Minimum pricing for alcohol

[juneau]

A good idea or yet another example of the nanny state?

It's both, I suppose, but as someone who only ever drinks moderately and who thinks the cost of alcohol in this country is already ridiculous, thanks to all the duty slapped on by the chancellor, I resent the idea that I'll have to pay more for my modest intake just because others can't control themselves. The rebel in me is getting pretty fed up with being told what I can and can't do too, as a tax-paying, consenting, adult.

I also question whether it will have much, if any, impact. After all, if you're an alcoholic, is a modest price increase really going to make you stop drinking?

My point is that social engineering what we can and can't/should and shouldn't do based on what's good for us or not does take place, and I'm all for it.

'Why don't they legalize drugs then? A lot of illegal drugs seem to do a lot less harm than the legal ones.'

Because the majority of Daily Mail reading Tories do not believe that alcohol is more dangerous than Ecstasy tablets and drugs, so the progressives can't legalise drugs (however much they would love to) without a Daily Mail backlash from ordinary people.

We believe that people are adults and are responsible people who have the right to choose what they want to do without the state taxing them at every turn.

What about them people beaten up in the street or DV victims beaten up by someone pissed? What about their right to choose?

That argument sounds to me very much like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument of the American right.

'Disgraced MP Eric Joyce has set an extraordinary new record by claiming more than £200,000 expenses in a single year.'

Is it 'Joycey'? It seems that it is 'Joycey'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362365/Disgraced-MP-Eric-Joyce-claim-200k-expenses-1-year.html

I know these problems won't go away but (I think) price increases is one way to reduce them.

'What about them people beaten up in the street or DV victims beaten up by someone pissed? What about their right to choose?'

Us Tories believe in locking people up who have committed violent crimes.
We believe in tougher sentences, even for 'Joycey' if he is found guilty of violence. We don't care if they are MPs, we believe in one law for all.

But we don't believe in increasing alcohol prices for millions of hard-working, honest people (who can't claim £200,000 expenses in one year) just because there are some violent people who beat people up. What we believe is in locking them up.

We're Tories, not progressives and we are sick of their stories and their penalisation of law-abiding, decent, hard-working people while feeling sympathy for violent thugs.

Kendodd

I know these problems won't go away but (I think) price increases is one way to reduce them.

It's a possibility. It's also a possibility that the whole boozing culture isn't really a problem, and that an aggressive and relatively covert temperance movement is receiving government funding to push out spurious reports which back its position.

Oh wait, who's this? [[http://fakecharities.org/2009/05/charity-291705/ And at least 60% funded by the taxpayer?

Claig sorry not to get back to you last night. When I spoke about consumption rising I was referring to a generational shift. People in their 30's, 40's,50's and 60's drink far more than their parents did at the same age.

This has significant consequences for their health (particularly rates of dementia and cancer as well as liver disease) This affects all sections of society. The evidence for a moderate (1-2 units a week) being beneficial has loads of confounding factors and is not considered terribly robust.

However that would cost you about £2 a week (£4-8 in a pub).

Wish, we are wealthier as a society than we were 30 years ago, so we can choose to drink if we want to.

I don't believe the government has any place in artificially fixing floor prices of alcohol to stop hard-working people buying 3 for 2 deals on any product they like. I believe people have a right to choose how to spend their money free of any manipulation from government.

I don't believe that planners and bigwigs and progressives should tell people on minimum wage that they can't buy 3 for 2 packs of beer, while these people drink in subsidised House of Commons bars and claim expenses from the people who earn minimum wage.

Apparently, 'Joycey' claimed around £200,000 in one year in expenses and we know that he occasionally frequents the subsidised House of Commons bar. Hard-working people often work 12 hour shifts and face enormous stress in these difficult times, and to have bigwigs and progressives tell them that they can't economise by buying 3 for 2 deals on alcohol because their drinking is affecting the costs of the NHS is outrageous.

What is teh cost of policing the House of Commons bars on karaoke nights, what is treh cost of all their expenses. If we want to cut costs why don't we shut down all their subsidised bars and make them pay what we have to pay.

It is disgraceful. But the Daily Mail will see to it that it goes no further. If there is one thing the progressives fear it is the people who have been woken up by the Daily Mail.

If I want to buy 3 for 2 tarasamalata or 6 for 4 Heineken it has nothing to do with the progressives in the House of Commons bars.

This is what the Mail now says price rises could be. We are talking double digit price increases.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2290290/Alcohol-price-hike-unfairly-impact-middle-class-women-drink-responsibly.html

'Responsible women such as mothers and hardworking professionals who drink responsibly will be punished unfairly should the government's plans succeed'

That is what the Mail says. It is political suicide. Why on earth would Cameron do this and go against much of his own party and millions of Tory voters as well as millions of non-Tory voters?

Voters forget about the MPs and their expenses in their subsidised bars, they forget about all the things they dislike about those who rule us, but one thing they never forget is the cost of living and the value of the pound in their pocket.

Claig sorry not to get back to you last night. When I spoke about consumption rising I was referring to a generational shift. People in their 30's, 40's,50's and 60's drink far more than their parents did at the same age.

This has significant consequences for their health (particularly rates of dementia and cancer as well as liver disease) This affects all sections of society. The evidence for a moderate (1-2 units a week) being beneficial has loads of confounding factors and is not considered terribly robust.

However that would cost you about £2 a week (£4-8 in a pub).

Sorry double post. So Claig if I want to spend my hard earned cash on firearms or class A drugs should I be able.to do so ? No one is suggesting prohibition. Very few people who wish to won't be able to drink a few units a week.

Please define responsible drinking.

' if I want to spend my hard earned cash on firearms or class A drugs should I be able.to do so ? '

They are against the law, They are not for sale on supermarket shelves or down the corner shop.

Drink is legal and 'Joycey' and other MPs partake in House of Commons bars.

'Please define responsible drinking.'

My guess is that it is possibly less than 'Joycey' knocks back.

And these progressive lying spin doctors are pulling their tricks on the public by pretending that buying 3 for 2 packs means that irresponsible drinking is going on. How do they know how much hard-working people are drinking per evening. Are they counting the number of bottles consumed within each pack.

They haven't got a clue, but then we all knew that already.

3 for 2 offers are far more about shops tempting shoppers into buying more of a product than they might have planned to, than they are about helping hard working people save money.

And if people have more wine, chocolates, crisps, whatever, at home than they'd originally been planning on buying, they're more likely to consume more than they originally intended as well. Although I agree this doesn't automatically mean that they're going to eat and drink everything in one sitting.

'3 for 2 offers are far more about shops tempting shoppers into buying more of a product than they might have planned to'

It is not for the nanny state to tell its children what to do and to imply that they are not adults but grandchildren who are not capable of making rational decisions.

The whole idea of these schemes is to price alcohol out of teh reach of the poor to force them to drink less. It won't affect 'Joycey' and the rest of the metropolitan elite, but it will affect some of the voters in Falkirk who we saw intervirewed on TV today.

It is a punitive measure by a metropolitan elite nanny state.

Would it be j=legal for the nanny state to outlaw 3 for 2 deals on chocolate nbars or cornflakes packets. I doubt it. I bet the companies, backed by their thousands of hard-working employees, would challenge it in court under EU competition rules. Who would foot the legal bill for teh government side? It would be the taxpayer again. How much would it cost us?

It seems that the EU may challenge this alcohol measure. How much will it cost us? Will they increase our taxes to pay for it? Will they pay for it in their House of Commons bars or will they be performing karaoke, pretending they are stars?

How much do you drink Claig ? I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?

Just because it's legal doesn't make it harmless the licencing laws were brought in for a reason.

'Although I agree this doesn't automatically mean that they're going to eat and drink everything in one sitting.'

But that is the whole thrust of the progressive propaganda. That we are all binge-drinking maniacs, legless on cheap booze and it has to end. That's what they say in the House of Commons bars as they sink another pint.

What if we are ordering 3 for 2 packs because we believe in the Big Society, what if we are holding parties, where we share our 3 for 2 packs among many, to dispel the gloom we see on the news and the gloom we feel when we see how they fail to sort out the economy and the health service and all the other services that we all pay for.

What if we are trying to lift our spirits by drinking the odd spirit?

We are not binge drinkers, we're not legless on booze. We don't drink on the scale that Alastair Campbell did. We can't afford it, we don't get paid what he got paid.

We don't get in the scrapes that 'Joycey' does. We buy 3 for 2, we save every penny, we don't get the expenses that the MPs get.

news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9696000/9696398.stm

'How much do you drink Claig?'

Not enough, I can't afford it, I don't get paid what 'Joycey' does.

Who in all honesty is not going to be able to afford a couple of drinks ?