The Paragons of Patronising Ignorance
Does it really surprise anyone that the young ignore the government when it moralises against alcohol? The campaigns tend to be so patronising that they’re enough to inspire consumption as it is.
I drink, regularly. As a byproduct, I know how much alcohol it takes to render myself insensible; when it happens several time, you do tend to notice the pattern.
Anyone who drinks regularly should be the same. They have been drunk, several times, and so know how it happens to them. They don’t need to be told this by a stern poster spouting arbitrary figures at them; and no doubt do feel patronised by that poster telling them what they already know.
Likewise, they’re unlikely to be entirely unaware of the impact of drinking upon health. Anyone who drinks will at least know someone who’s hurled all that they’ve drunk and more into the loo, and will likely have heard graphic stories of at least one stomach pump. To throw up is to be ill, and most people know that’s bad. So we can assume most heavy drinkers are aware of some of the risks.
If a young person gets drunk, and does so frequently, it’s thus likely (logically) to be a more or less conscious decision. They know what they’re doing, yet do it anyway. And yet the government persists in pushing out campaigns that assume the young are ignorant of both the cause (hence stark photographs of bottles ominously marked “10″) and the consequences (hence “hard-hitting” portrayals of vomit stained youth drowing in their own filth) of drunkeness.
They know what they’re doing, and so presumably want to do it (and know this), for whatever reason. The government then shoves out propaganda that effectively claims they’re only doing it because they don’t know what they’re doing.
Who would listen to that?