PM plans minimum price for alcohol in England

Scroll to see replies

lol if this were to happen I'd go buy about 200 bottles of vodka right before the price changes. I'm not joking either. I probably go through about 20 a year and paying 6 quid more for a bottle wouldn't be nice.

Reply 81

Vinchenko

Original post by Kolya

And why pray tell would we want the government to do that? Those who cause a genuine nuisance to others should naturally be punished, but I don't see why the government - least of all a government with characters known for their lavish binge drinking - should concern itself with how many people choose to spend their leisure time. Those hypocritical moralisers should focus on providing welfare rather than disrupting the good time and good fare of citizens while they relax.

The worse part is that this is squarely aimed at working-class binge drinkers. Why attempt to tackle working-class binge drinking and leave middle-class binge drinking untouched? Is getting sloshed on cognac preferable to doing so on Scrumpy Jack? I didn't notice the government had become an arbiter of taste.

I don't think it's 'moralising', it's public health. Sometimes, we curb freedoms to 'save people from themselves', which isn't exactly a fashionable idea, but happens all of the time - why do you think we tax alcohol or tobacco more than other things at all? This isn't prohibition or anything, but 'soft' economic persuasion tactics. In the same way that schemes which offer economic incentives to lose weight are by far the most effective way of tackling obesity, another public health problem, they will be the most effective way of tackling widespread alcoholism.

Alcohol addiction and binge drinking are public rather than private issues because they lead to violence and an increase in crime fuelled by alcohol-induced loss of self-control, and because they are placing an enourmous and ever-increasing burden on the NHS in terms of people admitted to hospital for alcohol poisoning, after alcohol-induced fights, and with long-term liver and heart disease, and in the worst cases neurological symptoms. For so long as we (mercifully) have a public-funded health service that treats all at no cost, anything that drastically increases the resource-burden on it is a public issue. Alcohol taxes don't stop people from drinking, they make them pay for the economic consequences of their actions which seems fair enough to me. If minimum alcohol pricing does, as is one of the stated policy aims, encourage more people to drink out rather than at home because the price difference is much reduced then that will also protect public health by ensuring that people who have had too much to drink don't get served any more (as bars are required to do).

Your last point is much more interesting, and I've thought a lot about this and come up with only partial responses, which I'll fully admit!

1) I don't think it's intentionally class-based, but it will inadvertently affect much more those in lower socio-economic groups.

2) It is actually those groups that tend to have higher rates of alcohol problems, due to lower levels of education etc. This isn't necessarily a justification, but if it even only improves health in those groups by discouraging drinking, isn't that a good thing? Not all policies can help equally amongst all groups, but if it's not discriminatory in aim, does that matter? What would you suggest as a less-discriminatory alternative?

3) re: my NHS argument. People getting trashed on cognac probably have private medical insurance, so when they need treatment for their liver disease, it'll probably not come out of the public purse.

Reply 82

Kolya

Original post by Vinchenko

Health shouldn't be our only consideration. It's an easy one to measure and therefore an attractive one for the government, but there are other factors to consider. Most pertinently, people derive great enjoyment and satisfaction from binge drinking. How do we measure that? Life isn't one slow struggle towards better health; to some people - myself included - quality is far more important than quantity. Unfortunately that idea isn't given due consideration in these kinds of debates.

Vinchenko

Alcohol addiction and binge drinking are public rather than private issues because they lead to violence and an increase in crime fuelled by alcohol-induced loss of self-control, and because they are placing an enourmous and ever-increasing burden on the NHS in terms of people admitted to hospital for alcohol poisoning, after alcohol-induced fights, and with long-term liver and heart disease, and in the worst cases neurological symptoms. For so long as we (mercifully) have a public-funded health service that treats all at no cost, anything that drastically increases the resource-burden on it is a public issue. Alcohol taxes don't stop people from drinking, they make them pay for the economic consequences of their actions which seems fair enough to me.

I have no problem with alcohol being taxed, but surely it should be taxed relative to the cost to the NHS. So we should look at the cost to the NHS and then set an appropriate tax level. The proposals in question appear to do nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, if we are in support of such an idea then I hope we can agree that it is only fair to extend our proposals to other lifestyle choices. Perhaps fatty foods should be taxed more. Chocolate should be taxed more. Those who choose stressful jobs should be taxed more. Those who choose not to join social clubs should be taxed more. And so on. Just taxing alcohol because of its costs to the NHS seems like an awfully easy (and unfair) target.

Vinchenko

2) It is actually those groups that tend to have higher rates of alcohol problems, due to lower levels of education etc. This isn't necessarily a justification, but if it even only improves health in those groups by discouraging drinking, isn't that a good thing?

Who knows. If alcohol starts to become seen as a privilege that the rich afford themselves, but deny to the working-class, then it will be sure to increase class animosity and social tension. Feelings of social inequality correlate to lower life expectancy and have many other negative effects on the happiness of the population. But, as I pointed out above, such an effect is more difficult to measure than the narrow definition of 'health' that many professionals use, and so is easily overlooked by the government and by posters on this forum.

(EDIT: For what it's worth, Denmark usually scores very highly on happiness scores, and has one of the most equal societies in the world, yet they are biggest binge drinkers in Europe. It's worth asking what the hell is going on there, and whether our goal of reducing binge drinking at the cost of social harmony isn't a step backwards.)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 83

gozatron

Original post by Manitude

A better solution would just be to ban 'tramp juice' that has no value except to get people drunk.
Some of the cheapest ciders I know of are also the strongest, but also have a pretty 'challenging' flavour - not exactly something a 15 year old scrot would want to drink in the park.

If this actually happens then I'm just going to increase the amount of alcohol I produce myself, and I'd imagine other people would too.

Then how will us university sports people afford to go out on socials!? Cheap cider is our drink of choice! I don't fancy vomiting up more of my hard earned student loan than I have to.

Reply 84

Manitude

Original post by gozatron

Then how will us university sports people afford to go out on socials!? Cheap cider is our drink of choice! I don't fancy vomiting up more of my hard earned student loan than I have to.

Make it yourself! Find recipes online, you'll only need some easily available household items and stuff you can get from virtually any supermarket for the simplest recipes.

Reply 85

StartSomething

Original post by Aack

I think they should make alcohol illegal.

I think they should make alcohol free.

Reply 86

Benthomas15

Binge drinkers and alcoholics will still drink. Whether this change goes through or not.

It's the folk who enjoy a regular, sensible drink that will suffer.

Reply 87

gozatron

Original post by StartSomething

I think they should make alcohol free.

By god, i think she's onto something here...

Reply 88

StartSomething

Original post by gozatron

By god, i think she's onto something here...

See! I'm a genius!

Reply 89

ForKicks

I agree there needs to be a min price. As much as I like it, £1 a litre pretty much encourages binge drinking!

Reply 90

Lewis :D

Original post by lucas13

it will affect wales as well.

No it won't, the Welsh Assembly'll have to implement its own legislation if it wants to do the same thing

Reply 91

tc92

Original post by Vinchenko

The cynic in me thinks this might have something to do with the fact that Governments know people will still buy these products and so can make an easy buck off the taxes, just as with petrol...

Reply 92

FDR

Original post by Aj12

Tad authoritarian no? If I want to destroy my liver with alcohol I should be allowed to.

But by doing so, you will be imposing unnecessary costs on society - you'll increase costs to the NHS, as well as on society as a result of any disorderly behaviour that goes on as a result of you being pissed. :wink:

Reply 93

FDR

Original post by Benthomas15

Binge drinkers and alcoholics will still drink. Whether this change goes through or not.

It's the folk who enjoy a regular, sensible drink that will suffer.

It's the exact opposite - those who enjoy a regular, sensible drink, won't suffer because it's unlikely that they buy alcohol that is currently below the proposed minimum price, so the price of the alcohol that they buy won't change much, if at all.

On the other hand, binge drinkers may cut down on consumption if the price goes up because it may become unaffordable.

Reply 94

Jono404

This will nearly treble the price of Frosty Jacks by my estimate. There should be laws against taxes this regressive.

Reply 95

Rant

Original post by Herr

Guess the era of cheap drinks will come to an end.

I wonder if this will affect Wales or not, if it doesn't am sure the border towns will see a boon in their pubs and possibly even their supermarkets as people from England hop over to the border to stock up or party like no tomorrow..... somewhat akin to years ago where the strong pound made it very profitable to take the ferry or tunnel to France just to stock up on wine.

Typical Tories, tbh. There will be riots.

Reply 96

Lord Jon

Alcohol is a relativly price inelastic good and an increase in price (which a Minimum Price achieves) will not do much in terms of reducing demand. The disparity between points of demand and price points will be disproportionate.

More people can buy kits from Wilko and make thier own Home Brew instead!

Cheers Dave! :cheers: