Minimum price alcohol

[umslopogaas]

#40, S_A, "... best wishes all the same to his liver." Many thanks for those good wishes, I suspect my liver probably needs them!

[Flosshilde]

I didn't say that 'problem drinking' was confined to public drinking. What I was implying was that it is a bit disingenuous of the government to imply that there is no problem about people having 'a quiet drink or two', when health campaigners clearly think, like you, that there is a problem.

it was your comment on pensioners at the end of your post that I thought was stupid. It added nothing to the argument. There is a serious problem with alcohol abuse; either governments do nothing, or they take measures to control it. Minimum pricing is one of those measures. So many of the posts on this thread seem to deny that there is a problem, or minimise/trivialise it by saying, in effect, 'I drink more than I should but it doesn't do me any harm.'

[umslopogaas]

#47, oh Wotan, you have sired a daughter who does go on a bit, but then she lives in Glasgow, where they tell me people do drink a bit, and hey, she's a Valkyrie and they DO go on a bit. Floss, fancy a ride?

I dont deny for a minute that I have a problem with alcohol. I do. Its just that life is full of problems, one of them will finally finish you off, and at the moment alcohol isnt one of the big hitters. In fact its a small problem and a big consolation. I've full awareness of the problem and at least I can handle it. Pour yourself another drink and relax, if the booze doesnt kill you, something else will.

[Flosshilde]

No, not Wotan's daughter, I'm afraid! In fact nobody knows who my father was (or my mother, for that matter). I'm probably the result of a drunken fumble on the banks of the Rhine (unfortunately not the Danube, or things might have been a lot jollier, what with all that waltzing). I think I'll stick to my watery element & swim away from this thread.

[Resurrection Man]

it was your comment on pensioners at the end of your post that I thought was stupid. It added nothing to the argument. ....'

It was most definitely relevant. I don't know what personal 'baggage' you're bringing to this thread but condescension and patronisation of other people's posts are out of order. The main driver for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol is driven by the mayhem caused, in the main, by young people, possibly pre-loading on cheap booze, and then heading off and getting rat-arsed, aggressive and generally causing mayhem for all and sundry. From acting as a disincentive to other more sober people to venture out of an evening to being aggressive and assaulting A&E staff.

And maybe the odd pensioner might do the same thing but they are very, very much in the minority. Sure, the statistics show that within the older population there seems to be a greater predelection for drinking more than the recommended number of units (which incidentally has no medical or statistical backing..it was a number plucked out of thin air by some medic when hard-pressed buy the likes of Paxman...and then entered into folklore) and that obviously has health implications and implications in terms of a drain on the NHS resources. But so does smoking. So does eating to excess. Or not taking any exercise. But all of these are personal choices and it is the ultimate in arrogance for you to suggest to a fellow forum-member that they have a drink problem and should cut back.

[amateur51]

It was most definitely relevant. I don't know what personal 'baggage' you're bringing to this thread but condescension and patronisation of other people's posts are out of order. The main driver for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol is driven by the mayhem caused, in the main, by young people, possibly pre-loading on cheap booze, and then heading off and getting rat-arsed, aggressive and generally causing mayhem for all and sundry. From acting as a disincentive to other more sober people to venture out of an evening to being aggressive and assaulting A&E staff.

And maybe the odd pensioner might do the same thing but they are very, very much in the minority. Sure, the statistics show that within the older population there seems to be a greater predelection for drinking more than the recommended number of units (which incidentally has no medical or statistical backing..it was a number plucked out of thin air by some medic when hard-pressed buy the likes of Paxman...and then entered into folklore) and that obviously has health implications and implications in terms of a drain on the NHS resources. But so does smoking. So does eating to excess. Or not taking any exercise. But all of these are personal choices and it is the ultimate in arrogance for you to suggest to a fellow forum-member that they have a drink problem and should cut back.

I suspect that you're being overly tough on the alcohol units question. It is true that doctors over-simplified the advice because the effect of alcohol on the human body varies from individual to individual but to suggest, as you do, that the advice has no scientific validity is silly. That regular, frequent and substantial consumption of alcohol leads to a wide range of health problems the incidence of which increases with time is indisputable. The link between dementia and excessive alcohol consumption is an example of this. To dismiss it as something that only happens to a minority is to do a disservice to 'pensioners' and their families.

I found this evidence from the Alcohol Health Alliance UK very intersting.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhealth/132/132we06.htm

[teamsaint]

Re RM's #50, I strongly suspect that the driver for this tax rise is to get more cash for the treasury, and to make life just a little bit tougher than it is now for ordinary people.

If the government REALLY wanted to do something about the nations health, it could think up something a lot more likely to work.
This will make hardly any difference, except to boost sales of home brew kits.

[Vile Consort]

Re RM's #50, I strongly suspect that the driver for this tax rise is to get more cash for the treasury, and to make life just a little bit tougher than it is now for ordinary people.

If the government REALLY wanted to do something about the nations health, it could think up something a lot more likely to work.
This will make hardly any difference, except to boost sales of home brew kits.

Tax rise? What tax rise? Nobody is proposing a tax rise. What is proposed is a minimum price. The retailer will trouser the increase, not the government.

[Flosshilde]

Re RM's #50, I strongly suspect that the driver for this tax rise is to get more cash for the treasury, and to make life just a little bit tougher than it is now for ordinary people.

I know I said that I was going to leave the thread, but the above does need a response. IT IS NOT A TAX, AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT GAIN ANY MONEY FROM IT. This has been pointed out in earlier posts.

If you read the paper in Am's link you would see that -

3.5 Further consultation should also be taken on how best to use the additional profits generated by retailers through a minimum unit price, which are estimated at several hundred million pounds.

Now do you see why I say that many of the posts are nonsense?

[teamsaint]

Not quite true, VC and Floss. . VAT is chargeable on top of the total duty plus price .
So there will be a gain to the treasury in extra VAT , albeit more to the manufacturer.

http://www.wsta.co.uk/facts-and-figures.html

Its not in itself a tax rise, but it will increase the amount of VAT paid.....which amounts to a tax rise.

and Its STILL a burden on less well off people as I said.

[Vile Consort]

By the same token, TS, a pay rise is also a tax rise.

[teamsaint]

By the same token, TS, a pay rise is also a tax rise.

True, something that is frequently overlooked, certainly by parts of the media,when things like public sector pay are being discussed.

The net effect is important....and this is an especially regressive measure in its net tax effect since it will hit the bottom end of the market, and leave the middle and top untouched, I think.

[Alain Maréchal]

....and this is an especially regressive measure in its net tax effect since it will hit the bottom end of the market, and leave the middle and top untouched, I think.

I've never seen those tax and duty figures before, but it means that precious little of the £4 bottle I mentioned earlier gets to the producer (or even the retailer).

I tend to agree with teamsaint, in that this is not going to hit regular wine consumers like me very much, nor I suspect will it have much effect on the youthful drinkers whose aim is to become inebriated as quickly as possible in public on friday evenings (or "have a good time" as they term it - just as I did when I was their age). They will just pay the extra without noticing. It will, though, cause elderly people on low incomes (e.g. the state pension), to look at their budget and cut down on their consumption of pints of bitter or Ginger Wine. That may be a good thing in general, but it will curtail their pleasure - and before anybody says it, no they won't get as much fun out of non-alcoholic Ginger Ale!

I would suggest the proposal is, as the expression goes, "contrary to common sense". It may be a laudable aim, but there must be another way of achieving it - awareness and persuasion, perhaps.

[MrGongGong]

I would suggest the proposal is, as the expression goes, "contrary to common sense". .

I would be very wary of anyone , especially politicians, who invoke the phrase "common sense"
there are many things that have been termed "common sense"

the sun goes round the earth (it's what we see)
beer tasted better in my youth (so I guess you never had a pint of Higsons )

etc etc

[Alain Maréchal]

I regret to say I'm not entirely certain, MrGG, whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with my penultimate sentence. I'll substitute "I am not convinced the proposal will succeed in its aims", which is the meaning I intended.