Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    B344 - Licensing Bill 2011, Rt Hon. DayneD89

    Licensing Act 2011

    An Act to make provision about the regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol and other addictive drugs.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's [King's] most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    PART I.
    PROTECTION OF PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE FROM ALCOHOL

    1. Penalties for providing any person under the age of sixteen intoxicating alcohol

    (1) Amends Children and Young Persons Act 1933, sec. (5);

    If any person gives, or causes to be given, to any child under the age of five years any alcohol (within the meaning given by section 191 of the Licensing Act 2003, but disregarding subsection (1)(f) to (i) of that section), except upon the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner, or in case of sickness, apprehended sickness, or other urgent cause, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

    to;

    If any person gives, or causes to be given, to any child under the age of sixteen years any alcohol (within the meaning given by section 191 of the Licensing Act 2003, but disregarding subsection (1)(f) to (i) of that section), except upon the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner, or in case of sickness, apprehended sickness, or other urgent cause, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

    2. Purchase of intoxicating liquor by or for a person under twenty-one and Consumption of intoxicating liqueur by a person under twenty-one.

    (1) Amends the Licensing Act of 1964, sec. (169A-169I);

    (a) All instances of the word 'eighteen' to be replaced with the word 'twenty-one'.

    (2) Amends the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, sec (1);

    (a) All instances of the word '18' to be replaced with the word 'twenty-one'.

    3. Exception to the Licensing Act of 2011 section 2 offences.

    (1) Amends the Licensing Act of 1964, sec. (169D);

    Sections 169A(1), 169B(1), and 169C(1) and (2) of this Act do not apply where—
    (a)the person under eighteen has attained the age of sixteen,
    (b)the intoxicating liquor in question is beer, porter or cider, and
    (c)its sale or purchase is for consumption at a meal in a part of the licensed premises which is not a bar and is usually set apart for the service of meals.


    to;

    Sections 169A(1), 169B(1), and 169C(1) and (2) of this Act do not apply where—
    (a) the person under twenty-one has attained the age of eighteen,
    (b) the intoxicating liquor in question is beer, porter or cider, and
    (c) its sale or purchase is for consumption at a meal in a part of the licensed premises which is not a bar and is usually set apart for the service of meals.


    PART II.
    PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM HARMFUL SUBSTANCES

    4A Class A drugs

    (1) The following drugs shall be illegal to sell or possess;

    Methamphetamine
    Crack
    Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
    Venlafaxine (Effexor)
    Sertraline (Zoloft/Lustral)
    Fluoxetine (Prozac)
    Diazepam (Valium)
    Methaqualone – (Quaalude)
    Secobarbital – (Seconal)
    Heroin
    Amphetamine

    4B Penalties for sale and possession of Class A drugs.

    (1) Any person found in possession of any drug mentioned in 4A, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
    (2) Any person found supplying any drug mentioned in 4A, either for payment or without payment, shall be liable to a fie not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

    4C Exception to sec. 4B.

    (1) A person is Exempt from 4B if they have a prescription for that drug issued within a reasonable time frame for possession of that drug.

    PART III.
    PROTECTION OF PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE FROM TOBACCO

    5 Sale of tobacco to a person under twenty-one

    (1) Amends the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 sec. (7) as amended by The Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Order 2007;

    (1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of eighteen years any tobacco or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not, shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
    (1A) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
    (2) If on complaint to a magistrates' court it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that any automatic machine for the sale of tobacco kept on any premises has been used by any person under the age of eighteen years, the court shall order the owner of the machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, to take such precautions to prevent the machine being so used as may be specified in the order or, if necessary, to remove the machine, within such time as may be specified in the order, and if any person against whom such an order has been made fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.


    to;

    (1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of twenty-one years any tobacco or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not, shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
    (1A) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
    (2) If on complaint to a magistrates' court it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that any automatic machine for the sale of tobacco kept on any premises has been used by any person under the age of twenty-one years, the court shall order the owner of the machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, to take such precautions to prevent the machine being so used as may be specified in the order or, if necessary, to remove the machine, within such time as may be specified in the order, and if any person against whom such an order has been made fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.


    PART IV.
    COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

    6 Commencement

    (1) This Act shall come into force 1st April 2013

    7 Short Title

    (1) This Act may be cited as the Licensing Act 2011

    8 Devolution

    (1) This shall, upon passing, be given to each national government for consideration.


    info1. This refers to penalties for selling to under-age people. Currently tobacco is a level 4 (£2,500) if sold to under 18s. Alcohol is a level 1 (£200). This brings the fine for selling alcohol to an under-age person to (£5,000).

    2. Raises the legal drinking age to 21.

    3. Stops under 16's being allowed to drink in a pub with food, making it 18 instead.

    4. Makes harmful drugs illegal. Alcohol and nicotine should really be in here, but have become so widely used I felt it would be damaging to try and remove them at this time. It also leaves all the drugs open for medical use, meaning research could be used with these drugs and allowing us to explore their medicinal benefits.

    5. Makes the legal age for tobacco up to 21.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Pointless government intervention, unneccessarily raising age limits on alcohol and tobacco. Sorry, but no.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Why? What's the reasoning behind this bill?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Love the layout as you know. Not convinced by the content although its good to see something up for debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'd agree with raising the tobacco purchase age however, i'm undecided on the alcohol. I'd also agree with the raising of the fine for buying alcohol for those who are underage.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No. What we need is better education on the effects of drugs, tobacco and alcohol - not pointless government interference.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    It's a no from me, as I said in the subforum. I'm so happy to see a bill though :p:, and it does look nice!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have to repeat the objections I raised in the subforum. With regard to Part I, I thought we were going for a more continental atitude to drinking, but (1) will surely put a stop to that. I certainly don't agree with banning under 16s from drinking alcohol completely - it seems overly proscriptive. What's the justification for raising the age to 21. I don't see any reason for it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely no, completely the wrong way to handle underage drinking.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I expect this to fail tbh, but this shows what our law would look at if it were based on how dangerous and addictive drugs are. Alcohol and tobacco should be kept from most impressionable evil to help combat their usage and make them less socially acceptable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The problem isn't the age limits it's the culture.

    The presentation of this bill is exemplary though.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Big no to prohibition and pointless intervention as a denial of self-ownership (especially the drugs section) from me.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Pointless government intervention, unneccessarily raising age limits on alcohol and tobacco. Sorry, but no.
    How do you and others think drugs should be regulated? Should each drug de down to alcohol, or by how much they are viewed any given time? That's what we have this bill showing. If we wanted to legalize coffee and cannabis we should really have nicotine and alcohol illegal. I think there is a good philosophical liberal argument for a basis on addictiveness.

    (Original post by cambo211)
    The problem isn't the age limits it's the culture.

    The presentation of this bill is exemplary though.
    The law has shown many times that it can change alcohol, which is what I believe this will do. It shows that the government of the country believe some drugs less harmful and addictive than alcohol and tobbacco, which is true. These drugs that are more legal arte the ones they are much more unlikely to get addicted to, and, in the case of alcohol, causes major social problems.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Big no to prohibition and pointless intervention as a denial of self-ownership (especially the drugs section) from me.
    As to the drugs one, I view it as a liberal argument tbh. I use this issue when I'm asked to explain why I find regulation necessary to allow people to have more freedom. Without too much drug regulation people can fairly easily get and take addictive drugs without knowing the danger and thus their free will is taken from them, not by the government, but by the drug. This is why all less addictive drugs are still legal in this, while more addictive drugs either become illegal or more regulated.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    I like the criminalisation of drugs again. Fully support this idea. Undecided on the rest of it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Peachz)
    I'd agree with raising the tobacco purchase age however, i'm undecided on the alcohol. I'd also agree with the raising of the fine for buying alcohol for those who are underage.
    It simply raises the fine for buying underaged people alcohol to the same fine they would get for buying them tobacco. This makes sense seeing as they are the same legal age now. Alcohol is a very addictive drug. It's just below Cocaine in addictiveness. It also makes people violent and destroys self-control, unlike most drugs.
    Offline

    13
    I'm not an MP but this is nuts, millions of sensible people drink alcohol without causing harm to anybody multiple times a week. Why would you punish everybody for the actions of a few?

    Also making drugs illegal pushes the trade into the hands of criminals, who will cut drugs like heroin with other substances, making them more dangerous. The criminal nature of the heroin trade actually helps to fund the Taliban. The trade should just be out in the open and regulated. The focus should be on medical treatment for addicts, not just throwing them in jail - which gives them a criminal record and stops them getting a job. That's the last thing people addicted to drugs need, way to encourage them to turn to more crime.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    As to the drugs one, I view it as a liberal argument tbh. I use this issue when I'm asked to explain why I find regulation necessary to allow people to have more freedom. Without too much drug regulation people can fairly easily get and take addictive drugs without knowing the danger and thus their free will is taken from them, not by the government, but by the drug. This is why all less addictive drugs are still legal in this, while more addictive drugs either become illegal or more regulated.
    So in order to save freedom, we must limit it. What Orwellian world are we living in when the outright ban on the sale of drugs is somehow more 'moral' than allowing everyone to choose for themselves and perhaps seeing a small minority falling into the trap of not knowing the danger? No offence, but I find it absolutely disgusting that anyone can assume the inherent moral right or power to decide if people are capable of making these decisions for themselves or not. Prohibition, as we see every day around the world, whether it be the UK or Mexico, does not work and leads to less freedom as a direct cause of the regulation, for if people cannot sell their goods openly on the market the trade is pushed underground and criminals resort to the use of violence to sell it instead.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I'm not an MP but this is nuts, millions of sensible people drink alcohol without causing harm to anybody multiple times a week. Why would you punish everybody for the actions of a few?

    Also making drugs illegal pushes the trade into the hands of criminals, who will cut drugs like heroin with other substances, making them more dangerous. The criminal nature of the heroin trade actually helps to fund the Taliban. The trade should just be out in the open and regulated. The focus should be on medical treatment for addicts, not just throwing them in jail - which gives them a criminal record and stops them getting a job. That's the last thing people addicted to drugs need, way to encourage them to turn to more crime.
    First point. This is madness. Drinking alcohol in excess creates problems for the taxpayer as they are ones footing the Bill for any clean up. e.g. hospital visits.

    Second point. We should not give in to those who want to peddle drugs by legalising it. You continue to be tough on drugs and take a tough stance. The government should take a hard line on drugs and not give in.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    How do you and others think drugs should be regulated? Should each drug de down to alcohol, or by how much they are viewed any given time? That's what we have this bill showing. If we wanted to legalize coffee and cannabis we should really have nicotine and alcohol illegal. I think there is a good philosophical liberal argument for a basis on addictiveness.
    Your logic seems to be rather off, if we want to legalize coffee and cannabis, nicotine and alcohol should be illegal? :confused: Not even sure what you are saying.

    Drugs that can be used sensibly and in moderation, without serious health implications, should be legal for those who are able to make a fully informed decision about them. You've made no argument as to why those who are over 18 can't make this choice, but those over 21 can. As for those which are seriously harmful, its a trickier decision i admit, but i think we should be moving towards more, rather than less, liberalisation of drugs.

    Additionally, under TSR law, Cannabis, LSD, Ecstasy etc, are legal for those over 18, and without amending this, you are saying that Alcohol and Tobacco are more dangerous than these substances?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 17, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

2,842

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.