Nanny State?

dictatorcat

I'm pretty new to boards so i'm not sure if this topic has been brought up yet, but lately I have started to become annoyed with the intervention of the state in our daily lives,
*smoking ban
*proposed replacement of glass with plastic in pubs
*no music at closing time
*the abolition of Thursday late night closing
*proposals for a national identity card
*U turn on the freedom of information act
*diclosure of passenger information on US flights

If you can think of any more please tell me. I'm probably so annoyed because of all the advertisements backing up the philisophy such as, a giant tidal wave of rubbish will kill you, your arteries are full of deadly goo, if you look at girls while crossing the road/driving you are a murderer, if you pick your nose you will die of food poisening, if you drink too much you will turn into a 7 headed beast of death, if you leave your tv on standby you're killing baby seals in Iraq ect. ect.

I forsee that in 10 years we will all be wearing bubble wrap and all sharp things will be banned. There will be security guards on pub doors to break the nail file off your clippers in case you fall on it and hurt yourself.:mad:

sovtek

Willkomen...
Yes I'd agree that the government needs to be less involved in telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies. Alot of laws seems very....ummmm Victorian.
I'd suggest (and have before):
*allow 24 hour drinking licensing
*deregulate pub licensing
*legalise, tax and monitor the sale of illicit drugs.
I'd disagree on the smoking ban though. It's a protection for the pub staff and I believe a good idea.

But hey...I'm moving in a few months to where all but the legalisation of drugs is a reality...so why am I still bitching?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by dictatorcat
*proposed replacement of glass with plastic in pubs

Please tell me that one is a joke? Please?
I couldn't, wouldn't go to a pub if all they had was plastic.
Sure, I can see why you'd only want plastic at the likes of an open-air concert or something but in a pub??????
On a Saturday night?
Why for Christ's sake?
And what about the environmental issues and a few million extra of these per annum?

bonkey

Originally posted by dictatorcat
lately I have started to become annoyed with the intervention of the state in our daily lives,

With the exception of the last two items on your list, it is arguable that the state has intervened because enough of the population have shown themselves incapable of managing these issues responsibly and correctly to the extent that it has become (or is projected to become) a significant problem.

Are you saying that it is not the government's job to deal with societal problems within its own nation? Or are you saying that these problems don't exist within our society? Or are you just complaining that because you don't cause these problems, its not right that you should be affected by the solutions?

The remaining cases - both of which are really concerning the FOI - are somewhat amusing. Here, you arguably have it the wrong way around...you are complaining that the government is no longer sheltering and protecting you (or information about you) like a good nanny should!!!

There's a lot of criticism due to our government, but trying to just lump it all together under a handy moniker like "nanny state" is - for me - inaccurate and therefore invalid as criticism.

jc

dictatorcat

it was in the Sunday Times apparently:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-967567,00.html

Apparently Welch councils are thinking about it, but here it's just being brought up which means that the government will eventually get around to it. But for now i think we're ok, i should have actually read the article before i comented on it, ooooh i deserve a spanking!

bonkey

Originally posted by dictatorcat
[B i should have actually read the article before i comented on it, [/B]

Not at all. You should never do that

Glance at the headline, make assumptions about the content, and then back them up with "but thats what will ultimately happen" or "this is what they're trying to politely word their way around" arguments....and you're sorted.

Plastic instead of glass, eh? Hmmm....I'd have no problem with that, depending on the type of plastic. Can't see it happening though.

jc

dictatorcat

Are you saying that it is not the government's job to deal with societal problems within its own nation? Or are you saying that these problems don't exist within our society?

Yes these problems exist, and are very serious, but it's our responsability to behave in a socially acceptable way, many do not, but that is not an excuse to enforce laws which take away our right to the things which allow us to unwind, relax, have fun and in the last two points, encroach on our civil liberties.

Or are you just complaining that because you don't cause these problems, its not right that you should be affected by the solutions?

Thats exactly what i'm complaining about. But also i'm complaining about a little more, nanny state policies are like band aids on an axe wound, the true cause of most problems are allowing poverty to breed crime, ignorance to breed crime and no amount of legislation can change that. But in the meantime we the public are punished with ficle laws that make the government look like they're doing something.

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
Glance at the headline, make assumptions about the content, and then back them up with "but thats what will ultimately happen" or "this is what they're trying to politely word their way around" arguments....and you're sorted.

ahhh the magic formula, as long as the other guy doesn't read the article you're laughin!
The nanny state is probably more of a distraction than anything else. It's not in general going to solve problems, just change them. It distracts from other problems in government eg smoking ban covering over the waiting lists a&e problems and lack of reform progress fro the past donkey's years. If we're pis*ed off at the little things (hour earlier on thursdays) it means we're not thinking about the big things like freedom of information curtailment.
besides Micheal Martin knows best.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
With the exception of the last two items on your list, it is arguable that the state has intervened because enough of the population have shown themselves incapable of managing these issues responsibly and correctly to the extent that it has become (or is projected to become) a significant problem.

Yes it is arguable, and that's usually the argument the government gives for doing so.
When you look at their solutions, it usually involves telling ALL of us what we can or can't do.
Hence the term "nanny state", as in you can't be trusted to act like an adult so you aren't going to be treated like an adult.
My argument would be that looking at countries that aren't so paternalistic in their treatment of their citizens you usually find that such countries don't have the same problem that places like Ireland or even the UK have with certain "unsociable" behavior.
It makes sense to me that if you give people the responsibility by and large they will not abuse it.
Then you look at who is and why.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
When you look at their solutions, it usually involves telling ALL of us what we can or can't do.

Yes, but they don't affect us all equally.

For example, I don't mind being told it is illegal for me to murder people, steal, etc. etc. etc. I don't do these things anyway.

Now, I'm being told (for example), that too many people eat too much fatty food, and that as a result, tax is going to be put on takeaways. I don't eat that much takeaways, so I don't pay *that much* either. If I ate more of them, I'd have to pay more. Seems as focussed as is practical.

Same with me smoking. I have the odd ciggie, so I pay the odd bit of extortionate tax. I will suffer the odd moment of discomfort if I can't have my smoke in a bar when I feel like one. All of which is reasonable because I only contribute the odd bit to the problem. If I was a chain-smoker, I would contribute far more to the problem, and would therefore be far more affected by the solution, and would "suffer" more under it. As it is, I'm more than willing to suffer the occasional moment of discomfort to help solve what is a serious societal problem, because I don't see any more balanced way of dealing with the issue.

I don't see how this is nannying. In each case, the more you contribute to the problem, the more you will be affected by the solution. In each case, the less you contribute, the less you're being asked to be inconvenienced in order to solve the problem.

Maybe I'm not selfish enough......

As for the argument that

it's our responsability to behave in a socially acceptable way, many do not, but that is not an excuse to enforce laws which take away our right to ...

Firstly, they're not rights. They are nowhere enshrined in any recognised document as a right. They are actions permitted under law. They're not enshrined in the constitution, they are not part of the EU legal base, nor are they even covered in something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So, they're not rights...unless you can show me what I'm missing.

Secondly, if we fail in our responsibility, is it not the government's job to enact laws to force us to live up to our responsibility? Or would you object to the recent tax on plastic bags? That was the clearest cut case in recent years of society failing in its responsibility (to try and be more ecologically-friendly). The government stepped in with "nannying" legislation, and not only has the problem been massively successfully dealt with, but people got damned used to it very damned quickly. But I'm sure you can remember the "it'll never work...paper will rip...what about carrying frozen goods in paper....damned nannying state should keep their noses out of it" arguments from back then too? No?

Thirdly, as I've already pointed out, our government's responsibility is to society first, not to the individual. Your entire argument is still based around a presumption that they should somehow be able to deal with societal problems without affecting the individuals.

So here's a quick test of how genuine your outrage is. Take one of these things, and explain to me the following :

1) What the problem is that has brought about the new/proposed legal change
2) Why you are not part of this problem
3) Why the new regulations will effect you unduly, despite you not being part of the problem
and
4) How the problem could realistically be dealt with in a manner that doesn't effect you.

If you can do all four for any one situation, I'll happily concede that you have a point about an individual law being bad.

If you can do all four for many different laws (like, say, all the ones you're complaining about), then you will have started to make a case that our government are "nannying" us.

If not, then there's no nanny state.

BTW, I assume that you haven't considered that a non-nanny state should also stop doing things like providing unemployment assistance, child welfare, etc. etc. etc. After all...your logic asks 'why should I pay for someone else to be out of a job'. Every single taxpayer is paying for someone else's problems....all thanks to that nannying government insisting we should. Damn them.

jc

p.s. I sincerely hope you aren't availing of any funding of any form from the government given your aversion to such nannying where someone has to pay for someone else's problems

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey

So here's a quick test of how genuine your outrage is. Take one of these things, and explain to me the following :

1) What the problem is that has brought about the new/proposed legal change
2) Why you are not part of this problem
3) Why the new regulations will effect you unduly, despite you not being part of the problem
and
4) How the problem could realistically be dealt with in a manner that doesn't effect you.

1)
Drink related violence; Roll back "late" drinking on Thursdays;
2) Because I'm not responsible for any violence related to drinking. I drink "moderately" and grew up in a country where late drinking is allowed and doesn't have the same problem with drink related violence that could be attibuted to the hours of legal drinking
3) I could go out when I get off work and have a full night because I work late. It makes it necessary to go to a late bar which is much more expensive. Perputuates the increase of the price of drink.
4) No evidence that voilence was any different when hours were later and in fact could be related somewhat to the early hours placed upon the prohibition of drink.
Could allow the pub to decide when they want to close which places where that is practiced have a norm of...
people not drinking as much and causing the same degree of the stated problem...
doesn't encourage people to drink as much in a shorter period of time...
puts people who have done the latter on the street at the same time encouraging the stated problem...
When a time limit is not placed on people they tend to drink slower over a longer period of time and not get as intoxicated....
Allows all pubs to compete with late bars which are overpriced for the "priviledge" (which is an anomoly in UK/Ireland).

dictatorcat

In no particular order:

I assume that you haven't considered that a non-nanny state should also stop doing things like providing unemployment assistance, child welfare, etc. etc. etc. After all...your logic asks 'why should I pay for someone else to be out of a job'. Every single taxpayer is paying for someone else's problems

By paying prsi you are entitled to the above, as well as that "my logic" does not view that every taxpayer is paying for someone elses problem, by providing unemployment assistance, child welfare etc. it is done under the assumption that the benefactor will get a job/grow up to contribute back to the system and that at such a time that you or i become unemployed their taxes will contribute to our getting back on our feet.

Secondly, if we fail in our responsibility, is it not the government's job to enact laws to force us to live up to our responsibility?

Conversly, if we uphold our responsibilities, is it the governments job to enact laws which punish us because others do not?

I don't see how this is nannying. In each case, the more you contribute to the problem, the more you will be affected by the solution. In each case, the less you contribute, the less you're being asked to be inconvenienced in order to solve the problem.

It's not about being a little inconvenienced every so often, it's about being a little inconvenienced all of the time. Oh can't light that cigarette!, can't have that last pint! Can't have a kebab on the way home! The big problem is when and where will it stop? Will it be when we're all in slippers sipping coffee in the rain because that's all we can legally and economically do?

Think of your typical night out and think of how much it costs. Now increase that price and remove factors such as how late you can stay out, how much you can drink etc. I know you're going to come back to me saying you're a non-drinker who typically just goes to the cinema, but remember that's not a typical night out for the majority!

bonkey

Originally posted by dictatorcat
Conversly, if we uphold our responsibilities, is it the governments job to enact laws which punish us because others do not?

The only possible ones you can be referring to here can be the restriction of what you claim are "rights" - drinking, smoking, etc. I'll come back to those. The other "nannying" arguments seem to fall down on this one. I can't see the "fat tax" or any of the others punishing you for the misdemeanours of others.

it's about being a little inconvenienced all of the time. Oh can't light that cigarette!, can't have that last pint! Can't have a kebab on the way home!

Thats already true...all thats happening is the places you can smoke become fewer, and the hour at which you can have that last pint becomes a bit earlier. The smoking issue is far too complex to get into within a thread like this, but at a simplest level, while you may not agree with the solution, do you not agree that the principle aim is that smokers are only being restricted from smoking in the presence of non-smokers? No matter what way you look at it (and I think the proposed solution is not the ideal), the government had a responsibility to tell smokers that they could no longer smoke in the presence of non-smokers, given the health-risks? That responsibility is what you are terming nannying, because even a more favourable solution to you would still have put most of the same restrictions in place on where you could and could not smoke. Are you saying that the government is wrong to protect non-smokers??? If not, then regardless of the particulars of how they do it, you must agree that the government must take some form of action to restrict smoking. And yet you're saying from the start that this is nannying, and wrong!!!

Incidentally, I would imagine that reduced productivity / increased absenteeism on Fridays may be a factor in the earlier closing hour on Thursdays, but thats just a hunch. Personally, I wouldn't care much either way, and given that I've seen closing hours rise and fall repeatedly in my few years, I don't see this as anything unusual...just more tweaking of a system which is never constant for long anyway.

So again, unless you fundamentally disagree with the government placing closing hours at all, I can't really see how this is nannying. Now, that does bring up sovtek's proposed solution which was to abolish closing huors altogether, and leave it up to the pub owner. I'm gonna leave that for another day, because I've gotta go do some work shortly, but its an interesting idea which I've heard before. I'm unconvinced it would work in Ireland, but like I said...I'll come back to that.

The big problem is when and where will it stop?

No, its not. There is no reason to believe that this is some slippery slope that we won't be able to get off. There's no evidence of that.

Will it be when we're all in slippers sipping coffee in the rain because that's all we can legally and economically do?

Good lord no man. Coffee is terribly bad for you, and addictive to boot. That will be long gone before it all ends.

Think of your typical night out and think of how much it costs. Now increase that price and remove factors such as how late you can stay out, how much you can drink etc. I know you're going to come back to me saying you're a non-drinker who typically just goes to the cinema, but remember that's not a typical night out for the majority!

Actually, I am a drinker, but what you term "the majority" is that minority of people who go out regularly. Its a big minority overall and even a massive majority in some age-groups I'll grant you, but a minority nonetheless. Those amongst them who will care about the closing hours changing yet again will be an even smaller minority. Its also possible that the violence that this is supposed to be dealing with is one which has been linked to later opening hours, in Ireland, on Thursday. Like I said...this isn't the first time the hours changed, and it is possible someone has drawn a correlation.

Anyone know where there's more info on the reasons for the change?

jc

Kell

Readin Alan Carr's Easy Way to quit smoking and I found it interesting that he states that its a waste of time and money repeatedly flashing adverts telling people to stop smoking. I assume its a waste of time also to tell people to stop drinking etc.

What is needed is a police force to seriously implement the law of the land with no lee way to make people behave in a more adult fashion. Sadly, the Oirish attitude is "i'll do it until I get caught and reprimanded".

A few other posters have referred to other countries citizens generally taking a responsible attitude to late night drinking etc however, and this is purely speculation, I would imagine that the policing of the laws in these more "relaxed" countries is far more efficient than here so instead of "i'll have a responsible attitude" its more along the lines of "if I dont have a responsible attitude, I will wake up in a cell and find a humongous amount".

Example- some time ago one of the chief executives of Nokia was caught speeding in some Scandinavian country. This particular country doesnt have a points system for offenders, oh no. They fine you an amount proportionate to what you earn and as he was a very senior executive, this amount ran to the tune of €xx,000's (cant remember offhand the specifics). Bonkey will no doubt be able to find the exact details or correct me for vagueness.

Anyways, point is, if Irish people were faced with such a strong hand of the law, they might think twice before bending a rule again and we mightnt have such an unruly society.

K-

sovtek

Originally posted by Kell
What is needed is a police force to seriously implement the law of the land with no lee way to make people behave in a more adult fashion. Sadly, the Oirish attitude is "i'll do it until I get caught and reprimanded".

I'm a foreignor and don't really understand this attitude. I hear so many comments about the "Irish attitude" as if you're all a bunch of kids that don't know how to behave. Is it something that's beat into you from childhood?
Ireland is no different than any other country. There are always going to be people that break the law and cause trouble. That's never going to stop.
However if you give adults the freedom to act like adults, people by and large are going to learn how handle that responsibility. If you continue to treat adults like children, they are going to continue to act like children.
As to police enforcement, I've never seen such a strong arm attitude in a police force in any other country I've ever been. Even in Texas. So I don't see evidence of that being the cause of the "anti-social" behavior any more than allowing people to go out and drink when they want.
Of course it's speculation, but it's speculation based upon observations of countries that are similiar to Ireland but have a different policy of allowing adults to act like adults.

bonkey

Originally posted by Kell
Readin Alan Carr's Easy Way to quit smoking and I found it interesting that he states that its a waste of time and money repeatedly flashing adverts telling people to stop smoking. I assume its a waste of time also to tell people to stop drinking etc.

Its an interesting point. What makes it more interesting is the fact that Carr's book has met with tremendous success through repetition of stock phrases, sentences, and occasionally entire paragraphs throughout the book.

In other words, while he argues that constantly telling you to do something is a waste of time, his book is formed around an application of exactly that - supplying you the same message, in the same form, again and again and again.

So why does he assert it doesn't work? Well, my take on that is that it helps disguise how his book works. He tells you that repetition doesn't work, so you won't attribute the success of his book to the repetition it is based on.

So if Alan Carr says that flashing up the same message again and again is a waste of time....I'm all on for giving it a try.

A few other posters have referred to other countries citizens generally taking a responsible attitude to late night drinking etc however, and this is purely speculation, I would imagine that the policing of the laws in these more "relaxed" countries is far more efficient than here so instead of "i'll have a responsible attitude" its more along the lines of "if I dont have a responsible attitude, I will wake up in a cell and find a humongous amount".

Or maybe its also related to the "pub culture" that is often associated with Ireland and England. I know that when I last lived in Dublin, you generally arranged to meet people in a pub. Going to the movies? Meet in a nearby pub beforehand. Soccer match? Same. Taking the missus out to dinner? Go for a wee drink in the local first. And what do you do when you go out for a night? Go to the pub, then maybe on to a club. And whenever a non-pub activity is over, where's the first place people head? The pub.

My experiences on the mainland give me the impression that many other European cultures do not revolve similarly around the pub. People go out far more to restaurants, or to ice-cream parlours, or wherever. They don't congregate in a pub before going on to some other event, nor do they necessarily go back to the pub after it ends.


I've also found (although this may simply be my circle of friends) that people do unthinkably weird things like frequently invite friends over for dinner, rather than meeting up in the pub.

The thing for me is not that this drinking problem is unique to Ireland....but rather the numbers are so comparatively high. The heavy drinking, the underage drinking, the pub-centric lifestlye....we have those over here too. But its a far, far smaller subset of people who do it. The others do other things.

Example- some time ago one of the chief executives of Nokia was caught speeding in some Scandinavian country. This particular country doesnt have a points system for offenders, oh no. They fine you an amount proportionate to what you earn and as he was a very senior executive, this amount ran to the tune of €xx,000's (cant remember offhand the specifics). Bonkey will no doubt be able to find the exact details or correct me for vagueness.

Nope. I can't. I do know that we have something like that system over here in Switzerland though. Makes a bloody mint around all the rich cities (Zurich, Geneva , Lugano and Locarno would be the big 4).

jc

The Beer Baron

The one that gets me is the wash your hands before you eat ads.
I mean wtf? Are the Irish people really that stupid?

Wait...carry on

sovtek

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
The one that gets me is the wash your hands before you eat ads.
I mean wtf? Are the Irish people really that stupid?

Wait...carry on

LOL...
I don't think people are necessarily stupid but possibly ignorant of food safety.
I'm also left with the impression that some people ummmm...don't see a need to bathe as frequently as I'm used to (I've heard the term "soap dodger" mentioned before).
A co worker of my wife actually said this "it's more important for you to be on time than to take a shower"...this was in a restaraunt no less.

Kell

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Are the Irish people really that stupid?

Think for a moment on how your sandwich at lunchtime or your morning brekkie roll is prepared. I have never been impressed with a level of food hygiene anywhere that do take away rolls etc.

Bonkey, point taken about the methodology used by Mr Carr, however it works slightly differently to a TV ad. You read and assimilate the information in a book because you want to and I think more of it sinks in whereas with a TV ad, a lot of people have now become desensitised to say drink driving adverts and change channel when they come on completely reversing the desired effect of the ad in the first place. Maybe the ads should have some sort of subliminal messaging built in? Just a thought.

K-

Redleslie

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
The one that gets me is the wash your hands before you eat ads.
I mean wtf? Are the Irish people really that stupid?

Wait...carry on

Whenever I go for a piss in a pub's toilets, I would estimate that 9 times out of 10 my fellow pissers don't wash their hands after they're done.

ixoy

Originally posted by Redleslie
Whenever I go for a piss in a pub's toilets, I would estimate that 9 times out of 10 my fellow pissers don't wash their hands after they're done.

Yup, same here. What's worse is that at least half of pub toilets will have no form of soap to wash your hands....

However, to the main thread itself. I'm with bonkey on this one - the "rights" quoted aren't rights. If they were, we'd have needed a referendum on the issue (correct?). We elect the government to - essentially - look after our interests. Rule by the people - Demo cratos. We entrust these elected body then to govern us on a variety of issues from finance to education to health. The onus on them is to live up to their job description. A Minister for Health then, for example, has an obligation to ensure that his people, us citizens, are protected in matters of health. He has a responsiblity therefore to limit worker's exposure to preventable hazardous situations - such as smoking. By doing this he's living up to the role he was hired for and that we elected him for. Similarly, the same argument can be made for a lot of the other actions taken because by doing said action they're helping us out.

sovtek

Originally posted by ixoy
Similarly, the same argument can be made for a lot of the other actions taken because by doing said action they're helping us out.

Similarly it could be argued that what they are doing isn't really helping (in the case of closing hours or limited licensing) the supposed situation at the same time limiting our "pursuit of happiness". When as adults we partake in something that is bad for our health, but our health alone...i don't believe it's up to the government to say "you can't do that" not unlike a parent.
I do agree, however, that drinking/smoking are not rights.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
Similarly it could be argued that what they are doing isn't really helping (in the case of closing hours or limited licensing) the supposed situation at the same time limiting our "pursuit of happiness".

Well all such an argument is saying is that the government are not particularly good at identifying problems and/or solutions.

However, the basic underlying premise is that their job (or at least part of it) is to identify and resolve problems of a societal nature.

Therefore, can we say they are "nannying" us? They're doing their job.

When as adults we partake in something that is bad for our health, but our health alone...i don't believe it's up to the government to say "you can't do that" not unlike a parent.

Nothing which is bad for your health does not have knock-on effects. The more you indulge yourself - and remember we're talking about over the course of your life, not on a weekly or monthly basis here - the greater those effects will be.

You may think the government has no right to tell you that its not OK to smoke...but when smokers are costing the state X million per year over and above what they are being taxed for, it most certainly is not just "our health alone".

Similarly, as I alluded to previously, heavy drinking leads to decreased productivity and increased absenteeism. This again is an effect that is most certainly not just felt by the drinker.

Note, for example, that in your post answering my 4-point challenge, you specifically mentioned rolling back late drinking on Thursdays. Why? Do drunks on Thursdays get more violent than drunks on Fridays and Saturdays? Is there some evidence to show that as long as you don't drink as excessively on a Thursday night, you don't get violent the rest of the week? Or could it be that less people work on Saturdays and Sundays than on Fridays, so the knock-on effect to business is lessened.

Hangovers cost employers millions - if not billions - every year...and the largest portion of that can assuredly be attributed to the fact that Thursday is considered a "going out night" along with Friday and Saturday, but is unique amonst the three in that it is followed by a "normal" working day.

Maybe you don't agree that the State should be taking this action to protect business, but if so, would you also agree that the state shouldn't prevent an employer for firing you if you came in with a hangover a couple of Fridays in a row? Or is that type of 'nannying' ok because its to your advantage????

The illusion that "I am only hurting myself" ranks up there alongside "its a right" for me. The point is that enough people hurt themselves with enough regularity that it costs the state - one way or another - a significant amount.

We're all the first to expect the government to fix the problems of others which affect us, but when it comes to paying the price...or indeed accepting the problems that we ourselves cause.....then its all up in arms crying about rights and so on.

Its amazing how few people would admit to being part of a large problem...

jc



jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Well all such an argument is saying is that the government are not particularly good at identifying problems and/or solutions.

However, the basic underlying premise is that their job (or at least part of it) is to identify and resolve problems of a societal nature.

Therefore, can we say they are "nannying" us? They're doing their job.

I never argued that the government shouldn't try to come up with solutions that resolve social problems.
I'm arguing (or trying to) that in the particular problem of drink related violence their solution has been tried before and seemed to have no real effect, and possibly makes it worse.
I'm also trying to argue that the idea behind the "nanny" attitude the government here seems to have adds to the problem by acting like the majority of the people don't have the capacity to take responsibility for themselves.

Nothing which is bad for your health does not have knock-on effects. The more you indulge yourself - and remember we're talking about over the course of your life, not on a weekly or monthly basis here - the greater those effects will be.

Which closing hours and limited licensing have almost no effect on.
That's assuming your a heavy drinker...and the government should discourage it, but it's impossible to keep people from doing it.
On the other hand drinking, smoking and drugs don't necessarily lead to health problems.

You may think the government has no right to tell you that its not OK to smoke...but when smokers are costing the state X million per year over and above what they are being taxed for, it most certainly is not just "our health alone".

Like I said before, I'm not arguing that the government doesn't have the right to tell you that you shouldn't smoke, I'm not even arguing that they can't tell you not to. I'm saying that when the government acts like a parent and tells you can't do something that is basically only effecting you it doesn't work.

Similarly, as I alluded to previously, heavy drinking leads to decreased productivity and increased absenteeism. This again is an effect that is most certainly not just felt by the drinker.

So either fire that person or better yet tell them to get into a rehab program or they will be fired. Then there's the rest of us that don't have those problems and it doesn't effect our jobs. It also doesn't apply to opening hours.

Note, for example, that in your post answering my 4-point challenge, you specifically mentioned rolling back late drinking on Thursdays. Why? Do drunks on Thursdays get more violent than drunks on Fridays and Saturdays? Is there some evidence to show that as long as you don't drink as excessively on a Thursday night, you don't get violent the rest of the week? Or could it be that less people work on Saturdays and Sundays than on Fridays, so the knock-on effect to business is lessened.

I mentioned Thursdays in relation to opening hours in general.
And in countries where opening hours are no different the entire week is there evidence that there is significantly more absenteeism? Or in said countries do employers hold the individual responsible for their lateness or absenteeism?

Hangovers cost employers millions - if not billions - every year...and the largest portion of that can assuredly be attributed to the fact that Thursday is considered a "going out night" along with Friday and Saturday, but is unique amonst the three in that it is followed by a "normal" working day.

So they cost billions anyway so whats the problem with trying something else when it obviously isn't working in the first place.

Maybe you don't agree that the State should be taking this action to protect business, but if so, would you also agree that the state shouldn't prevent an employer for firing you if you came in with a hangover a couple of Fridays in a row?

See above...

Or is that type of 'nannying' ok because its to your advantage????

Like I said...in that instance the person is responsible for the consequences of their actions and in turn might learn something. In the present case they are assumed to be that person before the fact. Which I believe contributes to the problem.

The illusion that "I am only hurting myself" ranks up there alongside "its a right" for me. The point is that enough people hurt themselves with enough regularity that it costs the state - one way or another - a significant amount.

Which might be a reflection of the government acting like the adults in this society can't be responsible. I've argued that might be part of the problem.
You have a point that there indirect effects, assuming that people have a problem with drinking that will eventually lead to a health problem as well.

We're all the first to expect the government to fix the problems of others which affect us, but when it comes to paying the price...or indeed accepting the problems that we ourselves cause.....then its all up in arms crying about rights and so on.

And what effects us about letting pubs decide when to close and when I want to go out drinking. A significant amount of us aren't 9-5 ers, Mon-Fri and don't necessarily allow that priviledge become a health problem.

Its amazing how few people would admit to being part of a large problem...

It's amazing how little people aren't given the benefit of the doubt here... "we Irish can't be trusted".