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?

Also you don't have to be throwing up all over A&E or being anti-social to endanger your health (both physical and mental)

'I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?'

Wish, I think am in tune with the public on this and you aren't. That is why some Tories have said it is 'political suicide'. They know what will happen when the Mail steps up its reporting on this. They know what the public will say. There will be a report about 'Joycey' on the same page as one about responsible drinkers being penalised in order to prevent the excesses of the few.

The public will not be amused.

I couldn't give a flying fig whether this idea is popular. The OP asked if it was a good idea, I think it is for the reasons I have stated. I am obviously far to the left of you idealogically being in favour of other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start.

'Also you don't have to be throwing up all over A&E or being anti-social to endanger your health'

Can't you understand teh stress that they are putting people under with their bedroom tax and their ATOS interviews. Imagine how that stress is affecting people's health as they call people shirkers and make them worry about benefits they will lose. A 3 for 2 pack of beer is nothing compared to the stress that they are under.

Here is just one example of the stress that they have put someone under. Why don't they start to worry about that instead of increasing the price on cheap booze?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293974/Blind-eye-partially-deaf-facing-major-spinal-surgery-Thalidomide-mother-STILL-fit-work.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

While they are singing karaoke, this is what is happening in our country

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293754/Dementia-suffering-mother-75-turned-living-skeleton-just-weeks-care-home-stay-cost-HER-1-500.html

They need to get their priorities right. They need to shut down their karaoke machines and step out of their House of Commons bars and see what is going on and start doing somnething about it.

'I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?'

I'm against it and so is my teetotal husband. Why? Because it's another example of one rule for them - those in power with their huge expenses and massively subsidised bars - and one rule for all the rest of us plebs. More nanny-state bullshit, more tax, to punish everyone for the few. It smacks of 'you plebs can't police yourselves, so we'll ding your wallets even more, what do we care, we get you to pay for ours.'

'other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start'

That is not nanny state, those are services that we all pay for.

Nanny state is them telling us we can't buy 3 for 2 packs of beer or cider.

Exactly, expatinscotland, and the people have had enough of it. We pay their expenses, subsidise their bars, vote them in, and instead of sorting out our health service, firing managers who preside over failure, jailing bankers, locking up people who stamp on their girlfriends' heads and try to gouge the eyes out of a policeman and getting people back to work, instead they want to punish us even more by raising the price of one of the few pleasures we still have left.

They are out of touch and it is starting to look like they deserve to be out of power too.

'instead they want to punish us even more by raising the price of one of the few pleasures we still have left.'

Oh and to top it all, they say they are doing it for our health.

'A Thalidomide victim who is blind in one eye, partially deaf and can barely walk is being stripped of welfare payments - because officials say she is not 'disabled' enough to be out of work.
Martine White, 50, was left severely disabled after her mother took the anti-sickness drug while pregnant with her during the 1960s.
She can barely dress herself or even brush her hair, uses a wheelchair and will undergo spinal surgery later this year.

But despite her disabilities the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has written to Mrs White saying she will lose her her £110 a week Employment and Support Allowance as she cannot prove she is unfit to work.
The former care assistant from Burnley, Lancashire, has now been served with court papers and must attend a tribunal where she will have to prove her disabilities to a judge.'

Have they thought of the stress that this woman is going through and how that is affecting her health? Thank God the Mail published her story, maybe someone in the House of Commons bar will do something about it. Maybe some people will feel shame.

I still think minimum alcohol pricing is a good idea. I agree with Wishihadabs reasoning on this.

Cameron agrees with you too.

We will have to see whether he will go ahead with it.

Reason? The reason behind it is premise that adults can't police themselves, so they need another stealth tax to teach them a lesson. Is rising inflation teaching them not to eat so much good, too? Or an increased fuel duty so the cost of everyone's food rises, too? Oh, it's an obese nation, after all. Or artificially low interest rates to prop up the housing so-called market, so why save, fuck it, you won't get any interest, anyhow, and best of luck buying your own place if you're a FTB with the lending restrictions?

You think this is good, for the government to police what you put in your mouth or don't? Whilst the ones in the power get pissed as farts at your expense and expense £100+/week on their food whilst you go Aldi for your lentils?

You either want a small state or you don't, and all that comes with it.

This is a tax, on everyone, under the pretense of health whilst your food bill soars and more and more struggle to heat their homes. And the Victorians didn't cope! They died in droves.

Exactly, claig! 'Home expenses' for them. Heavily subsided bars, canteens and travel to and from work. A grocery budget. And a salary on top of that, with the 12 weeks off, of course.

But you need to pay more duty on that bottle of cider! And so does the publican who serves it to you. If they lose trade, well, just another small business.

Minimum alcohol pricing isn't a tax on everyone. Buying alcohol is entirely optional. It's not like cutting back on alcohol means you'd risk starving or freezing.

Unlike fuel duty. That's a tax on everyone.

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

Do you know why they were brought in? Because we were at war with Germany and the government wanted to reduce the amount of time factory workers could spend in the pub.

Wishihadabs

I couldn't give a flying fig whether this idea is popular. The OP asked if it was a good idea, I think it is for the reasons I have stated.

You haven't stated any reasons beyond 'People are stupid and ignorant and I know better than them what's good for them'. The rallying cry of the Guardianista down the ages.

I am obviously far to the left of you idealogically being in favour of other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start.

You don't have to be a left-winger to be a bullying authoritarian who won't butt out of people's lives when they want a beer.

As I have said cancer, liver disease and dementia. You have an increased chance of getting these if you drink more than 10 units a week (if you are female). 10 units is one bottle of wine or about 3 pints of beer or cider

That's ignoring mental health issues, the impact of heavy alcohol use on families of heavy drinkers. Heavy drinking (more than 10 units a week for women 20 for blokes) has a detrimental effect on your health, your wealth and on those around you. A minimum price would 'nt stop anyone having the odd drink. It might encourage people to think about what and how much they are drinking though

licensing laws were introduced in the 18th century. With the industrial revolution came urbanization and the gin shops. Previously alcohol (mainly beer and cider) were in short supply for much of the year in the largely agricultural society.

Wishihadabs

As I have said cancer, liver disease and dementia. You have an increased chance of getting these if you drink more than 10 units a week (if you are female). 10 units is one bottle of wine or about 3 pints of beer or cider

These figures you're quoting. Where do they come from? Who produced them? What survey method did they use and how did they calculate this?

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 16:46:26

That's ignoring mental health issues, the impact of heavy alcohol use on families of heavy drinkers. Heavy drinking (more than 10 units a week for women 20 for blokes) has a detrimental effect on your health, your wealth and on those around you.

If you're targetting heavy drinkers, then target heavy drinkers. Your proposal will affect everyone. It is bullying authoritarianism.

A minimum price would 'nt stop anyone having the odd drink.

In your view. You have no evidence to back this up.

It might encourage people to think about what and how much they are drinking though

Or it might encourage people to think that the temperance movement should bugger off and leave them alone.

licensing laws were introduced in the 18th century. With the industrial revolution came urbanization and the gin shops. Previously alcohol (mainly beer and cider) were in short supply for much of the year in the largely agricultural society.

Well done, you found Wikipedia. Since you're on it why not take a look at the clauses in the Defence of the Realm act which changed the licencing laws.

Alcohol was not in short supply. Everyone drank beer because the water was undrinkable. Beer was the normal drink.

Temperance movement ? Actually those figure came from a department of health leaflet I picked up at the dentist. I will try to find it..Mead which was drunk in the middle ages was 1-2% hardly special brew

Go on Google licencing laws those words are my own. I did check because I thought laws were introduced earlier but wanted to check. My dad was a liscesing officer which is why I knew a bit about it but wanted to check

I do drink. My paternal grandmother died at 59 she was a heavy drinker, my bf' s dad and one of dh's closet friends are functioning alcoholics, life is horrible for those that love them. I have also worked in health care for many years and seen the misery heavy alcohol use can cause.

Same information on the change for life website. Why would they lie ? Although upper limit for women is given as 14 units not 10

Cancer research summary.

Thanks squeaky