Frequently Asked Questions
Are BNTL's values and beliefs still relevant in 21st century?
Yes! The 'temperance movement' evolved from different social problems, in a different century, but it still causes children and young people problems.
The pressures from peer groups, commercial marketing, press coverage and media presentations, push young people to become 'one of the gang' and partake. It is made clear, subtly and covertly, that to abstain is to be out of step with the 'in crowd'.Each person has a special physical and psychological make up, which means alcohol, affects him or her individually - it may be detrimental to some.
Do you advocate 'prohibition' from all drinks?
Yes, and No - prohibition does not work, as the American experience in the 1920's shows when prohibition laws were introduced it was horrendous. It led to bloodshed on the streets, speakeasy's and numbers rackets - the stuff of many movies, and the elevation of the likes of Al Capone and Elliot Ness - on opposite sides - to cult status.
It was not such a romantic period as some depictions suggest, with hundreds dying as a result of unworkable legislation. The pressures from vested interests were immense, and have not diminished in the meantime.
What we offer young children is that through education they can make a personal choice to either drink or not drink, but if they must they are fully aware of the consequences and can hopefully drink within safety guidelines.
Is it possible to enjoy yourself without alcohol?
Yes - despite images to the contrary. However, the glossy images undermine the suffering, financial hardship and physical dangers that the drug alcohol can inflict on an individual, the family and community alike.
Alcohol can bring out dangerous behavioural tendencies in a person, which will shock onlookers, and also the person when he or she has a retrospective look at what happened.
Alcohol is an almost assumed constituent to any party, dinner or family reception, but it is the company and interpersonal relationships that make for a pleasant gathering.
Why are non-alcoholic drinks so boring?
That is also a myth, and as an organisation we advocate a range of attractive and tasty cocktails without alcohol - experience has it that some simply do not realise from taste and appearance. They do not cause drunkenness or a hangover later!
On another front, why is it that many alcoholic drink producers have introduced a range of drinks that look like old-fashioned pop? So called 'Alco pops' are aimed at youngsters, with a benign innocence of appearance, but with the addition of alcohol, and have moved on to a massive market in vodka based 'soft drinks' - far from it.
Why do you believe alcohol is so dangerous?
As with any drug alcohol has its' side effects, it is a depressant (narcotic), which suppresses the brain, causes depression and sometimes anti-social behaviour. It reduces inhibitions that can lead to aggressive language and behaviour, violence, sexual impropriety, susceptibility to other influences.
It is addictive and habit forming - alcoholics are like other drug dependent addicts who have to feed their habit that can lead to prostitution or crime, it can break a career or destroy a family
Alcohol is a drug, but legal, so surely it must be safe?
We are concerned that recent pronouncements by the news media, government officers and even church leaders regarding the use of cannabis and ecstasy and a possible or probable downgrading of criminal status. Many even advocate decriminalisation of all drugs, which gives such a mixed message to educators, youth leaders, parents and the kids themselves.
If the proverbial older and wiser person gives the impression that something is legal, it almost automatically follows that it is safe. Alcohol has that implied safety factor - as did tobacco some years ago - but it is far from safe in wrong hands, or if misused. All drugs are potentially dangerous - some more than others - but their being 'legal' will not affect the damage they cause!
When does it become physically dangerous to drink?
It literally depends on the individual and their physical and psychological make-up. One drink can be dangerous for person A, whereas person B may need several drinks - the loss of inhibition may be more marked sooner from A to B, and when combined with any other ailments - known or unknown - the damage may be even more dangerous.
The attempts to signal a safety zone by suggesting a unit system has probably led to more confusion than clarity - and maybe introduced a sense of complacency that potentially leads to problems, especially relating to drink-driving offences.
Are the present drink-driving rules adequate?
If latest Christmas statistics are correct, certainly not. Expensive advertising campaigns are said to be producing a negative, even perverse, response among young drivers with devastating effects.
More people than ever produced negative breathalyser results, which is hugely disappointing to all concerned, and may well mean that we have to remove any possible confusion about what is safe to consume before driving skills are impaired.Some countries in the European Community, and some states in America, have a zero tolerance level, which leaves no doubt whatsoever. It means anyone drinking after consuming any alcohol is culpable. No confusion, no pleading mitigating circumstances, no legal cases arguing fine points about limits - just guilt, and safer roads for everyone. Massive savings for the NHS and lower policing costs.
And less time spent by police looking out for drunk drivers then means they may spend more time tracking down the ones who push and use other illegal drugs to eradicate that evil from our streets and families.