[Joinedup]

(Original post by the bear)
Examples:

Name_____Age___Social Class_____Occupation____Unit price of alcohol

Darren____19________V___________ __Lard Packer_______56.2p

Stacey____28________IV__________ __Moderator________28.8p

Letitia_____77________II________ ____Authoress________8.1p

Phillip______92________I________ ____Prince___________3.3p

Harry______27________I__________ __Prince___________14.6p

Kev_______18________VI__________ _ Student_________94.4p

Miles______18________III________ __Student___________23.6p

clearly harry will be able to abuse the system by sending phil to boozebuster for his tennants purple tin.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
F*** em if they have to drink why not put more money in the economy. It might stop binge drinking, stress on taxi drivers, stress on the NHS, stress on doctors. Stress on police, stress on people who just want to enjoy a night out with no trouble.

F*** em

That could be said about anything -- if you have to x, why not spend more on x? There's no particular reason to apply that argument (and I express no opinion on its merits as a general proposition, for the sake of keeping to the point) to alcohol.

Binge drinking in itself is not a problem -- it's the consequences of people binge drinking publicly that causes people trouble. The proposed measure will not only target those people. Innocents will be affected.

Taxi drivers get paid. If they're massively bothered by it, they can make a career change. There's nothing involuntary about what they're doing.

The NHS should not be used to justify intrusive paternalist measures. Any such arguments strike me more as arguments against the NHS rather than for such measures.

My comments on "binge drinking" apply to "stress on police".

As for your last comment, you assume that "people who just want to enjoy a night out without trouble" will not be affected in their enjoyment by this measure.

Lastly, it hasn't actually been shown how, or to what extent, the minimum price will affect any of these stresses. People are going to get drunk. That's not going to be stopped. None of your objectives are satisfactory -- you haven't even shown they'll be achieved.

[SpongebobSquarepan]

(Original post by burgergetsbored)
This is disgusting. It's not going to stop anything and they know that, they're just doing it because they know people will pay the extra so they'll get more money from it. Wtf is wrong with our government.

Why is it disgusting?

People can choose to say no, or do most people want to be sheep and follow the crowd of people who drink to be LADS

[SpongebobSquarepan]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
That could be said about anything -- if you have to x, why not spend more on x? There's no particular reason to apply that argument (and I express no opinion on its merits as a general proposition, for the sake of keeping to the point) to alcohol.

Binge drinking in itself is not a problem -- it's the consequences of people binge drinking publicly that causes people trouble. The proposed measure will not only target those people. Innocents will be affected.

Taxi drivers get paid. If they're massively bothered by it, they can make a career change. There's nothing involuntary about what they're doing.

The NHS should not be used to justify intrusive paternalist measures. Any such arguments strike me more as arguments against the NHS rather than for such measures.

My comments on "binge drinking" apply to "stress on police".

As for your last comment, you assume that "people who just want to enjoy a night out without trouble" will not be affected in their enjoyment by this measure.

Lastly, it hasn't actually been shown how, or to what extent, the minimum price will affect any of these stresses. People are going to get drunk. That's not going to be stopped. None of your objectives are satisfactory -- you haven't even shown they'll be achieved.

Ok I love seeing taxi drivers getting abused, NHS staff and the ambulance staff getting abused because somebody has had 1 too many sambucas.

Yes nothing has to be done about it, you must be right.

[py0alb]

I'm sure its the case that hardened alcoholics will miraculously be reformed at the threat of having to cough up an extra couple of quid for their 4pack of special brew and a bottle of Frosted Jacks to get them through the morning.

[The Epicurean]

I have mixed views towards this issue. Can't really say whether I agree or disagree with it.

(Original post by the bear)
it should be a function of age and class;

using the formula to calculate the cost per unit U:

U = 6(100 - A)^2/3/(7 - C)

Where A is the age at most recent birthday

C is social class ( from 1 to 6 )

thus anyone reaching the age of 100 gets free happy juice;

young people from the dregs of society have to pay more

Lol. This made me laugh

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
Ok I love seeing taxi drivers getting abused, NHS staff and the ambulance staff getting abused because somebody has had 1 too many sambucas.

Yes nothing has to be done about it, you must be right.

Way to deal with what I actually said, bro.

[py0alb]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
Ok I love seeing taxi drivers getting abused, NHS staff and the ambulance staff getting abused because somebody has had 1 too many sambucas.

Yes nothing has to be done about it, you must be right.

None of those things have ever happened because someone has had "1 too many sambucas".

They happen because some people are violent aggressive dickheads, and drinking gives them an excuse to behave as such - because people like you legitimise their behaviour and absolve them of responsibility.

[burgergetsbored]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
Why is it disgusting?

People can choose to say no, or do most people want to be sheep and follow the crowd of people who drink to be LADS

well you can't just decide to say no to the price increase..... it's not going to stop binge drinking it's just going to make more people pissed off with the government than there already are.

I drink with mates because I enjoy it, why should everyone have to pay more for the few people who do get a bit carried away. Yeah it is disgusting.

[NabilKhan]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
That could be said about anything -- if you have to x, why not spend more on x? There's no particular reason to apply that argument (and I express no opinion on its merits as a general proposition, for the sake of keeping to the point) to alcohol.

Binge drinking in itself is not a problem -- it's the consequences of people binge drinking publicly that causes people trouble. The proposed measure will not only target those people. Innocents will be affected.

Taxi drivers get paid. If they're massively bothered by it, they can make a career change. There's nothing involuntary about what they're doing.

The NHS should not be used to justify intrusive paternalist measures. Any such arguments strike me more as arguments against the NHS rather than for such measures.

My comments on "binge drinking" apply to "stress on police".

As for your last comment, you assume that "people who just want to enjoy a night out without trouble" will not be affected in their enjoyment by this measure.

Lastly, it hasn't actually been shown how, or to what extent, the minimum price will affect any of these stresses. People are going to get drunk. That's not going to be stopped. None of your objectives are satisfactory -- you haven't even shown they'll be achieved.

You're an idiot.

[SpongebobSquarepan]

(Original post by py0alb)
None of those things have ever happened because someone has had "1 too many sambucas".

They happen because some people are violent aggressive dickheads, and drinking gives them an excuse to behave as such - because people like you legitimise their behaviour and absolve them of responsibility.

How am i legitimising it? Anyone who abuses people needs to be locked up and the key thrown away.

[NabilKhan]

(Original post by burgergetsbored)
well you can't just decide to say no to the price increase..... it's not going to stop binge drinking it's just going to make more people pissed off with the government than there already are.

I drink with mates because I enjoy it, why should everyone have to pay more for the few people who do get a bit carried away. Yeah it is disgusting.

Thats the case for everything, a minority spoils it for the rest. Thats life.

[SpongebobSquarepan]

(Original post by burgergetsbored)
well you can't just decide to say no to the price increase..... it's not going to stop binge drinking it's just going to make more people pissed off with the government than there already are.

I drink with mates because I enjoy it, why should everyone have to pay more for the few people who do get a bit carried away. Yeah it is disgusting.

Awwww booo hooo, your alcohol is going up by 30p. Poor you.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by NabilKhan)
You're an idiot.

Yo mama.

[NabilKhan]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Yo mama.

Expect no less than a garbage comeback from someone who has garbage for brains (Y)

[ArtGoblin]

(Original post by skunky x)
Whilst everyone says 'What about us who drink responsibly?', well generally we drink less, so the price is lower anyway, And 40p a unit isn't that bad - can you get a shot of vodka anywhere for 40p in a pub? No. In a 70cl bottle of vodka, there's 30 shots, which, multiplied by 40p = £12. Which is pretty much what you pay for a 70 cl bottle of Smirnoff anyway. If you do drink responsibly, than a 70cl bottle would last you a while anyway.

So it's a great idea.

This one of the main problems with the policy - it's only going to affect poor people. Rich people won't be affected because they already pay more than 40p per unit whereas people who are used to baying £7 vodka are going to notice a significant difference. That said, the price of Smirnoff will probably go up because if 'Drops' or 'Crystal' or whatever the cheapest vodka is called at the moment are charging £12, they'll have to increase the price to differentiate themselves from it.

[py0alb]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
How am i legitimising it? Anyone who abuses people needs to be locked up and the key thrown away.

You should read my previous link. here is a quote:

Our beliefs about the effects of alcohol act as self-fulfilling prophecies - if you firmly believe and expect that booze will make you aggressive, then it will do exactly that. In fact, you will be able to get roaring drunk on a non-alcoholic placebo.

And our erroneous beliefs provide the perfect excuse for anti-social behaviour. If alcohol "causes" bad behaviour, then you are not responsible for your bad behaviour. You can blame the booze - "it was the drink talking", "I was not myself" and so on.

So ironically, the people who are most to blame for the late night casualties of "binge britain" are those who claim that these things happen "because somebody has had 1 too many sambucas".

Rather than discouraging irresponsible behaviour, you're actively promoting it. Inadvertently perhaps, but the effect is the same.

[Nick Longjohnson]

This is an outrage!

HOW CAN I NOW DESTROY MY LIVER AND HAVE THE NHS PAY FOR IT?????

[SpongebobSquarepan]

(Original post by py0alb)
You should read my previous link. here is a quote:


So ironically, the people who are most to blame for the late night casualties of "binge britain" are those who claim that these things happen "because somebody has had 1 too many sambucas".

Rather than discouraging irresponsible behaviour, you're actively promoting it. Inadvertently perhaps, but the effect is the same.

What a load of nonsense that is, i'm not the one telling them to chug 10 vodkas down my neck.

[Electronica]

Has anyone realised the SNP put this policy forward in Holyrood and it was REJECTED by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats last term in Scotland? The government cannot even stick to its own political ideologies. That's what bugs me - no coherence in the political parties at all. Despite the fact I am a supporter of the measure.

Edit: heh, 'measure'