRETARY, CHANCELLOR, PRIME MINISTER,
OTHER POLITICIAN OR PARENT has the right to ruin a child’s
potential for a long, happy and successful life by allowing or
encouraging them to acclimatise themselves to regularly drinking a
dose of addictive poison at any time.
HAVE ONLY RECENTLY RE-CONFIRMED THAT THE REGULAR
DRINKING OF EVEN JUST ONE GLASS OF BEER OR WINE DEFINITELY IMPINGES
ON THEIR DEVELOPING BRAINS AND RUINS THEIR MENTAL CAPABILITIES AND
what about a drunkard’s behaviour and how it impinges on the
environment and on the rest of us in so many different ways -
including violence and other abuse within the family and in the
if one is never present to be shocked by the behaviour of weekly town
centre binge drinking, as a rate-payer or taxpayer it still hits
basically everyone may have a right to do as he or she likes, that
right can be justified only as long as it does not rob other people
of THEIR rights – directly or indirectly - and an addict and drunk
free society is felt by most electors to be their right.
any none drinking household children tend to be much more relaxed,
hard working, obedient, loving and family orientated. But, many of
these qualities go out of the window as soon as alcohol is officially
allowed for ALL family members.
IS THEREFORE TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO: JUST SAY “NO” TO INFANT,
CHILD, JUVENILE AND ADOLESCENT DRINKING, SO THAT PARENTS MAY MUCH
SAY THE SAME TO THEIR CHILDREN.
might even end drunken brawling between MPs in Parliament.)
would keep our town centres cleaner and easier to police.
Importantly, it would delay starting on damaging drugs, as well as
reducing the number of deaths from liver failure caused by the last
decade’s increase in younger usage of both alcohol and cannabis.
THE BURNING POLICY QUESTION IS . . . .How
can continuing to legalise children to practice and develop drinking
skills at home for 13 years (before going out to paint the town red
at 18) ever be considered sane, legal and defensible by any Home
Secretary or Prime Minister seeking re-election ? Especially if they
have children of their own !
need their hands strengthening in the fight against demand from
within their own family, and against alcoholic youth behaviour.
the present law goes totally against supporting effective sober
parenting, by allowing the kids to loudly, justifiably and
Dad, Mum, you have to admit: IT’S TOTALLY LEGAL - so where can be
marketplace is based on “supply” and “demand”, and DEMAND has
always been the dominant governing factor.
how REDUCTION OF DEMAND KILLS SUPPLY !
REDUCING DEMAND for Drugs and Alcohol will have the same effect on
do not for one moment expect the suppliers of any such addictive
substances – including ESPECIALLY THE LEGAL AND LICENSED ALCOHOL
SUPPLIERS – to effectively practice any form of self-regulation or
to offer any sensible advice on demand reduction.
REDUCTION BY SELF-REGULATION OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER IS TOTALLY
AGAINST THEIR PROFIT MAKING PRINCIPLES
and is like leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house . . . AGAIN
objectives of ALL commercial operations are to increase
the number of users of their products, to increase
the amount each customer consumes, to maximise
the profit on each sale and to avoid
losing any consumers
for any reason.
these goals are often regrettably supported by the objectives of any
and ALL governments, which are to Increase the number of electors
voting for their Party, to increase the amount of tax income they
have to work with and to thus maximise the attainment of the core
goals of their particular political beliefs.
As a consequence alcohol
suppliers and drug suppliers - such as tobacco producers, sugar
purveyors and pharmaceutical companies – enjoy a bitter / sweet
relationship with governments.
because these commercial
operations supply governments with a major proportion of their tax
income (plus drink for those MPs who do),
but intensely BITTER:
a) because of the various life
spoiling and destroying devastations their products inflict on a
major part of our population,
b) because of the increases in
crime they engender,
c) because of the long term
extra health, policing and benefits costs they create,
d) because of what they do to
destroy student potential and because of the burden they place on the
lives of most other people – especially teachers and police.
So, let us look at what we
must do, with legislation and in other ways, in order to start
providing most of our population with a happier life.
However, before we set off,
shouldn’t we first decide on what goal we should be aiming for –
for the benefit of a majority of our population.
about reaching for A DRUG & ADDICTION FREE SOCIETY ?
THE ESSENCE OF AN
ADDICTION-FREE SOCIETY IS THATNO-ONE IS THREATENED BY
THE BEHAVIOUR OF ADDICTS, BECAUSE NO ONE IS USING
ADDICTIVE DRUGS, AND
NO ONE INTENDS TO USE THEM.
IMPOSSIBLE AND UNOBTAINABLE
VERY LIKELY !
But that should never be
allowed to stop us from HAVING a worthwhile goal and TRYING to reach
it. Especially when the ability
to get closer and closer to such a goal is also in
itself a valued result.
Worth aiming for, because
it has the vital effect of benefiting a majority in
So the definition of an
“EFFECTIVE” drugs policy is therefore one which continuously
society or community IN THE DIRECTION OF
That is: TOWARDS A SOCIETY FREE OF ADDICTIVE
By definition, such a policy must
essentially result in less and less overall production and
distribution of ALL types of addictive
(Illicit, Licensed AND
BROUGHT ABOUT BY A
CONTINUING REDUCTION IN DEMAND
a reduction in the number
of citizens of all ages using all types of drugs, both voluntarily and
what has just been written above is nearly all about the unhelpful
and in fact dangerous nature of our present old-fashioned laws on
alcohol, it is certain that you recognise what all of us as parents
must do to try and ensure that our children do not start down the
slippery path towards drug addiction by being allowed to drink
alcohol below the legal adult drinking age of 18 years.
should not only be telling our MPs to change the law, but on the
basis of the continuing current bad law we should ourselves be acting
in every way possible to keep our infants, children and teenagers
away from alcohol.
making alcohol drinking look like it is one of the pleasant benefits
of being an adult.
to avoid drinking in the presence of your children or you will make
them jealous of your adult privileges.
sure that your booze supply is always in a locked cupboard, and keep
in regular contact with the parents of your youngsters' friends to
monitor what might be happening when your children are away from home
– just in the next street or even next door.
wary of other families who drink regularly and / or heavily and who
think it is OK for THEIR kids to drink at home.
not easy, and you have to be diplomatic, but if you want your child
to avoid drug taking and addiction, you really must keep them away
from alcohol for as long as possible in their infant and teenage
is not me saying this. It is history, research and statistics
reporting what the main road to the hell of addiction is for a
majority of individuals and their families.
are facts – not guesswork.
you would like a personal copy of a booklet which:
gives you more detail on ways of keeping your children away from
tells you how to KNOW if your child is using drugs, and,
WHAT TO DO if your child IS using drugs.