I had to take two years of statistics in college. In so doing you learn about the proverbial bell-curve. As I see it public policy begins by over hyping the dark nether regions of the lower tail of the curve where misery resides. It must be shunned, and those who think they have tapped into the Ether think that by cautioning people, and sweeping a few products off the market, everyone will be above average (of course a statistical impossibility).
Assuming some very small success in improving one fearsome malady and several negative unintended consequences which more than offset any improvement leaves those supposedly positioned in a superior position begin to try and herd everyone into the upper tail of the curve by whatever means necessary. Unfortunately they fail to realize a simple truth - there will always be a mean and huge chunks of population that will fall above and below regardless of what they do, and all their efforts simply shift the whole curve toward the original fearsome lower tail and mass everyone around the average (themselves and other superiors exempted).
Public interference in private matters always begins simply and from the heart. Given enough time it becomes very complicated and the head and heart take a backseat to bureaucracy. Fortunately things become very simple again when the third stage of camps and ovens and/or mass graves enters the picture.
You misquoted. It's not 'What is not expressly permitted is forbidden', it's 'What is not expressly permitted is mandatory'.
I misquoted. It should be 'What is not expressly forbidden is mandatory'.
According to Herbert Spencer, when the railways first started in Spain, peasants were fairly frequently killed on the tracks: it hadn't penetrated the common consciouness quite how much stopping distance would be required by a huge, heavy metal object thundering along at speed. "Why didn't the driver just stop?" they thought.
He then made the comparison with politicians and laws. Laws, like trains, have a momentum of their own. The politicians who create them assume that the effects of the law will stop where they were intended to stop. But... sometimes they don't.
What will be the unintended consequences of this policy? It's probably safe to assume that the doctors or practice nurses (whatever the hell that is; a nurse you practice on?) who are consulted by people terrified that they are drinking more than the allowed allowance and totally at a loss as to what to do about it, will be keeping electronic records of their consultations. These will then be sold to insurance companies - sorry! "lost in the post" - and any other bidders, and/or input to the national "DNA and the kitchen sink" database. "You have applied to renew your driving licence/passport/fishing licence/dog licence, but I see that you have been drinking above the permitted limit for over 2 months now. I'm sorry, but the law is quite clear on this point, Mr Lumpen."
So...
See your doctor or practice nurse if you are drinking below the safe limits and are finding it difficult to maintain.
What are the recommended safe limits of alcohol drinking?
* Men should drink no less than 21 units of alcohol per week (and at least three units in any one day).
* Women should drink no less than 14 units of alcohol per week (and at least two units in any one day).
Which is why I very rarely go to see the doctor... my medical record consists of about two sheets of A5 paper.
Good post and good comments.
You might want to get checked up though wh00ps.