Alcohol laws, Drinking and Death - James Webster

James Webster has been all over the news lately in a way that only violent murderers and white middle class people are.

He was a goody good, went to Kings, had hardly drank alcohol before one particular party where he drank himself to death.

There are numerous things that jump out at me about this:

1) he had a low alcohol tolerance, because he had no experience of alcohol, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

2) he felt that on the very odd occasion that he did drink, he had to drink a lot to compensate for how he usually didn't drink, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

3) he had no idea of what his limit for alcohol was, because he never drank in moderation, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

4) he saw drinking as an attractive activity, because it was something he usually wasn't allowed to do.

5) he was drinking unsupervised, because he was not allowed to drink while supervised.

6) had he been allowed to drink under supervision, he would have had a higher alcohol tolerance, he would have had a more mature attitude towards alcohol, he would have known what his limit was, he would not have seen drinking to excess as an attractive activity.

7) Had none of this made a difference, people with more experience with drinking would have been around and identified the situation much earlier, preventing the damage going to the extreme that it did.

James Websters death was tragic and avoidable, but the lesson to learn is not that no one should drink ever, but that it is important that we think about what people know about alcohol, and that it is important that we don't exclude youth from our society, drinking included.

UK Conservatives missed opportunity with UKIP

http://www.actoncampus.org.nz/blog/why-the-conservatives-really-lost

From ACT on Campus Blog:

In November 2009, UKIP offered to not contest the UK general election at all if the Conservative party promised, in writing, a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. The Conservatives ignored the offer.

They go on to make the case that, had UKIP not contested the election, David Cameron would have had a majority. By my reasoning, the results would have been like this:

Party	Seats	Majority	Seats w/o UKIP contesting	Majority w/o UKIP contesting
Conservatives	307	16 short	330	Majority of 15
Labour	258	65 short	242	81 short
Liberal Democrats	57	with Conservatives: Majority of 83 with Labour: 8 short	50	with Labour: 31 short
DUP	8	with Conservatives: 8 short	8	with Conservatives: Majority of 31
Others not including Sinn Fein	15		15

note: Majorities calculated assuming Sinn Fein do not take their seats, and assuming the Conservatives will win the one remaining constituency, Thirsk and Malton, which is a safe Tory seat. The speaker is included in the conservative tally.

Bottom line: The Conservatives lost because they refused to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

This was done assuming all UKIP votes would have gone to the Conservatives if UKIP had not contested, which is nearly fair judging by how similar their other policies are. To be fair, i will also show a table of what would have happened if only half of the UKIP vote is given to the Conservatives: (assuming the other half vote evenly, vote for other 3rd parties, or stay at home):

Party	Seats	Majority	Seats w/o UKIP contesting	Majority w/o UKIP contesting
Conservatives	307	16 short	321	2 short
Labour	258	65 short	248	75 short
Liberal Democrats	57	with Conservatives: Majority of 83 with Labour: 8 short	53	with Conservatives: Majority of 103 with Labour: 22 short
DUP	8	with Conservatives: 8 short	8	with Conservatives: Majority of 13
Others not including Sinn Fein	15		15

So even in this case, they passed up an opportunity for an easy coalition with the DUP and a referendum, for an almost unworkable coalition with a centre left party.