Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
We've recently experienced a case of moral panic regarding the Bill Henson photographs. You know the ones: seized by the police as being pornographic, and subsequently deemed not to be so at all.
And yesterday the AMA comes out with the ludicrous suggestion - amidst all the hysteria about binge drinking which has been going on for a while now, probably since climate change came off the media headlines - that four standard drinks, e.g. four midis of beer or four glasses of wine over a meal during an evening , constitutes binge drinking. Anyone who indulges thus will automatically be a candidate for physical and moral ruin.
And this evening, the AMA, bless their hearts has suggested that the way to stop people smoking is to ban any depiction of smoking in any art form such as films, plays etc. Their theory appears to be that any person gazing upon a screen image of a person smoking will immediately be upswept with the crazed urge to rush out and start smoking.
Now, obviously I'm completely opposed to the proliferation of pornography which involves the abuse of children and I object to smokers brushing their burning cigarettes against me as I walk down the street, but I'm just getting completely fed up with governments and organisations like the AMA treating us as though we have no personal sense of responsibility.
Binge drinking, I would have thought, is when people drink with the express intention of getting blind drunk, often to the point of physical collapse.
The government in their questionable wisdom are trying to introduce an extra tax on the alcopops products, telling us that this is what is going to eliminate binge drinking in teenagers. Really? It has already reduced consumption of these ready to drink products because the drinkers are simply turning to buying whole bottles of spirits and mixing their own, running the risk of each drink being considerably stronger than the premixed ones.
Another of Mr Rudd's thought bubbles which simply wasn't thought through?
Another gesture in order to be seen to be doing something?
I always think that most people behave pretty much as we expect them to, so if we tell people that they are too irresponsible to make wise choices for themselves, and interfere in their lives by banning and taxing indiscriminately, then chances are they will rebel and do those things anyway.
And I'll resist the urge to get started on censorship.
And yesterday the AMA comes out with the ludicrous suggestion - amidst all the hysteria about binge drinking which has been going on for a while now, probably since climate change came off the media headlines - that four standard drinks, e.g. four midis of beer or four glasses of wine over a meal during an evening , constitutes binge drinking. Anyone who indulges thus will automatically be a candidate for physical and moral ruin.
And this evening, the AMA, bless their hearts has suggested that the way to stop people smoking is to ban any depiction of smoking in any art form such as films, plays etc. Their theory appears to be that any person gazing upon a screen image of a person smoking will immediately be upswept with the crazed urge to rush out and start smoking.
Now, obviously I'm completely opposed to the proliferation of pornography which involves the abuse of children and I object to smokers brushing their burning cigarettes against me as I walk down the street, but I'm just getting completely fed up with governments and organisations like the AMA treating us as though we have no personal sense of responsibility.
Binge drinking, I would have thought, is when people drink with the express intention of getting blind drunk, often to the point of physical collapse.
The government in their questionable wisdom are trying to introduce an extra tax on the alcopops products, telling us that this is what is going to eliminate binge drinking in teenagers. Really? It has already reduced consumption of these ready to drink products because the drinkers are simply turning to buying whole bottles of spirits and mixing their own, running the risk of each drink being considerably stronger than the premixed ones.
Another of Mr Rudd's thought bubbles which simply wasn't thought through?
Another gesture in order to be seen to be doing something?
I always think that most people behave pretty much as we expect them to, so if we tell people that they are too irresponsible to make wise choices for themselves, and interfere in their lives by banning and taxing indiscriminately, then chances are they will rebel and do those things anyway.
And I'll resist the urge to get started on censorship.