Minimum Pricing On Alcohol

[Dashing Bob S]

Given Scotland's chronic drinking problems, with more women and young people now dying of chirrosis of liver than ever before, should alcohol be made less available?

It's been established that one of the ways to do this is to have a minimum price policy to deter people from drinking so much.

The drinks industry in Scotland have employed two big PR firms to lobby the government against change.

Is minimum pricing a good idea, or is it another example of the nanny state deciding what's good for us?

(Bear in mind that the nanny state actually got it right on tobacco. Very few people bar the unreconstructed jakey element would like to return to the days of smoke-filled rooms and workplaces. Would it be nice not to have rampaging tubes shouting and stoating into each other like zombies every night, or is that the price we pay for personal freedom?)

[Twa Cairpets]

Given Scotland's chronic drinking problems, with more women and young people now dying of chirrosis of liver than ever before, should alcohol be made less available?

It's been established that one of the ways to do this is to have a minimum price policy to deter people from drinking so much.

The drinks industry in Scotland have employed two big PR firms to lobby the government against change.

Is minimum pricing a good idea, or is it another example of the nanny state deciding what's good for us?

(Bear in mind that the nanny state actually got it right on tobacco. Very few people bar the unreconstructed jakey element would like to return to the days of smoke-filled rooms and workplaces. Would it be nice not to have rampaging tubes shouting and stoating into each other like zombies every night, or is that the price we pay for personal freedom?)

One of the questions is what level of price sensitivity is there to consumption?

Drinking in pubs / clubs is already vastly more expensive than buying a carry-out, and arguably is a less controlled environment (no barman to say "enough"). You can buy a 4-pack of Stella for the same price as a pint in the city centre. To raise prices to a level that would deter could seriously impinge on the perfectly acceptable enjoyment alcohol gives to millions of "average" drinkers.

The target probably needs to be on cheap and available bevvy - ciders, Bucky, MD and them like. Adopting a broad brush stroke approach is just that - bulldozing legislation through for the sake of it. If the concern is genuinely around young people (by which I predominantly mean 13-18), then focus on that group. If it is genuinely to focus on, say 18-25s, the other options such as raising the legal age (which I hasten to add I dont agree with) should be looked at.

[CropleyWasGod]

I know a few people who are recognised as authorities in the field of alcohol research. For years, they have insisted that the only way to reduce consumption is to put prices up. It seems that, finally, the legislators are listening.

However, in reading into this earlier this week, it doesn't seem as if there will be major price hikes in store. Based on a unit cost of 60p, some drinks will have their price increased, and some (Bucky, for example!!) will stay as they are.

As I see it, though, once Parliament and the public have accepted the principleof minimum pricing, the Government then have the authority to put the price up steadily, probably much beyond the inflation rate. I think this is a smart move... heavy price hikes now would turn people off, especially at the ballot box, and there would be black markets springing up almost immediately.

The concept gets a thumbs up for me. My expectation, though, is that the opposition parties will vote it down, purely out of political considerations.

The end.

[CropleyWasGod]

One of the questions is what level of price sensitivity is there to consumption?

Drinking in pubs / clubs is already vastly more expensive than buying a carry-out, and arguably is a less controlled environment (no barman to say "enough"). You can buy a 4-pack of Stella for the same price as a pint in the city centre. To raise prices to a level that would deter could seriously impinge on the perfectly acceptable enjoyment alcohol gives to millions of "average" drinkers.



Pubs aren't affected, as far as I can make out. They were targetted by the recent legislation on Happy Hours etc. The minimum pricing concept is all about the retail trade.

[Dinkydoo]

Given Scotland's chronic drinking problems, with more women and young people now dying of chirrosis of liver than ever before, should alcohol be made less available?

It's been established that one of the ways to do this is to have a minimum price policy to deter people from drinking so much.

The drinks industry in Scotland have employed two big PR firms to lobby the government against change.

Is minimum pricing a good idea, or is it another example of the nanny state deciding what's good for us?

(Bear in mind that the nanny state actually got it right on tobacco. Very few people bar the unreconstructed jakey element would like to return to the days of smoke-filled rooms and workplaces. Would it be nice not to have rampaging tubes shouting and stoating into each other like zombies every night, or is that the price we pay for personal freedom?)


No, for two reasons:

The average drinker would suffer meaning that once again the total bampots of society have ruined it for the sensible people!

People would still get just as wasted (maybe not on such a wide scale, youths etc..may not be able to afford it) but end up putting themselves even more out of pocket because of the price increase. This could then lead to more people trying to steal alcohol and money so that they can have a drink. IMO we would be just replacing one problem with another.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, for two reasons:

The average drinker would suffer meaning that once again the total bampots of society have ruined it for the sensible people!

.

The "average drinker" is already suffering through the cost to society of caring for drink-related illness. That cost is going to increase substantially if nothing is done. It is also a cost that we have no choice on.... the increased cost of alcohol is a choice, though.

[Beefster]

Minimum pricing will punish the general population without tackling the root causes of why some people drink to excess.

Excess eaters cost the NHS far, far more than excess drinkers. How will we punish society for their lack of control? A minimum price of £12 for a fish supper?

[CropleyWasGod]

:
Minimum pricing will punish the general population without tackling the root causes of why some people drink to excess.

Excess eaters cost the NHS far, far more than excess drinkers. How will we punish society for their lack of control? A minimum price of £12 for a fish supper?

The general population is already being punished, even those who don't drink.

As for the excess eaters, I agree that it is a major problem, but one thing at a time eh? :wink: FWIW, though, there are already initiatives aimed at educating us about healthy eating. These things, though, are likely to take a generation or two to bear fruit (scuse the pun).

And your point about "why" people drink is valid. That's a wider, and deeper, issue of social deprivation and societal attitudes that is well beyoind my ken.

[steakbake]

Minimum pricing will punish the general population without tackling the root causes of why some people drink to excess.

Excess eaters cost the NHS far, far more than excess drinkers. How will we punish society for their lack of control? A minimum price of £12 for a fish supper?

Not so - I'm not an expert by any means, but from what I've read, heard and at least understood, this isn't the case.

Minimum pricing will hike the price of cheap alcohol to be comparable to the price of standard beer and wine. What they are trying to get at is the cheap stuff - the kind of drinks that people drink to get absolutely ******ed for hardly any outlay. These are the drinks perfered by youth and problem drinkers.

There will be little if no rise in price of wine, beer and spirits as the minimum price of these is already commensurate with the proposed changes.

Obesity is another problem which costs us a bomb but our drinking culture is a boil which needs lanced.

[s.a.m]

Not sure how I feel about this one, TBH. I know that there is evidence that pricing strategies can work, but (as I get older and grumpier...) I'm less fond of this kind of control. I find it hard to accept that a generation of youth will decide that because high strength bevvy is too dear, they no longer want to get wasted, and choose to do wholesome stuff instead.

Many years ago, I was discussing an alcohol and substance misuse programme with teachers and local police, and I asked - genuinely - how they could afford to get pished on expensive (relatively low alcohol) alco-pops (which were the bete-noire of the moment). The police said that they generally solved the problem by buying a half bottle of vodka between a group of them, and a bottle of lemonade to mix. Or they sniffed solvents.

My concern (and it may not be a legit one) is that by attacking the problem in this way, and not tackling the problem as the more complex one that it is, we unintentionally set up some other route for young people to get wrecked / make a nuisance of themselves

I'm not claiming to have a superior solution, and if I thought that it was going to make a significant difference then I could accept it.

[Woody1985]

No, for two reasons:

The average drinker would suffer meaning that once again the total bampots of society have ruined it for the sensible people!

People would still get just as wasted (maybe not on such a wide scale, youths etc..may not be able to afford it) but end up putting themselves even more out of pocket because of the price increase. This could then lead to more people trying to steal alcohol and money so that they can have a drink. IMO we would be just replacing one problem with another.

Agree.

When I used to deliver chinese I would go to some houses and they would be filled with empty aftershave and mouthwash bottles.

These jakies will probably do this more in future.

[Dashing Bob S]

Having abused myself with cheap alcohol when I was younger, and now being able to afford the more expensive stuff, I find myself in a suitably finger-waving mood in my middle-age.

Increase the price and raise the age of purchase to 21, I say. If youth want thrills, there's the army life.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, for two reasons:

The average drinker would suffer meaning that once again the total bampots of society have ruined it for the sensible people!

People would still get just as wasted (maybe not on such a wide scale, youths etc..may not be able to afford it) but end up putting themselves even more out of pocket because of the price increase. This could then lead to more people trying to steal alcohol and money so that they can have a drink. IMO we would be just replacing one problem with another.

The first thing I would say is the average drinker in the UK drinks too much. The bad news on alcohol (well for me at least) is that 21 units a week is the recommended amount (unfortunately that's the recommended maximum). I think most of us have no problem getting through that much in a week, with minimal effort.

The evidence from elsewhere seems to suggest that pricing is the key. Now if they raise the minimum price of booze by, say 20p a unit that means that the sensible drinker will have to pay an extra £4.20 a week. In plain English that amounts to less than the price of two pints.

I think few people - other than those who spend every penny they have on booze - would resort to stealing to fund their habit.

I think that drink is far too cheap at the moment, and people are inclined to buy a bottle or some cans on impulse. If they had to think twice about their purchase they might drink less.

The personal freedom argument is just bogus, as their other drugs that people take for recreational purposes, I haven't heard many non drug users complaining about the lack of freedom to buy them. Unless people are prepared to take all drugs out of the criminal system it is nothing other than hypocrisy.

As Bob said in his initial post, the NHS is starting to see the cost of 20 years of cheap booze. The number of middle aged women with alcoholic dementia, for example, has gone through the roof. There is no doubt in my mind that people should drink less, and I think that keeping this drug available but controlling price is a good option.

[BravestHibs]

The first thing I would say is the average drinker in the UK drinks too much. The bad news on alcohol (well for me at least) is that 21 units a week is the recommended amount (unfortunately that's the recommended maximum). I think most of us have no problem getting through that much in a week, with minimal effort.

The evidence from elsewhere seems to suggest that pricing is the key. Now if they raise the minimum price of booze by, say 20p a unit that means that the sensible drinker will have to pay an extra £4.20 a week. In plain English that amounts to less than the price of two pints.

I think few people - other than those who spend every penny they have on booze - would resort to stealing to fund their habit.

I think that drink is far too cheap at the moment, and people are inclined to buy a bottle or some cans on impulse. If they had to think twice about their purchase they might drink less.

The personal freedom argument is just bogus, as their other drugs that people take for recreational purposes, I haven't heard many non drug users complaining about the lack of freedom to buy them. Unless people are prepared to take all drugs out of the criminal system it is nothing other than hypocrisy.

As Bob said in his initial post, the NHS is starting to see the cost of 20 years of cheap booze. The number of middle aged women with alcoholic dementia, for example, has gone through the roof. There is no doubt in my mind that people should drink less, and I think that keeping this drug available but controlling price is a good option.

If the price of alcohol goes too high people will just do what I used to do when I was too young to drink alcohol. Get swedgers instead. They cost about as much as a packet of haribo. I could get about 10 swedgers for the amount highlighted and I'd have the government to thank for turning me to class A drugs. It's actually the opposite of the nanny state.

[Barney McGrew]

Pubs aren't affected, as far as I can make out. They were targetted by the recent legislation on Happy Hours etc. The minimum pricing concept is all about the retail trade.

:agree:

It wouldn't affect pub prices, they're already well above any proposed minimum price per unit that's been discussed.

The research that was done by Sheffield University (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/09/28081626) showed some really interesting stuff on the effects of a 40p minimum price per unit in Scotland, in particular that a 'normal' drinker would only pay £11 more per year in total under the proposals and that alcohol related deaths would fall by 19% over ten years. Scotland already has nearly twice the number of deaths per head of population than England and Wales (over 1500 per year).

When it comes to price, a 40p per unit would mean you'd pay at least £3.60 for a bottle of wine, £4.80 for a six pack of lager and £10.50 for a 70cl bottle of spirits.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree:

It wouldn't affect pub prices, they're already well above any proposed minimum price per unit that's been discussed.

The research that was done by Sheffield University (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/09/28081626) showed some really interesting stuff on the effects of a 40p minimum price per unit in Scotland, in particular that a 'normal' drinker would only pay £11 more per year in total under the proposals and that alcohol related deaths would fall by 19% over ten years. Scotland already has nearly twice the number of deaths per head of population than England and Wales (over 1500 per year).

When it comes to price, a 40p per unit would mean you'd pay at least £3.60 for a bottle of wine, £4.80 for a six pack of lager and £10.50 for a 70cl bottle of spirits.

Thats probably fair enough then. Any idea what Bucky would retail at? (By the way I was speaking to a supplier to Buckfast. They have a mere 30 employees and turn over around £35million. I think they can afford to have a slump in sales of their poisonous ribena).

[CropleyWasGod]

Thats probably fair enough then. Any idea what Bucky would retail at? (By the way I was speaking to a supplier to Buckfast. They have a mere 30 employees and turn over around £35million. I think they can afford to have a slump in sales of their poisonous ribena).

The report I read suggested that Bucky would stay the same price. Something to do with the fact that, in terms of its alcohol content, it is already relatively expensive.

[Killiehibbie]

The report I read suggested that Bucky would stay the same price. Something to do with the fact that, in terms of its alcohol content, it is already relatively expensive.

Never saw the attraction with buckfast. If you want that kind of thing a cheap bottle of sherry is the same strength and tastes better, well not as bad.

[HibsMax]

I have no doubt that increasing the price would dissuade some people but I think there are many other issues with this plan:
1. it is indiscriminate - everyone is affected, not just those at risk of drinking themselves into an early grave.

2. people who want to drink will find a way - I am not suggesting this will amount to robbery but some people might, it's a risk. some people will also skimp on other things like food and other necessities.

3. it doesn't address the real problem - people are drinking excess amounts of alcohol not because it's cheap; the price only makes it easier for them to drink more. the real issue is alcohol abuse. we need to educate people that what they're doing is causing real harm. but who'll listen, I wonder?

If the government really wanted to help people then they would come up with a much better plan. Unfortunately a much better plan would more than likely cost more than simply raising prices will. I think that raising the minimum drinking age is a good idea but I recognise that it's flawed as well (fake IDs, people buying booze for other people, etc.).

How about giving people another way to enjoy themselves e.g., legalising marijuana? :wink: That said, I think lots of people want it to stay illegal rather than paying the inevitable taxes, etc.

At the end of the day all we can really do is educate people. If we do that and they continue to live a certain lifestyle, let them. Of course, when it comes time for their liver transplant....tough, they're at the end of the line.


I just want to play Devil's Advocate and ask people to consider something that nobody else has mentioned. What about the manufacturers of said cheap alcohol? Their sales will likely drop.....that's the whole point in hiking the prices in the first place. Does nobody care that these people are going to start losing money? Or do people think that the increase in prices will offset the drop in sales? There are faces behind these businesses. If the companies lose enough revenue there could be job cuts. Or do people not care? There are two sides to every coin.

[CropleyWasGod]

I



I just want to play Devil's Advocate and ask people to consider something that nobody else has mentioned. What about the manufacturers of said cheap alcohol? Their sales will likely drop.....that's the whole point in hiking the prices in the first place. Does nobody care that these people are going to start losing money? Or do people think that the increase in prices will offset the drop in sales? There are faces behind these businesses. If the companies lose enough revenue there could be job cuts. Or do people not care? There are two sides to every coin.

Of course there is a downside, and it has to be considered. That is why the Government is, as I say, being fairly low in assessing the minimum price. In time, that price will rise. Those in the industry, at least the smart ones, will see that coming and seek other jobs.

That said, although the whisky industry has been making noises about how "bad" it all is, the Scottish market is relatively minor to them. It's the export market where they make their money.

Bottom line for me, though, is that I would far rather I lived in a society where we're actually doing something about our appalling health record, both from a moral and a financial point of view.

[HibsMax]

Bottom line for me, though, is that I would far rather I lived in a society where we're actually doing something about our appalling health record, both from a moral and a financial point of view.
Me too but I don't think the answer is to hit people's wallets.

Here are some ideas that could work if people REALLY wanted to make a difference.

1. have the government regulate the sale of hard liquor - this is what happens in New Hampshire. You can buy beer and wine from lots of places but hard liquor you can only get from State-run liquor stores.

2. introduce rationing - limit the amount of alcohol one person can buy. track how much alcohol that person is buying.

The problem with these ideas is that #1 requires a massive change in how booze is traded. And systems that try to control the sale of alcohol don't actually affect consumption. People will pretty much always find a way to get their hands on booze. In fact, the problem with any *good* scheme is that it will require major change and probably a lot of $$$$. Raising the price of cheap booze seems like little more than the cheapest / easiest solution, not the best.

At the end of the day people don't like being told what to do or how to live their lives so almost any proposed scheme is going to meet resistance from somewhere. And people, well me at least, don't like to be hit in the wallet to compensate for someone else's bad habits. That is why I firmly believe that people need to be educated in a manner that actually works. Preaching isn't going to cut it. The odd, hard-hitting TV ad campaign isn't going to cut it.

How about introducing laws that limit the alcohol content of cheaper booze? That would mean people would need to drink more. This means the heavier drinkers would end up paying the costs, not the people who drink a moderate amount. Also, it's physically more difficult to drink larger quantities so that's a limiting factor, too.

[CropleyWasGod]

Me too but I don't think the answer is to hit people's wallets.

Here are some ideas that could work if people REALLY wanted to make a difference.

1. have the government regulate the sale of hard liquor - this is what happens in New Hampshire. You can buy beer and wine from lots of places but hard liquor you can only get from State-run liquor stores.

2. introduce rationing - limit the amount of alcohol one person can buy. track how much alcohol that person is buying.

The problem with these ideas is that #1 requires a massive change in how booze is traded. And systems that try to control the sale of alcohol don't actually affect consumption. People will pretty much always find a way to get their hands on booze. In fact, the problem with any *good* scheme is that it will require major change and probably a lot of $$$$. Raising the price of cheap booze seems like little more than the cheapest / easiest solution, not the best.

At the end of the day people don't like being told what to do or how to live their lives so almost any proposed scheme is going to meet resistance from somewhere. And people, well me at least, don't like to be hit in the wallet to compensate for someone else's bad habits. That is why I firmly believe that people need to be educated in a manner that actually works. Preaching isn't going to cut it. The odd, hard-hitting TV ad campaign isn't going to cut it.

How about introducing laws that limit the alcohol content of cheaper booze? That would mean people would need to drink more. This means the heavier drinkers would end up paying the costs, not the people who drink a moderate amount. Also, it's physically more difficult to drink larger quantities so that's a limiting factor, too.

We are all already being hit in the wallet for other people's excesses. The cost to the NHS (a major difference between us and you) is rising all the time... and that's something we all HAVE to pay.

The other measures you mention are worthy of consideration, but as soon as you start restricting consumption in those ways, black markets start. (ibid, USA, 1930's).

[CB_NO3]

Why should I have to pay extra for drink because some we jakes/neds get drunk and go about causing anti social behaviour?. Drinking in this country is a cultural thing that the government need to sort out by dealing with kids at a very young age. As for the price increase, I cant see it happening. The big 4 supermarket chains have far too much power. I thought the new law about cheap drink was meant to have started in September and you can still buy a litre of Smirnoff at Morrisons for £11.

[ancient hibee]

why is it that in many parts of Europe drink in relation to earnings is cheap but in the holiday areas in particular the only public drunkeness seen is usually UK holidaymakers.

[Pete]

People seem to think that a price increase will effect them in some interfering, nanny state way but it won't really if your drinking habits are normal. You might not get the "three cases for £20" deals that you once did but that's a small price to pay in my opinion.

It's the dirt cheap vodka and big bottles of cider that will go up in price...the easy fix and choice of the youngsters, the neds and the bams.

It's not the complete answer but it's a start...and more inportantly it is putting cheap alcohol slightly further out of reach of the twelve year olds who can get leathered for £1.50 at present.

This should definately be brought in...but more importantly there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards underage drinking. Only the most draconian measures will cure this problem we have yet the people who make decisions on alcohol policies seem to be skirting around the issue. Police turn a blind eye to kids lying around pissed on the streets because they are told to.

I remember seeing an African guy who worked with charities in some of the poorest parts of the continent on the National News giving us some advice after visiting scotland for a few months.
He said "keep your money. You need it more than we do because you're killing yourselves with your drinking".

Says it all really.

[Beefster]

People seem to think that a price increase will effect them in some interfering, nanny state way but it won't really if your drinking habits are normal. You might not get the "three cases for £20" deals that you once did but that's a small price to pay in my opinion.

It's the dirt cheap vodka and big bottles of cider that will go up in price...the easy fix and choice of the youngsters, the neds and the bams.

It's not the complete answer but it's a start...and more inportantly it is putting cheap alcohol slightly further out of reach of the twelve year olds who can get leathered for £1.50 at present.

This should definately be brought in...but more importantly there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards underage drinking. Only the most draconian measures will cure this problem we have yet the people who make decisions on alcohol policies seem to be skirting around the issue. Police turn a blind eye to kids lying around pissed on the streets because they are told to.

I remember seeing an African guy who worked with charities in some of the poorest parts of the continent on the National News giving us some advice after visiting scotland for a few months.
He said "keep your money. You need it more than we do because you're killing yourselves with your drinking".

Says it all really.

I don't object to state intervention because it necessarily directly affects me. I object because I fundamentally disagree with state intervention in more and more aspects of everyday life.

If it's under-age drinkers that are being targeted by the price increases, why not just police those that sell alcohol better?

[Pete]

I don't object to state intervention because it necessarily directly affects me. I object because I fundamentally disagree with state intervention in more and more aspects of everyday life.

If it's under-age drinkers that are being targeted by the price increases, why not just police those that sell alcohol better?

I see where your coming from and understand but I think that alcohol provision and pricing is the one area that NEEDS state intervention. Market forces have been allowed to govern the price of drink and it has therefore been allowed to become more accesable to youngsters. If they have a fiver to spend on drink they will spend a fiver...why not allow them to only buy half as much?

As for the second point I agree, but I don't see what more the supermarkets can do regarding the actual sale of alcohol. It's not as easy as it was but kids are still getting drink...and getting drunk on the streets.

It's the actual offenders that need targetted in my opinion. Zero tolerance towards drunk kids. Lock them up and give them some sort of record if need be....or find some punishment that ensures they will think twice about doing it again.

[CropleyWasGod]

Why should I have to pay extra for drink because some we jakes/neds get drunk and go about causing anti social behaviour?. Drinking in this country is a cultural thing that the government need to sort out by dealing with kids at a very young age. As for the price increase, I cant see it happening. The big 4 supermarket chains have far too much power. I thought the new law about cheap drink was meant to have started in September and you can still buy a litre of Smirnoff at Morrisons for £11.

1. as I have said already, you ARE paying for it already, through your taxes.

2. it's not a new law yet. Parliament have yet to debate it.

[Steve-O]

Raising prices is the easy answer, and an easy answer that IMO will not actually work.

What does need to be addressed is why people feel the need to get absolutely wasted every single weekend? I've been there and done it, and to a very slightly lesser extent these days, I still do!

It's easy to say "oh but can't you have a good time without drinking?" - the fact is for a lot of people the answer is actually no! It makes you feel good at the time, you lose your inhibitions, talk to more people, do things you normally would like dance(!) and generally it is seen as a 'good' thing. The problem is (and I'm not innocent in this by any means) is when people don't know when to stop and become aggressive or do something completely crazy.

I know that after I've had a drunken 'episode' it tends to be at least another few weeks before such a thing might happen again, but for a lot of people, this is a weekly event - get steaming, have fun, get more steaming, have a fight, etc.

For your average 16-17 year old in Edinburgh, what is there actually to do on a Friday or Saturday night? You can say go to the pictures or go bowling or something, and while these things might work on occasion, they are just not 'dangerous' enough to keep the attention of these bams?

So after all of the above, I don't know how alcohol consumption can be reduced in Scotland. I should also say that the problem is not just Scotland, or the UK - binge drinking over here in NZ is also on the political agenda and similar discussions are happening over here. I think something like 80% of crime involves alcohol.

[Barney McGrew]

Raising prices is the easy answer, and an easy answer that IMO will not actually work.

It's part of the answer though - if it makes alcohol less available to the people who do abuse it, then that can only be a good thing. But I agree that there's a whole raft of other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with it.

The bill has an awful long way to go before it becomes law. The SNP put it forward, and the Tories and Lib Dems have already put their cards on the table and opposed it. Labour seems to be split, and depending on which way they decide to vote will decide if it becomes statute or not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why should I have to pay extra for drink because some we jakes/neds get drunk and go about causing anti social behaviour?. Drinking in this country is a cultural thing that the government need to sort out by dealing with kids at a very young age. As for the price increase, I cant see it happening. The big 4 supermarket chains have far too much power. I thought the new law about cheap drink was meant to have started in September and you can still buy a litre of Smirnoff at Morrisons for £11.

The problem goes way beyond wee neds and jakeys. In fact one of the biggest increases in drinking is in the over 60s, retired people with disposable income and nothing else to do - they have been christened SAGA louts. It's not that we have a problem with small pockets of socety - it is the amount consumed by the average person with mortgage, kids and employment that is out of hand.

I think you are absolutely right about the supermarkets though. They have made booze as easy a choice as buying a packet of sweeties - you'll notice the booze aisle is always the last one in the shop. So someone who's had a hard day, then had to endure a trip round Morrisons, sees a four pound bottle of wine as the perfect reward (instant and inexpensive).

Thanks for the tip about the £11 Smirnoff by the way. :greengrin

[woodythehibee]

i think it comes down to what is accepted in society and education.

In the UK today, it is a cool thing to go out and get drunk and people go out their way to get drunk at the weekends. It is just an accepted part of society.

In other countries (spain, malaysia etc..) it is frowned upon if you are seen to be drunk. different cultures, different societies and maybe different education views.

If "binge drinking" is to be kicked out of the country and improve alcohol related illness numbers then i think it has to come from education and tomorrow's youngsters are simply going to follow the current crop where going out and getting drunk is a cool and funny thing to do. And it will take a long time too.

Will increasing the price help? Well, nothing is going to be a quick fix and it alone is not going to solve our problems. But it may be a step in the right direction and a lot of other factors will also need to come into play for us to change.

[steakbake]

i think it comes down to what is accepted in society and education.


Totally agree. I think the problem is folk go out to get absolutely plastered. Getting drunk should be a hazard of going out for a drink, not the whole point of it.

[Pete]

i think it comes down to what is accepted in society and education.

In the UK today, it is a cool thing to go out and get drunk and people go out their way to get drunk at the weekends. It is just an accepted part of society.

In other countries (spain, malaysia etc..) it is frowned upon if you are seen to be drunk. different cultures, different societies and maybe different education views.

If "binge drinking" is to be kicked out of the country and improve alcohol related illness numbers then i think it has to come from education and tomorrow's youngsters are simply going to follow the current crop where going out and getting drunk is a cool and funny thing to do. And it will take a long time too.

Will increasing the price help? Well, nothing is going to be a quick fix and it alone is not going to solve our problems. But it may be a step in the right direction and a lot of other factors will also need to come into play for us to change.

I think it's far too engrained in our culture to even think about a quick fix.

Every aspect of the media seems to glorify intoxication...especially in Scotland where the stereotype of the happy drunk seems to be one that is almost encouraged.

If you genuinely take a step out and recognise what alcohol is all about you begin to see our drinking culture in a different light...and its similar to looking at it from someone from a foreign, non alcohol based cultures point of view.

It's frightening....and it's time for really tough measures because I don't even think people realise what alcohol is doing to the country in general.

[heretoday]

Putting up prices is a good idea, if it's possible.

I don't buy the "unfair to sensible drinkers" argument. Sensible drinkers presumably don't spend so much on booze that they would be too badly affected by a price rise.

Maybe if we were asked to pay more for our pints of Tennents or Fosters we would realise what second rate products they are.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Putting up prices is a good idea, if it's possible.

I don't buy the "unfair to sensible drinkers" argument. Sensible drinkers presumably don't spend so much on booze that they would be too badly affected by a price rise.

Maybe if we were asked to pay more for our pints of Tennents or Fosters we would realise what second rate products they are.

The practicalities become an issue. What's to stop people popping down to Berwick, for example, and take advantage of cheap booze there.

Has anyone come across the low strength Guinness yet? It is 2.7 proof and doesn't taste too bad - as bad as Guinness in a crap pub. I have found it is a good drink to switch to when I am starting to feel the affects of booze. I used to switch to Tennents or Carling or some other pint of chemically recreated pee pee.

[CropleyWasGod]

The practicalities become an issue. What's to stop people popping down to Berwick, for example, and take advantage of cheap booze there.

.

Grocers in the Borders have been in the press this week complaining about that possibility. It's an issue, but it shouldn't be allowed to deflect from the over-arching principle that this is about the health of the nation as a whole.

In practice, though, I reckon that (just as with the smoking ban) England won't be that far behind us if we go ahead with minimum pricing.

[Beefster]

Putting up prices is a good idea, if it's possible.

I don't buy the "unfair to sensible drinkers" argument. Sensible drinkers presumably don't spend so much on booze that they would be too badly affected by a price rise.

Maybe if we were asked to pay more for our pints of Tennents or Fosters we would realise what second rate products they are.

What about the argument that kids, no longer able to afford alcohol due to minimum pricing, will buy cheaper drugs instead?

[CropleyWasGod]

What about the argument that kids, no longer able to afford alcohol due to minimum pricing, will buy cheaper drugs instead?

And, in the words of one Frank Gallagher, we will make poverty history :greengrin

Joking aside, I have two broad arguments against that:-

1. it isn't just kids that are being targetted here. Drinking, and drugs, are often just rites-of-passage for kids, and they generally "settle down". It's the older ones, the 20-30's who haven't "settled down" that are the worries.... the so called demographic time bomb which is going to cost all of us very soon.

2. it's a thread hijack, I know, but I am a fan of bringing drug supply into state control. It's not going to happen in the short term, I know, but if drug use increases as a result of minimum pricing then you could follow that logic.

[sleeping giant]

What about the argument that kids, no longer able to afford alcohol due to minimum pricing, will buy cheaper drugs instead?

Certain drugs have always been cheaper than drink.

LSD was £2-£3 when i was in my early 20's.


Scotland should go down the Drink Driving socially unacceptable route.
It will take a generation but i think it could work.
Parents need to set an example here as well. I dont think any bairn should need to see their parents steaming drunk.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about the argument that kids, no longer able to afford alcohol due to minimum pricing, will buy cheaper drugs instead?

Part of the thing is educating people - especially the young - that you don't need to get out of your face to enjoy life.

[Beefster]

Part of the thing is educating people - especially the young - that you don't need to get out of your face to enjoy life.

I'm all for that. That's exactly why I don't think minimum pricing is the answer.

[HibsMax]

We are all already being hit in the wallet for other people's excesses. The cost to the NHS (a major difference between us and you) is rising all the time... and that's something we all HAVE to pay.

The other measures you mention are worthy of consideration, but as soon as you start restricting consumption in those ways, black markets start. (ibid, USA, 1930's).
Just because we're already being hit in the wallet is not a valid reason for continuing to so. In fact, it sounds like even more of a reason to protest further penalties....which is what I see a price hike as being.

[HibsMax]

People seem to think that a price increase will effect them in some interfering, nanny state way but it won't really if your drinking habits are normal. You might not get the "three cases for £20" deals that you once did but that's a small price to pay in my opinion.

It's the dirt cheap vodka and big bottles of cider that will go up in price...the easy fix and choice of the youngsters, the neds and the bams.

It's not the complete answer but it's a start...and more inportantly it is putting cheap alcohol slightly further out of reach of the twelve year olds who can get leathered for £1.50 at present.

This should definately be brought in...but more importantly there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards underage drinking. Only the most draconian measures will cure this problem we have yet the people who make decisions on alcohol policies seem to be skirting around the issue. Police turn a blind eye to kids lying around pissed on the streets because they are told to.

I remember seeing an African guy who worked with charities in some of the poorest parts of the continent on the National News giving us some advice after visiting scotland for a few months.
He said "keep your money. You need it more than we do because you're killing yourselves with your drinking".

Says it all really.
I know what you're saying, Peter, but is it not also putting these products out of the reach of those people who are already on tight budgets? Or are we saying that people on tight budgets shouldn't be "wasting" their money on alcohol? It's a tough one.

[HibsMax]

1. as I have said already, you ARE paying for it already, through your taxes.

2. it's not a new law yet. Parliament have yet to debate it.

So now people will be paying for it TWICE - taxes and price increases. Hmmmm.

How about introducing an alcohol license? They have them over here. They're like a driver's license but it's ONLY to prove your age, you can't use it to drive. Once a person has a license they are immediately tracable. A ned gets busted pissed on a street corner, apply point to his license and eventually he'll lose it so he can't personally buy more booze. Just another suggestion.

[HibsMax]

It's part of the answer though - if it makes alcohol less available to the people who do abuse it, then that can only be a good thing. But I agree that there's a whole raft of other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with it.
I disagree about it being a good thing. Banning the sale of alcohol entirely would certainly be a way of stopping people getting pissed (until moonshine hits the streets) but I doubt that suggestion would meet with much approval.

In short, IMO, punishing EVERYONE to deal with a problem that only affects SOME people is heavy handed. Some people get killed or injured because some people drive too fast. Let's reduce the speed limit to 10mph everywhere then. That would certainly bring the fatalities down. ;)

[HibsMax]

Putting up prices is a good idea, if it's possible.

I don't buy the "unfair to sensible drinkers" argument. Sensible drinkers presumably don't spend so much on booze that they would be too badly affected by a price rise.

Maybe if we were asked to pay more for our pints of Tennents or Fosters we would realise what second rate products they are.
I agree with that statement. I disagree with the whole price hike on principle.

The government is great at addressing problems by doing little more than collecting more money. Take smoking for example. Terrible, pointless, dangerous habit but still legal and also very expensive. How much of a pack of butts is tax? Rather than the government taking a hard stance and banning cigarettes altogether, they hike taxes to make them more difficult to buy but a convenient side-effect is raking in more cash because they know people are addicted and will pay any price. I believe that raising the price of cheap alcohol will price some people out of the market but I also believe that many people who are already in the vicious cycle will just spend even more money, money they can already ill-afford to be pissing down the drain.

[CropleyWasGod]

So now people will be paying for it TWICE - taxes and price increases. Hmmmm.

.

... but you're missing the point. As the years go on, the cost to the public will reduce, as the incidence of drink-related illness reduces.

And, to address your last post, it's not the Government that is collecting the price rise on the alcohol. It's the retailer.

[magpie1892]

The answer surely lies in education. In Spain and Italy a LITRE of 'own brand' wine (c. 12% abv) costs the equivalent of 50p but they don't have anywhere near the societal and medical problems the UK has.

Price is not the answer for me. Attitudes to alcohol is the problem - though it's gonna be a tough one to tackle.

[Barney McGrew]

Labour are not going to back the proposal.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-MSPs-set-to-reject.5858847.jp

[Calvin]

I think a decent solution would be to put up the prices of alcohol in shops and using the extra tax gained, subsidise the cost of drink in Pubs. If we get more people going back into pubs it's more social drinking than drinking to get rat-arsed and simultaneously that pumps some life back into our dying pubs.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think a decent solution would be to put up the prices of alcohol in shops and using the extra tax gained, subsidise the cost of drink in Pubs. If we get more people going back into pubs it's more social drinking than drinking to get rat-arsed and simultaneously that pumps some life back into our dying pubs.

Simply force the supermarkets to sell the booze at the same price as pub landlords are forced to sell it. Brewers force pubs to buy drink at a much higher price than they sell it to supermarkets. Supermarkets also take a loss on drink to get people into the shop.

[ancient hibee]

I think a decent solution would be to put up the prices of alcohol in shops and using the extra tax gained, subsidise the cost of drink in Pubs. If we get more people going back into pubs it's more social drinking than drinking to get rat-arsed and simultaneously that pumps some life back into our dying pubs.

There is no tax involved=the increase in cost would go to the retailer/supplier.Anyway even if it got through Holyrood it would be set aside by the European Court as illegal.

[CropleyWasGod]

There is no tax involved=the increase in cost would go to the retailer/supplier.Anyway even if it got through Holyrood it would be set aside by the European Court as illegal.

There has been a lot of talk about the legality of it, but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as you think.

In any event, Labour are going to vote it down, so it's not going to get that far.

[Dashing Bob S]

Labour are not going to back the proposal.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-MSPs-set-to-reject.5858847.jp

As New Labour's alcohol policy has practically been written by Diagio over the years, I can't say I'm surprised.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There has been a lot of talk about the legality of it, but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as you think.

In any event, Labour are going to vote it down, so it's not going to get that far.

Let's hope they have an alternative then, because at least the SNP are trying to do something.

[Moulin Yarns]

Let's hope they have an alternative then, because at least the SNP are trying to do something.


so are they (http://www.brewdog.com/) having just released this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8380412.stm) at £30 a bottle

[RyeSloan]

Fact is 40p per unit would do nothing so it would be 40p per unit to start followed by rise after rise after rise all under the guise of a 'health policy'....sure this might over time reduce usage but probably not in the people most at risk (they would find alternative ways to get cheaper alcohol or indeed turn to alternative drugs) and who would be faced with having to fork out a minimum of £10 for a bottle of wine or paying £2 or £3 quid per can even out of a supermarket, yup that's right the vast majority of people who can drink sensibly without destroying their lives.

Thankfully this one seems to be dead for now, lets only hope that this is a sign that there ever growing efforts by government to interfere in my daily choices in life is going to stop.

[Woody1985]

Simply force the supermarkets to sell the booze at the same price as pub landlords are forced to sell it. Brewers force pubs to buy drink at a much higher price than they sell it to supermarkets. Supermarkets also take a loss on drink to get people into the shop.

Ridiculous idea IMO.

Why should a supermarket have to sell the same product at the same price as pubs when they don't have the same associated costs?

We often hear bleating from landlords that they only make x pence per pint because they have other pub related costs such as premises, staff, Sky, brewers costs etc etc etc. Why should the supermarkets be impacted by that?

Would you advocate that all products on the internet be sold at the same price as someone who sells the same product in a prime location where there are costs such as business rates etc? I suspect most internet shops have a warehouse and a purchase management system that is automated. Therefore, they can cut the cost of their products.

Different methods of selling with different costs. Should not be linked in any way.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thankfully this one seems to be dead for now, lets only hope that this is a sign that there ever growing efforts by government to interfere in my daily choices in life is going to stop.

Let's have this conversation again in 15-20 years' time, when all of us (drinkers, sensible and not, and non-drinkers alike) will be paying through the nose for the Health Service just to keep pace with the extent of cirrhosis and the like. That will be a mandatory payment, unlike the proposed changes. When it comes, people will be saying "why diddn't the Government see it coming?"

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fact is 40p per unit would do nothing so it would be 40p per unit to start followed by rise after rise after rise all under the guise of a 'health policy'....sure this might over time reduce usage but probably not in the people most at risk (they would find alternative ways to get cheaper alcohol or indeed turn to alternative drugs) and who would be faced with having to fork out a minimum of £10 for a bottle of wine or paying £2 or £3 quid per can even out of a supermarket, yup that's right the vast majority of people who can drink sensibly without destroying their lives.

Thankfully this one seems to be dead for now, lets only hope that this is a sign that there ever growing efforts by government to interfere in my daily choices in life is going to stop.

You'll end up paying for other people's addiction to booze one way or another though. Either through prohibitive pricing, or through your contribution to the NHS.

Unfortunately, there is strong evidence that the majority of people aren't drinking sensibly - in that the number of people being admitted to hospital is dramatically increasing. There is a popular myth that these come from the socially disadvantaged. Again, evidence shows that they are from all parts of society.

This country has a massive booze problem, and people won't face up to it. We all know that denial is one of the biggest obstacles to people adressing their boozing.


Ridiculous idea IMO.

Why should a supermarket have to sell the same product at the same price as pubs when they don't have the same associated costs?

We often hear bleating from landlords that they only make x pence per pint because they have other pub related costs such as premises, staff, Sky, brewers costs etc etc etc. Why should the supermarkets be impacted by that?

Would you advocate that all products on the internet be sold at the same price as someone who sells the same product in a prime location where there are costs such as business rates etc? I suspect most internet shops have a warehouse and a purchase management system that is automated. Therefore, they can cut the cost of their products.

Different methods of selling with different costs. Should not be linked in any way.

It depends on how much you believe in the power of the free market to do good for society. Pub landlords are being shafted by the pub chains, it's a well established fact and is currently under investigation by the OFT, or some other branch of the PC Brigade. I'm advocating fair play for the pubs, that's all.

To me, a free society would be one in which people had choices. If the supermarkets continue to undercut the pubs, there will be no pubs left.

[Woody1985]

It depends on how much you believe in the power of the free market to do good for society. Pub landlords are being shafted by the pub chains, it's a well established fact and is currently under investigation by the OFT, or some other branch of the PC Brigade. I'm advocating fair play for the pubs, that's all.

To me, a free society would be one in which people had choices. If the supermarkets continue to undercut the pubs, there will be no pubs left.

You make a good point re the freemarket. However, on the flipside you are stating that we should restrict that freedom by creating an equilibrium of prices and effectively trying to force people into pubs...

I don't believe that we'll ever see the end of the pub, not in my lifetime anyway.

I agree that the suppliers distributing to the pubs and supermarkets should provide a fair playing field for both. However, the supermarkets are surely buying in bulk and providing big contracts to the brewers.

If that didn't exist would the suppliers be in a position to provide the pubs with their lagers and beers at the same prices as they currently do?

The prices would probably go up for the pubs if the supermarkets bought lower volumes due to increased prices as the suppliers would need to maintain their profit levels on lower sales.

Catch 22! It's a **** eh. :LOL:

[Phil D. Rolls]

You make a good point re the freemarket. However, on the flipside you are stating that we should restrict that freedom by creating an equilibrium of prices and effectively trying to force people into pubs...

I don't believe that we'll ever see the end of the pub, not in my lifetime anyway.

I agree that the suppliers distributing to the pubs and supermarkets should provide a fair playing field for both. However, the supermarkets are surely buying in bulk and providing big contracts to the brewers.

If that didn't exist would the suppliers be in a position to provide the pubs with their lagers and beers at the same prices as they currently do?

The prices would probably go up for the pubs if the supermarkets bought lower volumes due to increased prices as the suppliers would need to maintain their profit levels on lower sales.

Catch 22! It's a **** eh. :LOL:

Pubs are cr*p nowadays anyway, it's like drinking in an off licence with nice carpets.

[RyeSloan]

Let's have this conversation again in 15-20 years' time, when all of us (drinkers, sensible and not, and non-drinkers alike) will be paying through the nose for the Health Service just to keep pace with the extent of cirrhosis and the like. That will be a mandatory payment, unlike the proposed changes. When it comes, people will be saying "why diddn't the Government see it coming?"


You'll end up paying for other people's addiction to booze one way or another though. Either through prohibitive pricing, or through your contribution to the NHS.


And what part of peoples irresponsible behaviour am I not paying for just now? I hardly use the NHS but pay a small fortune for it's inefficient treatment of all sorts of illnesses...a lot of which are caused by peoples individual actions

Using this arguement you should be taxing all products to the relative possiblitiy of their use resulting in medical treatment. Therefore you are proposing minimum pricing (how you would relate the minimum price direct to the health care cost is another arguement altogether) for all sorts of stuff from cars to fags to drink to fatty foods to motor bikes to tv's to ladders to nuts.

Fact is that is mimimum pricing was introduced it would end up being yet another tax, one that the government would not be able to wean itself off and would not be able to resist in raising and raising to increase revenue when needed and not raise or lower depending on health care costs of drink related illness.

I am in no way denying that action should be taken to inform and educate, that's the governments role here not one of setting arbitary costs of products that effect all to influence the few.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And what part of peoples irresponsible behaviour am I not paying for just now? I hardly use the NHS but pay a small fortune for it's inefficient treatment of all sorts of illnesses...a lot of which are caused by peoples individual actions

Using this arguement you should be taxing all products to the relative possiblitiy of their use resulting in medical treatment. Therefore you are proposing minimum pricing (how you would relate the minimum price direct to the health care cost is another arguement altogether) for all sorts of stuff from cars to fags to drink to fatty foods to motor bikes to tv's to ladders to nuts.

Fact is that is mimimum pricing was introduced it would end up being yet another tax, one that the government would not be able to wean itself off and would not be able to resist in raising and raising to increase revenue when needed and not raise or lower depending on health care costs of drink related illness.

I am in no way denying that action should be taken to inform and educate, that's the governments role here not one of setting arbitary costs of products that effect all to influence the few.

Can't really comment on your criticisms of a public health care system. It's there, it has to be paid for. My original point stands - the NHS has to treat people who abuse alcohol so you are already paying, unless the NHS is funded another way, you will pay more or get less back (admittedly as you seem to think you don't get any benefit from it, it's a lame argument ).

I think any government putting tax on something like booze would be very careful not to p*ss people off. If the price of booze became extortionate, people would soon tell them.

You keep saying a few people are affected by alcohol. There is a strong body of evidence that suggests more than a few people in this country are drinking more than is good for them.

Do you really think the government would be giving a toss if it was only a few people in lower income brackets that are at risk? They are only interested in those that can make a contribution to the state.

[RyeSloan]

Can't really comment on your criticisms of a public health care system. It's there, it has to be paid for. My original point stands - the NHS has to treat people who abuse alcohol so you are already paying, unless the NHS is funded another way, you will pay more or get less back (admittedly as you seem to think you don't get any benefit from it, it's a lame argument ).

I think any government putting tax on something like booze would be very careful not to p*ss people off. If the price of booze became extortionate, people would soon tell them.

You keep saying a few people are affected by alcohol. There is a strong body of evidence that suggests more than a few people in this country are drinking more than is good for them.

Do you really think the government would be giving a toss if it was only a few people in lower income brackets that are at risk? They are only interested in those that can make a contribution to the state.

I'm fully aware that I already pay for the NHS, that's what I said...you suggested I should be agreeing to pay even more by a direct tax on a product to pay for the direct health implications of that product. This is what I disagree with.

Also I refer to a few as in the minority, unless you are suggesting the majority of the population will need treated for alcohol related illnesses then there is only one conclusion, the majority of the populaiton would have to pay an additional specific tax to pay for a minority's inability to drink safely.

Your faith in the electorates ability to prevent a large scale increase in mimimum pricing if introduced is admirable but I certainly don't share your belief....

Finally governments are not just interested in those that make a contribution to the state, in fact they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with those that don't and a pretty good disregard of those that do pay for the massive state spend.

[HibsMax]

... but you're missing the point. As the years go on, the cost to the public will reduce, as the incidence of drink-related illness reduces.

And, to address your last post, it's not the Government that is collecting the price rise on the alcohol. It's the retailer.
The costs MIGHT go down, there's no guarantee of that though.

You're right about the retailers collecting more money, I was talking about the instances that the govt increases taxes which is not what this scheme is about.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm fully aware that I already pay for the NHS, that's what I said...you suggested I should be agreeing to pay even more by a direct tax on a product to pay for the direct health implications of that product. This is what I disagree with.

Also I refer to a few as in the minority, unless you are suggesting the majority of the population will need treated for alcohol related illnesses then there is only one conclusion, the majority of the populaiton would have to pay an additional specific tax to pay for a minority's inability to drink safely.

Your faith in the electorates ability to prevent a large scale increase in mimimum pricing if introduced is admirable but I certainly don't share your belief....

Finally governments are not just interested in those that make a contribution to the state, in fact they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with those that don't and a pretty good disregard of those that do pay for the massive state spend.

Sorry, I hope it didn't come across like I was lecturing there. I suppose I'm trying to be pragmatic. The NHS exists and is paid for by public funding. Unless the NHS excludes people who have brought their illness on themselves then the cost is going to rise due to the amount of alcohol consumed.

I feel the solution is to get people to drink less, rather than raise more money to treat them. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to reduce consumption is through pricing.

You feel that this is unfair on those who drink responsibly. That is a point worth condsidering. Again, taking a pragmatic approach, responsible people have to subsidise the irresponsible in lots of ways. For example - if people behaved responsibly at football or concerts, we wouldn't be paying part of the admission towards stewarding.

It's a p*sser, but that's the way it is. I can see where you are getting annoyed, it's just that the reality is I can't see how else we deal with the drink problem. It may well be a minority, but it's a big one.

I agree there are a lot of people around who have no intention of working, and I get annoyed by them too. I also know that there are quite a few people struggling to get by, through no fault of their own, and I would rather that they were helped, even if it does mean the bawbags that fiddle the system get their two holidays in Majorca a year. No sarcasm intended, I've come across them at work, and I sometimes feel that a good kicking wouldn't go amiss, but that's another story.

[CropleyWasGod]

And what part of peoples irresponsible behaviour am I not paying for just now? I hardly use the NHS but pay a small fortune for it's inefficient treatment of all sorts of illnesses...a lot of which are caused by peoples individual actions

Using this arguement you should be taxing all products to the relative possiblitiy of their use resulting in medical treatment. Therefore you are proposing minimum pricing (how you would relate the minimum price direct to the health care cost is another arguement altogether) for all sorts of stuff from cars to fags to drink to fatty foods to motor bikes to tv's to ladders to nuts.

Fact is that is mimimum pricing was introduced it would end up being yet another tax, one that the government would not be able to wean itself off and would not be able to resist in raising and raising to increase revenue when needed and not raise or lower depending on health care costs of drink related illness.

I am in no way denying that action should be taken to inform and educate, that's the governments role here not one of setting arbitary costs of products that effect all to influence the few.

Like many, I think you are missing the point of the minimum pricing. It's NOT a tax that goes to the Government. It goes to the retailers, and is meant as a disincentive to buy in the first place.

[RyeSloan]

Like many, I think you are missing the point of the minimum pricing. It's NOT a tax that goes to the Government. It goes to the retailers, and is meant as a disincentive to buy in the first place.

True, initially at least it is designed to give retailers a bigger margin but I am sure that it wouldn't stay that way for long!!

[RyeSloan]

Sorry, I hope it didn't come across like I was lecturing there. I suppose I'm trying to be pragmatic. The NHS exists and is paid for by public funding. Unless the NHS excludes people who have brought their illness on themselves then the cost is going to rise due to the amount of alcohol consumed.

I feel the solution is to get people to drink less, rather than raise more money to treat them. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to reduce consumption is through pricing.

You feel that this is unfair on those who drink responsibly. That is a point worth condsidering. Again, taking a pragmatic approach, responsible people have to subsidise the irresponsible in lots of ways. For example - if people behaved responsibly at football or concerts, we wouldn't be paying part of the admission towards stewarding.

It's a p*sser, but that's the way it is. I can see where you are getting annoyed, it's just that the reality is I can't see how else we deal with the drink problem. It may well be a minority, but it's a big one.

I agree there are a lot of people around who have no intention of working, and I get annoyed by them too. I also know that there are quite a few people struggling to get by, through no fault of their own, and I would rather that they were helped, even if it does mean the bawbags that fiddle the system get their two holidays in Majorca a year. No sarcasm intended, I've come across them at work, and I sometimes feel that a good kicking wouldn't go amiss, but that's another story.


Yeah I'm get where you are coming from and you may be correct in saying pricing is the most effective weapon but I would say that I'm fed up with other peoples issues being dealt with by crude untargeted measures that by their nature hit everyone the same and sometimes go well beyond that and rely on the 'good' to pay for the 'bad'....it's gotta stop somewhere and thank goodness that it has on this point (at least for now) :grr:

Ha ha rant over, time for me to go home :greengrin

[Dinkydoo]

The first thing I would say is the average drinker in the UK drinks too much. The bad news on alcohol (well for me at least) is that 21 units a week is the recommended amount (unfortunately that's the recommended maximum). I think most of us have no problem getting through that much in a week, with minimal effort.

The evidence from elsewhere seems to suggest that pricing is the key. Now if they raise the minimum price of booze by, say 20p a unit that means that the sensible drinker will have to pay an extra £4.20 a week. In plain English that amounts to less than the price of two pints.

I think few people - other than those who spend every penny they have on booze - would resort to stealing to fund their habit.

I think that drink is far too cheap at the moment, and people are inclined to buy a bottle or some cans on impulse. If they had to think twice about their purchase they might drink less.

The personal freedom argument is just bogus, as their other drugs that people take for recreational purposes, I haven't heard many non drug users complaining about the lack of freedom to buy them. Unless people are prepared to take all drugs out of the criminal system it is nothing other than hypocrisy.

As Bob said in his initial post, the NHS is starting to see the cost of 20 years of cheap booze. The number of middle aged women with alcoholic dementia, for example, has gone through the roof. There is no doubt in my mind that people should drink less, and I think that keeping this drug available but controlling price is a good option.


I'm only commenting on the highlighted parts as I'm in relative agreement with everything else and partially because I don't really have the figures or knowledge to argue against it.

The first thing I'd say is that is a generalisation. It's a pretty fair one to make but still a generalisation none the less..... should we be making these kind of decisions that will affect everyone that enjoys a drink based on an assumption?

An extra £4.20 a week wouldn't really bother me but I'm sure that it would put many youths out of the "buying drink" equation and into finding another way to source alcohol. Instant example, stealing the money or drink..... I wouldn't have thought that this would be "wide-scale" but then again it's something that I feel should be considered when making a decision such as this.

In all honesty, a price hike might work; it might not. I'm just getting a bit annoyed that the "normal" people have to suffer for other members of the public's idiotic actions.

We need to tackle the reasons behind binge drinking and not just the issue it'self. Destroy the root and the weed won't grow...... sorry, it was the best metaphor I could think of :faf:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm only commenting on the highlighted parts as I'm in relative agreement with everything else and partially because I don't really have the figures or knowledge to argue against it.

The first thing I'd say is that is a generalisation. It's a pretty fair one to make but still a generalisation none the less..... should we be making these kind of decisions that will affect everyone that enjoys a drink based on an assumption?

An extra £4.20 a week wouldn't really bother me but I'm sure that it would put many youths out of the "buying drink" equation and into finding another way to source alcohol. Instant example, stealing the money or drink..... I wouldn't have thought that this would be "wide-scale" but then again it's something that I feel should be considered when making a decision such as this.

In all honesty, a price hike might work; it might not. I'm just getting a bit annoyed that the "normal" people have to suffer for other members of the public's idiotic actions.

We need to tackle the reasons behind binge drinking and not just the issue it'self. Destroy the root and the weed won't grow...... sorry, it was the best metaphor I could think of :faf:

I agree that it is a generalisation, it's only a theory I have. I would say when I was young (cue the Hovis music) that it was a lot harder to buy drink underage, so the need to steal money wasn't an issue.

I would say the problem we have in Scotland is that it is the norm to drink too much, and the measures are an attempt to address the actions of a significant section of the population, not the boozed up lager louts that get the public attention. So, using the true meaning of the word, it is "normal" people that have to change their behaviour.

I also think that the lax attitude towards boozing is a direct reason for teenagers being allowed to drink too much. If the adults are indulging in what they see as a harmless pleasure then it is natural that they are going to be less concerned about their kids drinking. How often do you hear a parent say "oh well, at least it's not drugs"?

[Dinkydoo]

I agree that it is a generalisation, it's only a theory I have. I would say when I was young (cue the Hovis music) that it was a lot harder to buy drink underage, so the need to steal money wasn't an issue.

I would say the problem we have in Scotland is that it is the norm to drink too much, and the measures are an attempt to address the actions of a significant section of the population, not the boozed up lager louts that get the public attention. So, using the true meaning of the word, it is "normal" people that have to change their behaviour.

I also think that the lax attitude towards boozing is a direct reason for teenagers being allowed to drink too much. If the adults are indulging in what they see as a harmless pleasure then it is natural that they are going to be less concerned about their kids drinking. How often do you hear a parent say "oh well, at least it's not drugs"?


I've known a few lads when I was in school that would steal money from thier parents because they didn't get given enough pocket money to go out and get completely wasted on. It made me feel prety sick actually, the thought that thier parents probably don't have the cash to give to thier 'wholesome little boys' so they steal it instead :rolleyes:

Thats really the reasoning behind my view that youths would still find another way to source the drink from.

On reading the second paragraph, I've actually changed my opnion a little in terms of what I percieved as being a "normal" amount to drink. I was really basing this on what I drink each week - approx a half bottle of vodka on a saturday and a bottle or two of beer if theres any football on that I'm interested in during the week.

Some weekends I go out (and envitably spend more and drink more) but on occassion I don't drink at all. So I'd hope that I'm correct in my presumption that I'm not exceeding the weekly guidlines too frequently and/or by too much.

I agree with what you're saying, I'm a firm believer of nobody is born an ********, you learne how to be one off of the major influences in your life. Which in most cases is the parents. But where drink is concerned I think the boredome factor plays a significant role in this, when I was younger we used to go out and get pished all the time simply because there wasn't anything for us to do.

Thankfully I've grown up a bit now (just a bit :devil:) and realise that you can't always expect to be provided with 'something to do' and in most cases you have to make of life what you can.

To conclude though, I think that simply raising the price of cheap drink isn't going to stop young people having a bevy. We tackle the issues behind why people feel the need to drink (young and old) whilst simultaneously bringing in tougher sentencing for drink related crimes and a minimum price scheme, and then I'd feel like we are going to get somewhere

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've known a few lads when I was in school that would steal money from thier parents because they didn't get given enough pocket money to go out and get completely wasted on. It made me feel prety sick actually, the thought that thier parents probably don't have the cash to give to thier 'wholesome little boys' so they steal it instead :rolleyes:

Thats really the reasoning behind my view that youths would still find another way to source the drink from.

On reading the second paragraph, I've actually changed my opnion a little in terms of what I percieved as being a "normal" amount to drink. I was really basing this on what I drink each week - approx a half bottle of vodka on a saturday and a bottle or two of beer if theres any football on that I'm interested in during the week.

Some weekends I go out (and envitably spend more and drink more) but on occassion I don't drink at all. So I'd hope that I'm correct in my presumption that I'm not exceeding the weekly guidlines too frequently and/or by too much.

I agree with what you're saying, I'm a firm believer of nobody is born an ********, you learne how to be one off of the major influences in your life. Which in most cases is the parents. But where drink is concerned I think the boredome factor plays a significant role in this, when I was younger we used to go out and get pished all the time simply because there wasn't anything for us to do.

Thankfully I've grown up a bit now (just a bit :devil:) and realise that you can't always expect to be provided with 'something to do' and in most cases you have to make of life what you can.

To conclude though, I think that simply raising the price of cheap drink isn't going to stop young people having a bevy. We tackle the issues behind why people feel the need to drink (young and old) whilst simultaneously bringing in tougher sentencing for drink related crimes and a minimum price scheme, and then I'd feel like we are going to get somewhere

At your age, drink won't touch you. It's the middle aged that are the real area of concern. Another area that is worrying is the Saga Louts. Retired people with a good income and too much time on their hands.