Which laws are enforced? Which are not? Has this changed?

As a teenager in the 80s it was relatively straightforward to obtain tobacco and alcohol before the legal age. By way of contrast, the prohibition on cannabis use was enforced, and convictions had an impact on the lives of those involved (eg unable to go into the military). Shoplifting was policed and prosecuted, with convictions having an impact on the lives of those involved. It was easy to find casual work cash in hand. There was a more relaxed attitude to drink driving (breathalizers introduced in the 80s)

Fast forward to the present day. There is rigorous enforcement on the sale of tobacco and alcohol, with retailer convictions having a significant impact on businesses and lives. Personal cannabis growing and use is mostly ignored, and when enforced a warning is the most likely response. Retailers now manage shoplifting without police support, but there are police raids on shops where people might be working illegally. There is strong enforcement of drink driving, whilst illegally derestricted uninsured e-bikes and scooters represent a relatively new and uninforced illegal hazard.


Let me be clear, I am not looking longingly back to a rosy past. I am noting that the laws that are enforced and not enforced in the UK has changed over time, and wondering what this might tell us.

Heron

Comments

  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    I think it tells us that perceived risk alters over time. Deaths caused by drink driving made it less socially acceptable and there was increasing public support for strong enforcement.

    As a teenager in the late 70s / early 80s, I knew a few people who used cannabis then who are now pillars of society. At the time, I thought their behaviour was risky, but it seems to have had little long term impact. My perception of risk has altered and I suspect that's true of many people of my generation.
  • I think too that the enforcement of laws depends on their practicality and on police resources. I chair a local Police and Community group and the police say that it is almost impossible to catch the riders of illegal scooters and ebikes as (a) it's hard to catch them as they nip off down the footpaths and alleys of the estate if they see police and (b) they wear dark clothing, hoodies and facemasks which make positive identification difficult.
  • Pedant alert @Heron.

    Breathalysers were introduced to the UK in 1967. I'm old enough to remember public information broadcasts about them on the telly. I was very young at the time but my Dad was breathalysed in the early '70s and got off on a technicality.

    By the 1980s my recollection is that drink-driving did occur but was generally frowned upon, but not as much as it is today.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Drink driving remains enough of a problem here that the local GP has in the past written in the newsletter asking people to call them for help when they crash after drinking rather than assuming they'll be fine and getting a mate with a tractor to tow the car out of the ditch.
  • Yes, regional variations come into it. Likewise levels of enforcement.

    A Glamorgan policeman once told me that his force was more lenient than Gwent police for instance.

    This was partly because there was a police training college there and they'd go out breathylising everyone in order to learn the ropes.

    Overall, though, I think there's been a shift in public perception but this is by no means universal to the same extent.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    The drink driving thing here is a symptom of a wider problem: people are really bad at assessing risk. If you live in a town of 70000 people and every 6 months the local paper reports someone dying as a result of a drunk driver people will quickly recognise a pattern and a problem. If it happens once in 50 years (i.e. with the same frequency) in an island of 700 people will tend to see it as a freak accident. Health and safety in general are like this - accidents are rare enough that in small communities they can be easily put down to individual circumstances and no-one changes behaviour to reduce risk. We had a man killed and another seriously injured when hydraulics failed on a piece of farm equipment they were inspecting. Crofters take similar risks all the time (broken ribs from being kicked through a fence by a bull, hitting a rock that tips a quad over etc etc) but the serious accidents are too rare to affect behaviour, once the initial shock has worn off. Public information campaigns and training in safe working are absolutely vital.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Yes, drink driving is still a huge problem in many rural parts of the UK (even in areas not far fron major conurbations). Drug driving is also a problem.

    I think the attitude towards cannabis has shifted (although not far enough to lead to the kind of widespread support for general legalisation that happens in the US) in part due to the way that most typical casual users behave while high - usually people sit at home glued to the sofa and eating, rather than causing fights down the local pub. Oddly enough, cocaine use has become very normalised in many parts of the UK whereas ecstasy use has not - despite cocaine being significantly more dangerous than ecstasy (and in my opinion, coke makes people far more of a nuisance because it often makes people aggressive). Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis by a significant degree, especially alcohol. This is not to say that cannabis carries no risk, but people's behaviour while using it is generally much less destructive to other people.

    I should say that I am actually a medical cannabis user (which is now legal in the UK, although rarely available on the NHS yet unfortunately) and I think that legally treating cannabis akin to prescription drugs would make much more sense than the current situation. Also, people should be able to legally grow cannabis in their garden like you can grow opium poppies, because right now if a stray hemp seed from your bird feeder (hemp seeds are common in birdseed mixes) propagates itself in your garden you are breaking the law - this seems like a ludicrous position for the law to take. As a thrifty person that likes to grow their own birdseed for the birds to eat from the plant, I think the German law about growing for personal use would be reasonable.

    Of course, a big issue wrt law enforcement generally is the decade plus of underfunding local police - but also local councils, because this is what leads to eg poorly lit streets that then in turn make it easy for antisocial behaviour to flourish, and a lack of youth provision that causes bored teenagers to cause mayhem. I know that in a major student city near me (and one with a huge proportion of international students due to the STEM emphasis of the local university) the lack of lighting in city centre parks is a major safety concern, especially for young women.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I remember one time crossing the road near where I lived and seeing a sign on a door. It was put there by the police. “This crack den is now closed”. Part of me really wanted to write “your nearest crack den is in Hammersmith” under it but of course I didn’t.
    One thing that often comes up in conversations like this is bad parking. It is not seen by the public as that bad but does cause accidents and fatalities
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Bad parking also makes life much harder for disabled people, disabled people's carers, and people with babies and young children.
  • Washington State legalized personal cannabis use 13 years ago. We did not see a surge of increased crime wave. I think half of the states now allow personalized recreational cannabis use now. It has become a important revenue source for the states. However, it is still classed as a Level I drug (no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse) by the Federal government. As such, retailers selling cannabis cannot use the interstate banking system to do business. They are cash and carry. These retailers have to resort to going to Walmart to purchase money orders in order to pay for supplies and employees and utilities plus rent.

    Drunk (Drink) Driving is enforced. However, every day it is estimated 300,000 people will drive drunk and law enforcement will only stop about 4,000 of them. https://www.today.com/health/some-drunken-drivers-keep-returning-road-despite-repeat-offenses-t9526

    Used to be speed limits were moderately enforced. No more than five miles over the speed limit in open road situations, but it seems there are more and more speeders going faster than that. The emphasis is now on reckless or aggressive driving. Quite a few localities are now installing speed cameras, though, especially around areas where there may be high pedestrian traffic like school zones.

    I would say different locales emphasize different laws. Here in Pullman drunk driving is a big issue, followed by shoplifting and sexual abuse are the big three.
  • HeronHeron Shipmate
    edited November 12
    <pedant corner> @Gamma Gamaliel yes of course DUI laws in UK go back to the 60s, but in the 80s the roll out of mass produced reliable intoximeters, and the ramping up of potential punitive measures were a significant change. (Transport Act 1981 = evidential breath testing) Prior to that, refusal to blow just got you a fine. <pedant corner>

    @Pomona yes, in rural areas DUI is a real issue. I have some mates who farm in the 3 counties, who tell me that 'everyone does it' 'how else are you expected to get to the pub' 'there's only one police officer for the whole county overnight' 'police ignore farm vehicles late at night'.

    @pomona did you mean to link the study of STEM, and student country of origin, to safety fears for young women? Or did I completely miss the point of you mentioning the university had a STEM focus with a signficant international student presence? Of course, I get the lighting thing.


    OK, to lay my cards on the table, I wonder whether there has been a change in enforcement in the UK away from the law being applied to individuals to being applied to organisations. Being cynical, when subject to enforcement, organisations can be milked, whereas individuals tend to cost the state money.

    I wonder if this could mirror a change in UK Christianity to present sin as structural rather than personal, and a move away from personal purity in faith development.

    Having said that, I've just had a glass of white wine on a Wednesday tea time. Will have to look for the Northern Lights from the drive later on.

    Cheers!

    Heron
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    What I see here is that people of color, poorer people, and generally people who can't fight back are the ones who get in trouble even if people commit the crime across racial and economic.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited November 12
    @Heron definitely NOT my intention to connect international students with people committing crimes against women! The point I was trying to make was actually that international students are often less streetwise than other students due to living in a foreign country and are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crime - female international students even moreso (it didn't occur to me that mentioning STEM students could be seen as suggesting more male students - not my intention nor my experience of local students). Unfortunately there have been quite a few attacks on international students taking a shortcut through the city centre parks at night.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Drunk (Drink) Driving is enforced. However, every day it is estimated 300,000 people will drive drunk and law enforcement will only stop about 4,000 of them. https://www.today.com/health/some-drunken-drivers-keep-returning-road-despite-repeat-offenses-t9526

    At modest levels of intoxication, the effects of alcohol on driving are increased risk-taking, and slower reactions. Whether or not that turns in to a dangerous situation depends somewhat on the driver, and somewhat on the environment. If you're a bit over the limit, and drive a short distance home on fairly quiet roads, the risk of an incident might be small.

    Put the same person in a more complex situation, and the risks go up a lot, because now the poor risk perception and slow reactions actually matter.
  • Pharisaicism alert: if there is a concern about a shift from 'personal purity' to structural and institutional sin, @Heron then why are you having a glass of wine on a Wednesday when that is traditionally a 'fast day' in some strands of Christianity? 😉

    Also, I hope that your comment about watching out for the Northern Lights from your 'drive' refers to the act of driving a vehicle or the place where you park your car outside your house? 😉

    Are the Northern Lights meant to be visible tonight? I didn't see them the last time they put in an appearance here in the north-west of England.
  • Whoops ... lack of editing alert:

    That should have read 'doesn't refer to the act of driving a vehicle but to ...'

    Of course, a single glass of wine doesn't put you over the limit...
  • HeronHeron Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    What I see here is that people of color, poorer people, and generally people who can't fight back are the ones who get in trouble even if people commit the crime across racial and economic.

    May I ask where 'here' is?
  • HeronHeron Shipmate
    edited November 12
    @Gamma Gamaliel perhaps a bit of overreach there? Not the most generous rhetorical approach

    I wondered.....I did not express concern....

    Wednesday fasting is not part of my tradition. Although you are orthodox? Maybe you fasted today?

    Northern Lights tonight:

    We looked from the strip of tarmac outside of our home (our drive), and did not see them when emptying our dogs. We did see them stood on our drive last year.

    Heron
  • Heron wrote: »
    I wonder if this could mirror a change in UK Christianity to present sin as structural rather than personal, and a move away from personal purity in faith development.

    Does it ? ISTM that the world seems to understand original sin a bit better than 'UK Christianity'.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Heron wrote: »
    Gwai wrote: »
    What I see here is that people of color, poorer people, and generally people who can't fight back are the ones who get in trouble even if people commit the crime across racial and economic.

    May I ask where 'here' is?

    The U.S.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Drunk (Drink) Driving is enforced. However, every day it is estimated 300,000 people will drive drunk and law enforcement will only stop about 4,000 of them. https://www.today.com/health/some-drunken-drivers-keep-returning-road-despite-repeat-offenses-t9526

    At modest levels of intoxication, the effects of alcohol on driving are increased risk-taking, and slower reactions. Whether or not that turns in to a dangerous situation depends somewhat on the driver, and somewhat on the environment. If you're a bit over the limit, and drive a short distance home on fairly quiet roads, the risk of an incident might be small.

    Put the same person in a more complex situation, and the risks go up a lot, because now the poor risk perception and slow reactions actually matter.

    In US in most states the limit is .08 though you can be pulled over for driving while intoxicated for much less than that. But the law does not consider the condition of the road or the distance driven. If you are driving drunk, you are driving drunk period. Just to average it all out, you can drive drunk for upwards 80 times before you are caught.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Heron wrote: »
    Let me be clear, I am not looking longingly back to a rosy past. I am noting that the laws that are enforced and not enforced in the UK has changed over time, and wondering what this might tell us.
    I think it tells us that perceived risk alters over time. Deaths caused by drink driving made it less socially acceptable and there was increasing public support for strong enforcement.
    In the UK, part of the long-running (more than 50 years) campaign to reduce drink-driving deliberately focused on making drink-driving less socially acceptable.

    UK Department of Transport paper on drink drive campaigns (PDF):
    The marked attitudinal changes seen in Period 1 (1979-1987) are not reflected in a reduction in the proportion of drink drive KSIs [Killed or Seriously Injured] within the same period. However, they appear to have laid the groundwork for substantial KSI prevention in Period 2 (1987-1992).

    The model shows that, without communication in Period 2, the drink drive proportion of KSIs would have remained around 10% throughout the late 80’s until recession in the early 90’s, driven by a buoyant economy and relatively low levels of breath testing.

    Instead, communications that made drink driving socially unacceptable delivered major immediate reductions in KSIs. These reductions persisted, building with campaign weight over a number of years.
    UK Government press release in 2014:
    On the 50th anniversary of the first public information film, new research from THINK! shows how much attitudes have changed to drink driving in the last half century.

    Of those surveyed, 91% agreed drink driving was unacceptable and 92% of people said they would feel ashamed if they were caught drinking and driving. This compares to over half of male drivers and nearly two thirds of young male drivers who admitted drink driving on a weekly basis in 1979.

    I think the big picture about law and enforcement is about threats to society. My feeling is that, to an extent, the behaviours identified as threats depend on the actual harms and risk of harms (ie determined by empirical evidence), but only to a small extent.

    The larger extent is the swirling mass of whatever-it-is that informs society - the perceptions and opinions that circulate in the public domain, alongside the traditions and expectations of our more personal private domains, which come together in interesting and occasionally predictable ways.

    On the ground, a factor that comes into play are the identities of the people who make the decisions that determine which behaviours, and which individuals, are subject to actual intervention by the criminal justice system. These (ad)ministers of justice include those at the pointy end, the constabulary, all the way up to the Home Secretary (and the Government), and intervention (or enforcement) also depends on the wide range of attitudes and partialities that influence them. Fear and favour notwithstanding.
Sign In or Register to comment.