In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

Now that's a good way of avoiding the point.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

I wasn't referring to smoking in particular. I'm more than happy for laws
being enforced to stop those smoking effecting non smokers nearby. Now if
only we could have the same laws about alcohol. In many town centres on a
Saturday night.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

It is a perfectly valid comment when related to the costs of alcohol abuse
to the community. After all one of the most frequently used arguments
agaist smoking is how much it costs the NHS in later life.

Pretty well all the arguments - both pro and con - can be used for most
recreational drugs. Which includes alcohol.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.