M474 - Alcohol Classification motion 2018 Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


M474 - Alcohol Classification motion 2018Alcohol Classification motion 2018, joep95 seconded by Tanqueray91]

This motion calls upon the government to add Alcohol to SCHEDULE 2 part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a study in 2010 showed that alcohol was the most dangerous drug in the uk and the government need to make this step to combat this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...n-heroin-crack
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/2


Posted by SpeakerBot
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
I don't think we need to make alcohol a Class A drug, it's a nay from me. Thanks for including the link to the legislation.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
As amusing as this is, there is no need for it after the passing of my bill on the matter of drug laws (B1295) last term.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Aye - this is a good motion. But I don't believe that this motion goes far enough, I believe alcohol and tobacco should both be there.
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Aye, there needs to be some restrictions placed on alcohol, which is, as mentioned a dangerous substance.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Straight up prohibition never works, if there is a desire to ban alcohol it needs doing over a period of decades in a calculated manner.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I don’t agree to this and am surprised Mobbsy put his name on this but eh...
nay on this anyway
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Nay. If you want to use a drug such as alcohol, that is your right because ultimately, it's your body. Besides, as demonstrated by the free availability of illegal drugs, prohibition would require an enormous police operation to actually work - why waste the money cracking down on something used by the vast majority of its users for non-harmful purposes?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
No. Legalisation of drugs is the way forward and this would only make alcohol use more dangerous.

Also, how ****ing lazy do you have to be to not write this as a Bill. It's a 2-section Bill.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
No. Legalisation of drugs is the way forward and this would only make alcohol use more dangerous.

Also, how ****ing lazy do you have to be to not write this as a Bill. It's a 2-section Bill.
Joe is hardly known for effort
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
Nay. If you want to use a drug such as alcohol, that is your right because ultimately, it's your body. Besides, as demonstrated by the free availability of illegal drugs, prohibition would require an enormous police operation to actually work - why waste the money cracking down on something used by the vast majority of its users for non-harmful purposes?
Then that would also give way to the argument that full drug legalisation of any and all drugs. And I believe the numbers of people who are actually harmed by alcohol is significantly under-reported, as alcoholism is something which many many people struggle with and have issues with without seeking help.
(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
I don’t agree to this and am surprised Mobbsy put his name on this but eh...
nay on this anyway
I know it may be surprising, but as someone who full well knows the serious effects and very very real implications it can have on life, I said I would second. For the sake of transparency, I'll add that I seconded this on the basis that it's the MHoC, and if it were happening in real life, of course I'd be ****ing against it. Don't want to have to go to the black market for my fix.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Nay.
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
No, the harm principle comes into play here. If it doesn't hurt or interfere with the rights of others then there is no problem.

This motion punishing people who use it responsibly and stick to the recommended alcohol guidelines.

Also the term "alcohol" is loosely defined in this motion, it needs to be better defined.
" an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (–OH) is bound to a saturated carbon atom.The term alcohol originally referred to the primary alcohol ethanol (ethyl alcohol), which is used as a drug and is the main alcohol present in alcoholic beverages.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Hazzer1998)
No, the harm principle comes into play here. If it doesn't hurt or interfere with the rights of others then there is no problem.

This motion punishing people who use it responsibly and stick to the recommended alcohol guidelines.

Also the term "alcohol" is loosely defined in this motion, it needs to be better defined.
" an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (–OH) is bound to a saturated carbon atom.The term alcohol originally referred to the primary alcohol ethanol (ethyl alcohol), which is used as a drug and is the main alcohol present in alcoholic beverages.
Does this mean you support full drug legalisation?
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Does this mean you support full drug legalisation?
I wouldn't be opposed to some drug legalisation on the basis that people would know exactly what they are taking and would know team effects of taking them. They can then make their own decision.

Also rehab centres should be available for people who need addiction help etc. I used to be opposed but I'll came to any evidence based conclusion.
1
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Straight up prohibition never works, if there is a desire to ban alcohol it needs doing over a period of decades in a calculated manner.
This pretty much
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Tanqueray91)
Then that would also give way to the argument that full drug legalisation of any and all drugs. And I believe the numbers of people who are actually harmed by alcohol is significantly under-reported, as alcoholism is something which many many people struggle with and have issues with without seeking help.
Well yes, it would give way to that argument.

I would agree with that, but as is shown by past and present examples of prohibition and as you yourself point out in your reply to Count, any restriction on alcohol would just result in the black market taking over - I don't believe, given the existing pervasiveness of alcohol in our society, that a ban would reduce the numbers of people abusing it. As you will know, people don't generally turn to substance abuse for the sole reason that they happen to like the substance in question a bit too much, so the solution to alcoholism is dealing with the issues that lie behind it, which means among other things more funding for and the removal of any remaining stigma behind talking about mental health, and working to reduce economic inequality.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
No. Legalisation of drugs is the way forward and this would only make alcohol use more dangerous.

Also, how ****ing lazy do you have to be to not write this as a Bill. It's a 2-section Bill.
Last time I did something like this as a bill people *****ed it should have been a motion
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Vitiate)
Aye - this is a good motion. But I don't believe that this motion goes far enough, I believe alcohol and tobacco should both be there.
Hear, hear! Alcohol and tobacco should be banned! And I'm sure President Duterte has good ideas for how to enforce these bans!
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
My main issue with this motion is that it is a motion, which means it does nothing even if it passes. Why not just submit a bill that would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? There is no point asking the Government to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - they are never going to do it, considering they are a bunch of drug-loving filthy liberals.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (99)
24.26%
No (309)
75.74%

Watched Threads

View All