Minimum price alcohol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • teamsaint
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 25209

    Minimum price alcohol

    Should probably be on the main board but...
    This is just another regressive tax dressed up as a health issue, isn't it?

    Not really sure what it has to do with doctors either, since the question of whether increased prices will reduce consumption is surely a question for economists, rather than medical experts.
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

    I am not a number, I am a free man.
  • Anna

    #2
    The new law will penalise those who enjoy a bottle of wine at the weekend as well as the binge-drinkers laid out on our City streets at the weekend, so, yes, it's another stealth tax.

    As to the teenage/20s bingers. Why do we have this attitude to alcohol in this country? Drink as much as you can and fall over whilst vomiting in your kebab? To me that's the problem that has to be addressed.

    Comment

    • Russ

      #3
      Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
      This is just another regressive tax dressed up as a health issue, isn't it?
      Yes.

      Russ
      (and I don't drink)

      Comment

      • Eine Alpensinfonie
        Host
        • Nov 2010
        • 20570

        #4
        My preference would be to restrict the amount of alcohol that can be bought, just as certain medicinal drugs are restricted. Multi-packs sold in supermarkets are an invitation to binge drink. So I would suggest that all cans are only available separately - much less convenient, but that would be the idea.

        Comment

        • Richard Tarleton

          #5
          Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
          My preference would be to restrict the amount of alcohol that can be bought, just as certain medicinal drugs are restricted. Multi-packs sold in supermarkets are an invitation to binge drink. So I would suggest that all cans are only available separately - much less convenient, but that would be the idea.
          How would you see this affecting those buying a case of 12 bottles from Laithwaites, or better still 2 cases, Alpen? Or would this only apply to over-the counter sales, or only to cans?

          It sounds as if the minimum price would not affect the discriminating wine drinker as it would make the minimum price about £4, which is, er, on the low side.

          Comment

          • Flosshilde
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 7988

            #6
            Originally posted by Anna View Post
            The new law will penalise those who enjoy a bottle of wine at the weekend
            I don't think so, unless the bottle of wine you 'enjoy' is exceptionally cheap - "The Home Office said the consultation was targeted at "harmful drinkers and irresponsible shops".
            A spokesman added: "Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear from our proposals."
            The 45p minimum would mean a can of strong lager could not be sold for less than £1.56 and a bottle of wine below £4.22
            .
            "
            (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918)

            It will mean that shops (mainly supermarkets) couldn't sell alcohol at a lower price than water.

            Comment

            • amateur51

              #7
              Originally posted by Anna View Post
              The new law will penalise those who enjoy a bottle of wine at the weekend as well as the binge-drinkers laid out on our City streets at the weekend, so, yes, it's another stealth tax.

              As to the teenage/20s bingers. Why do we have this attitude to alcohol in this country? Drink as much as you can and fall over whilst vomiting in your kebab? To me that's the problem that has to be addressed.
              The reality is apparently startlingly different

              Comment

              • Flosshilde
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 7988

                #8
                He said the focus of attention was on younger drinkers because they were "on the street and in your face".

                On the street, yes; in my face? - I hope not

                Presumably the middle-aged (& middle-class, judging by the empahsis on G&T & wine - but then, it is the Daily Telegraph) have had longer to develop alcohol-related problems. It would be interesting to see if younger people, who have started binge-drinking at a lower age (much lower in some case) & who could very well not give up the habit as they get older, develop a-rp at an earlier age.

                Comment

                • amateur51

                  #9
                  Unhappy with the data used in #7? Here's some detailed analysis ...

                  Several newspapers have reported that baby-boomer alcohol abuse is costing the NHS ten times more than young people's binge-drinking. Is this true?




                  Comment

                  • aeolium
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 3992

                    #10
                    am51, it does get quite problematic if you try to get into cost analyses of lifestyle choices as a burden on the NHS. The chronic drinker (and presumably chronic smoker too) could make the argument that there are statistics that show significantly reduced life expectancy for these groups, and therefore a reduced expectation of costly end-of-life care, pensions, medical treatment etc. So I think the 'middle-aged drinkers cost more to the NHS than younger binge drinkers' argument is unduly reductionist. For instance there are other costs associated with the binge drinking such as extra policing, crime-associated stuff, cleaning up streets.

                    I'm against the minimum pricing as I think it unfairly penalises poorer people who want to be able to drink (there's enough duty on drink as it is). I think they should rather be imposing on-the-spot fines on people for anti-social behaviour in public streets (with perhaps a levy on big city centre pubs to go towards the costs of policing and cleanup).

                    Comment

                    • Petrushka
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 12251

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Anna View Post
                      Why do we have this attitude to alcohol in this country?
                      Quite. There is a totally immature attitude to alcohol in the UK - and not just among the young either - that is very worrying. You even see it on here sometimes.
                      "The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink

                      Comment

                      • Simon

                        #12
                        Originally posted by aeolium View Post

                        I'm against the minimum pricing as I think it unfairly penalises poorer people who want to be able to drink (there's enough duty on drink as it is). I think they should rather be imposing on-the-spot fines on people for anti-social behaviour in public streets (with perhaps a levy on big city centre pubs to go towards the costs of policing and cleanup).
                        Excellent post, IMO.

                        Why should those who use alcohol responsibly pay for those who don't? Why should those who are ill through no fault of their own have to queue in casualty departments behind those who have got out of their skulls and fallen over? Why should irresponsible and greedy pub chains make profit through encouraging (often vulnerable and immature) people to drink themselves senseless - and leave it to the police, NHS and local councils to pick up/clear up/pay for the results?

                        I can answer the last. Because the drinks lobby, in the UK, is very powerful. And has important friends in Commons and Lords on all sides.

                        Comment

                        • Eine Alpensinfonie
                          Host
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 20570

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
                          How would you see this affecting those buying a case of 12 bottles from Laithwaites, or better still 2 cases, Alpen? Or would this only apply to over-the counter sales, or only to cans?

                          It sounds as if the minimum price would not affect the discriminating wine drinker as it would make the minimum price about £4, which is, er, on the low side.
                          I buy 12 bottle cases from Laithwaites too. But I shudder when I see people in Bridlington Tesco filling their basket with several large packs of beer, lager, cider, etc. It's too accessible for irresponsible drinkers.

                          Comment

                          • Alain Maréchal
                            Full Member
                            • Dec 2010
                            • 1286

                            #14
                            I'm probably one of the guilty ones, having been a moderate but daily consumer of red wine since I was about 8 (cut - the wine, not me - for the first few years, naturally). However, when I first read about these proposals I didn't give it much thought, until I checked in Tesco and hadn't realised that they sell Cote du Rhone AOC for less than £4. I couldn't resist, and it turned out to be drinkable - but considering the duty and tax, I wonder how much of it gets back to the producer. On reflection it occured to me that I could probably have bought a similar bottle in Cora for less than 4Euros.

                            There's not much in the way of new intelligence in this post of mine, but may I point out the problem is not a recent one - Parisians have complained bitterly about (and taken revenge on) the drunken and violent English since the middle ages - read Horne, Robb, and especially Hussey: Paris, The Secret History, Viking 2006 - a fascinating if slightly under-edited romp.

                            Comment

                            • amateur51

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Simon View Post
                              Excellent post, IMO.

                              Why should those who use alcohol responsibly pay for those who don't? Why should those who are ill through no fault of their own have to queue in casualty departments behind those who have got out of their skulls and fallen over? Why should irresponsible and greedy pub chains make profit through encouraging (often vulnerable and immature) people to drink themselves senseless - and leave it to the police, NHS and local councils to pick up/clear up/pay for the results?

                              I can answer the last. Because the drinks lobby, in the UK, is very powerful. And has important friends in Commons and Lords on all sides.
                              I'd add that drinking habitually is portrayed as a normal part of our culture - The Bull in The Archers, The Rovers in Coronation Street, The Queen Vic in East Enders etc etc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X