Life Crippling Alcohol

HOW CURRENT U.K. ALCOHOL LAWS ENCOURAGE 
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN’S BOOZE PROBLEMS,

MAKE TEACHING THEM SLOW AND DIFFICULT, 

AND DEVELOP FUTURE DEMAND FOR
MANY OTHER ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES.

When 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.

However, 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.

i.e. 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 !

County 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.

Statistics 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 !

AND THIS, OF COURSE, IS ALL BEFORE THEY REACH THE SO-CALLED “LEGAL DRINKING AGE” OF 18 YEARS.

It 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.

But in those 83 years practically NOTHING has been done by successive tax hungry governments to improve that protection.

That Act laid down that it was illegal to allow children below 5 years of age to drink alcohol at home or anywhere else.

AN EXTREMELY SMALL START TOWARDS LOGICAL AND HUMANE MEASURES.

But 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) parental consent”.

They 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.

Nor did they recognise that because a child’s first taste 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.

IN OTHER WORDS, A 13 YEAR LONG PERIOD FOR TRAINING TO USE ALCOHOL WAS, AND STILL IS, LEGALLY GRANTED AT HOME.

Thirteen 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.

And darned good training it has proved to be, helped by:

1) the booze producers sweetening their drinks to suit young palates,

2) by successive governments failing to control alcohol strengths,

3) by 24/7 licensing hours,

4) by cheap drinks “happy hours”,

5) by bulk buy discounted supermarket retailing, and,

6) by the encouraging of total drinking freedom 3 years sooner at age 18 instead of 21 in an ever increasing number of licensed premises.

NOW: 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.

This 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 usage.

Furthermore, 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.

When also asked: “Would you have tried the cannabis on that first occasion if you had not been drinking?”. Practically all of them replied - in one way or another - that they didn’t think so.

THE 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.

It 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.

So 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”.

IF 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 !

Not as many teenagers would be on cannabis, and not 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 drawing benefits.

FURTHERMORE THERE WOULD BE FAR FEWER TEENAGE GIRLS LEAVING SCHOOL EARLY TO BRING UP THEIR BABIES.

Increasing 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.

Of 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.

So by the time they reach the legal drinking age of 18 their consumption is already at binge levels.

YES, increasing minimum pricing may help.

YES, reduce the number of licensed premises and their hours of business.

YES, 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.

At 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 other addictions, new booze laws can begin to have a significant effect on drug consumption as well as on alcohol usage.

In 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 not necessary to randomly raid family homes every night.

Neighbours 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 well !

BUT WHAT ABOUT “HUMAN RIGHTS” MANY MAY BLEAT.

“Surely people have a right to do what they like at home, and parents are entitled to bring up their kids as they see fit.”

OH NO, THEY ARE NOT.

The 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.

A parent cannot supply illegal drugs to a child, but IT IS MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL TO DO SO that parents often regrettably have few reservations about allowing their kids to use alcohol.

We 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.

Common 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.

Above 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.

BUT, if it were illegal for ANYONE to drink alcohol ANYWHERE under the age of 18, or better still, 21 years, then both the parents and the youngsters themselves 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.

So 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.

SCIENTISTS 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 LEARNING POTENTIAL.

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 school yard.

Even 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 everyone’s pocket.

Whilst 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.

In 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.

IT IS THEREFORE TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO: JUST SAY “NO” TO INFANT, CHILD, JUVENILE AND ADOLESCENT DRINKING, SO THAT PARENTS MAY MUCH MORE SUCCESSFULLY SAY THE SAME TO THEIR CHILDREN.

(It might even end drunken brawling between MPs in Parliament.)

It 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.

SO, 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 !

Parents need their hands strengthening in the fight against demand from within their own family, and against alcoholic youth behaviour.

But the present law goes totally against supporting effective sober parenting, by allowing the kids to loudly, justifiably and effectively argue:

“But Dad, Mum, you have to admit: IT’S TOTALLY LEGAL - so where can be the harm?”

Any marketplace is based on “supply” and “demand”, and DEMAND has always been the dominant governing factor.

Recognise how REDUCTION OF DEMAND KILLS SUPPLY !

And REDUCING DEMAND for Drugs and Alcohol will have the same effect on their supply.

So 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.

BECAUSE DEMAND 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 !

The objectives of ALL commercial operations are to increase demand, 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.

And 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.

SWEET:

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.

How 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 our society.

So the definition of an “EFFECTIVE” drugs policy is therefore one which continuously moves a society or community IN THE DIRECTION OF TOTAL ABSTINENCE,

That is: TOWARDS A SOCIETY FREE OF ADDICTIVE DRUGS.

By definition, such a policy must essentially result in less and less overall production and distribution of ALL types of addictive drugs

(Illicit, Licensed AND Prescription)

BROUGHT ABOUT BY A CONTINUING REDUCTION IN DEMAND FOR THEM,

and

a reduction in the number of citizens of all ages using all types of drugs, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

Whilst 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.

We 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.

* Avoid making alcohol drinking look like it is one of the pleasant benefits of being an adult.

* Try to avoid drinking in the presence of your children or you will make them jealous of your adult privileges.

* Make 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.

* Be wary of other families who drink regularly and / or heavily and who think it is OK for THEIR kids to drink at home.

It's 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 years.

This 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.

These are facts – not guesswork.

If you would like a personal copy of a booklet which:

1) first, gives you more detail on ways of keeping your children away from addictive drugs,

2) second, tells you how to KNOW if your child is using drugs, and,

3) thirdly, WHAT TO DO if your child IS using drugs.

Phone: (01342) 810151 after 11.00am and before 9.00pm any weekday, or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com

That's (01342) 810151, and we also give you this number in case you may want to talk confidentially about your own situation or that of your family.

Finally.

YOU MAY WISH TO REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING:

a) The only people who demand drugs are addicts.  None users don't.

b) It is the usage of drugs which causes addiction, because:

c) No-one can become addicted to a drug which they never take !

So “Say 'NO' to Drugs & Drink” is still:

the most healthy and safest action for anybody & everybody to take !

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR BODY AND BRAIN

                                                                              IS LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD !