Utilitarianism as a principle isn't perfect. It embodies the idea of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, so can leave minorities in a position of disadvantage. Mostly, however, it is the best idea we can come up with - like democracy.Raising tax on alcohol, restricting access, and lowering thresholds for drinking and driving will punish all drinkers (an estimated 90 percent of New Zealanders drink alcohol) in an attempt to control a few drinkers. It is utilitarianism in reverse.
Geoffrey Palmer, the purveyor of the finest alcoholic deterrent proposals;
"I do not understand why bars need to be open until 6am on a Sunday morning," he said.
No. Neither do I. I don't understand a lot of things that are none of my business. That is why I don't understand them, nor attempt to.
Alcohol use of itself is not evil. The poor health impacts and criminal behaviour which arise from alcohol abuse impose costs which should be borne by those doing the abusing. If we applied that blindingly obvious fundamental the deterrent affect would be significant. The 'no consequences' welfare state is again a major culprit in encouraging buck-passing behaviours.
2 comments:
We both know that this is just old fashioned wowserism.
Increase the price of liquor by increasing taxation would only mean the problem drinkers would cut something else out to feed their habit, almost certainly adding to their (and our) problems.
Likewise with lowering the blood alcohol limits for driving. Those who cause problems on the roads are well in excess of the existing limits already and are people who don't give a damn anyway as evidenced by the recidivism in this area.
Btw I am a teetotal so none of this effects me
Pitiful report from Palmer, another Chardonnay socialist, advocating more state intromission in the live of its citizens.
I'd be surprised if the new Minister pays any attention to it, but who knows?
Post a Comment