Minimum pricing for alcohol

And fat people. And smokers. And people who do extreme sports. And people who are in car accidents. And people who leave the house. Or people who leave their bed. All of those things lead to people getting hurt and needing NHS treatment...

Also, what kind of treatment are you charging people for? If I have a few glasses of wine and then am walking from the pub to a taxi and am caught in a drive-by shooting, do I get charged for that treatment because I'm drunk enough to be over the legal limit?
Someone who gets beaten up because they're defending a friend who is drunk but the person is also a bit drunk themselves? I would argue they were being noble.
What about someone who has long term liver problems that they didn't know about until they had a beer or two and then they were brought into hospital?

Not to mention, these people pay tax anyway, so they've already paid for their treatment!

Sarcastic or not charging fat people, smokers and extreme thrill seekers is a good idea. No need to be pathetic and exaggerate the proposal. People who are injured or hurt through no fault of their own should always be treated for free.

Obesity is predicted to cost the NHS £5 Billion a year. Smoking and drink related illnesses cost even more. Its not fair people have to fund others who choose to damage their bodies.

I guess smoking can be ignored because of huge taxes on cigarettes themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 21

HomoSapiensSap

6

Original post by jblackmoustache

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918

Personally I don't think minimum pricing will have much of a difference.

It's just a lazy way of trying to tackle this country's binge drinking problem. It doesn't address the cultural problems whatsoever. Pricing people out produces allsorts of other problems (saying people will start producing moonshine is a bit ott though, but it does happen in other poorer countries)

What about binge drinking among middle classes? Plus if you're an alcoholic and if you rely on booze then price will be irrelevant. You'll want to get ahold of booze by any means. You'll just cut back on other things like food and clothes and electricals.

Pubs and bars are just pushing for this also because they see benefits to THEIR business. They don't actually care about health. I can argue that cities like Leeds and Manchester actually benefit from binge drinking culture. Despite the fighting and bad behaviour and damage, binge drinkers bring in huge amounts to local economies every year. Add in sporting events and the money from drinking is HUGE. Indirect effects are benefits to local takeaway and restraunt businesses especially and also people buying clothes and stuff to go out in, therefore benefitting the high street also.

I can certainly agree with some of those benefits (however bad alcohol is), especially for example the indirect benefit to restaurant and takeaway businesses.

However, I also agree with the minimum pricing - in fact, I believe that it should be more than 45p a unit. Alcohol is essentially a toxin and an unneeded one. It's not like sugar - which the body actually needs. It is not at all needed. Natural highs (e.g. produced by music or simple emotions and thoughts) are much better and healthier. And for anyone who says, "oh, but wine is healthy" blah blah - you can just drink grape juice. It is healthier and has more of the good stuff (antioxidants, resveratrol etc). This is not to say that one shouldn't drink - by all means do. But binge drinking or getting very drunk is not actually needed and is a strange way to have fun (almost like a false euphoria). Just think about it - however much exercise one does or however healthy one eats when sober, you are still intentionally ingesting a hell of a lot of a toxin that gives no care to how healthy your sober life is (i.e. you can still develop diseases and health problems however healthy your sober life is).

To conclude - there should definitely be a minimum price (and I fully advocate an even higher price and even higher taxes) because it is essentially a drug (but it is legal because the government says so :rolleyes:

) and the government is allowing legal distribution of this drug. People should learn about the history of alcohol and the politics surrounding it - especially why this drug is legal. All you need to do is imagine life now, but with no alcohol - you'd have lots more suicides, lots more violence, lots more depression, lots more riots and general disorder. Alcohol is to keep the citizen at bay, to keep them motivated in their sober life and jobs. It is (ironically) legally there to keep order in sober life. So, really, the huge cost to the country that alcohol-related health problems and incidents etc generate are nothing compared to the costs that would ensue if alcohol was illegal or non-existent.

Alcohol, the opium of the people (religion has nothing on it in the modern Western world).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 22

username104603

14

It'll only really affect under-age drinkers and alcoholics / binge drinkers who buy the cheapest drink going. Personally I do most of my drinking in pubs, bars and clubs all of which charge far more than 45p per unit, when I buy at the supermarket I make the most of the cheaper prices by buying more expensive drinks than I would in a club. An exception to this might be if I stock up on cans for over Christmas or something, but I'm sure I'd survive if they were slightly dearer...in fact my liver / stomach would probably welcome it.

Reply 23

Really_now

14

Am I crap at maths or would that mean a bottle of Lambrini which is 7 units would have to cost a minimum of £3.15?

Reply 24

Snagprophet

17

Should've just rejected anyone going to the NHS for alcoholic related damage, would've been easier and most people wouldn't have to pay more for the actions of complete idiots I hope drink themselves to death so our taxes aren't going towards encouraging people to binge without any consequences.

Reply 25

Sephiroth

18

This won't stop anyone drinking. Sure it will cost more and that will hit the poorest but they will still drink. They will just cut costs elsewhere, such as downgrading the food they eat. Double fail there.

It would have to be £1 per unit before I considered going to bars for my drinks and that's comparing to the cheapest night out of the week (Monday). On a weekend I'd be happy to be pay £1.50 per unit before I considered going straight to bars rather than drinking at home before I go out. So this minimum pricing won't affect how I drink, and I have the money to pay the extra.

But I do wonder how they will price Vodka under this new structure. Currently we have the lowest tier such as the supermarket's own brand, the mid tiers such as Glen's, Imperial, Kirov etc. and then the premium brands such as Smirnoff, Russian Standard etc. Under these proposals the supermarket's own brand will cost £16.88 for a litre. I can normally buy a mid tier bottle for around £14-14.50 these days so either the supermarket's own brand will disappear or they will be forced to bump up the mid tier brands more than 45p per unit in order to compete. We could be looking at an extra £2 there. The premium brands will also have to go up further. There's really no way they'll price all the brands the same.

I will be coming prepared for this change however. I reckon I go through about 12-15 bottles of Vodka per year so I will be buying a few every time I go into ASDA or Tesco in order to stockpile it in a cupboard somewhere. I reckon a few dozen bottles should be enough as I am going out less often due to getting a bit bored of the club scene. I'd be surprised if I'm going out at all a few years from now except on special occasions so I should at least plan that far ahead. I should have done this years ago because when I started university in September 2007 a litre of mid-tier Vodka was £9.99. I could have saved a fortune.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 26

FrogInABog

11

Without wanting to sound like a complete snob, 45p per unit is probably at the lower end of what I'd spend anyway. As others have said, this would only affect the very cheapest brands, so I doubt it'll have a huge effect on binge drinking.

Personally, I do think something needs to be done about excessive drinking, so this is a step in the right direction. However, I don't think this will change much on its own; it needs to be accompanied by better education, of both young people and parents. Still, the problem is a tough one, and there isn't a simple solution.

Reply 27

Harry Callahan

14

All the price hike does is punish the working classes who enjoy a drink now and again to relax or socialise. If piss artists want to get drunk they will do, these price hikes will do sod-all.

Reply 28

minimarshmallow

18

Original post by Frube

Sarcastic or not charging fat people, smokers and extreme thrill seekers is a good idea. No need to be pathetic and exaggerate the proposal. People who are injured or hurt through no fault of their own should always be treated for free.

Obesity is predicted to cost the NHS £5 Billion a year. Smoking and drink related illnesses cost even more. Its not fair people have to fund others who choose to damage their bodies.

I guess smoking can be ignored because of huge taxes on cigarettes themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

Fine, I'll use a real life example. Three weeks ago I slipped on a wet floor and hurt my shoulder when I grabbed a chair to try to stop myself from falling. I visited A&E, had an x-ray, saw an orthopaedic doctor, had a prescription for pain killers and claimed back my travel costs due to being on a low income. I could have just not grabbed the chair, it's my fault I'm injured. Should I have had to pay for that? That was at least partly my fault...
I also have a long term debilitating idiopathic injury in my right hand caused by writing. I chose to write a lot, it's my fault. Should I have had to pay for my 12 GP's visits, my x-ray, my ultrasound, my physiotherapy, my hand and wrist supports, my two visits to rheumatology, my constant prescriptions for pain killers and now my prescription for my medication? I mean, after all, it's my fault for writing so much.

The problem comes with where you draw the line. You can say my shoulder injury was an accident and therefore I should definitely be treated or you can say it was my fault and I should pay. In the end, there'd be pretty much no need for a national health service because we'd probably all need health insurance for the things that wouldn't be covered under the system you're proposing, so they may as well just cover the things you're saying the NHS should cover. And that worked so well in America.

This idea doesn't work, stop proposing it.

Reply 29

juniorbuccaneer

i support it in aims regarding binge drinking and alcoholism, but dont like the idea of the government being able to impose restrictions on trade. i support a more laissez-faire style capitalism and dont like the idea that the government is able to restrict pricing and availability of consumer goods and the free speech of the media

Reply 30

`Jts

11

Minimum pricing of alcohol just means that people will have to go buy alcohol at a higher price, it will not mean that they will buy less.

Reply 31

Camoxide

14

That means you're average 3 little bottle of white cider is going to cost £10

Goodbye Frosty jacks. You made my teenage years more entertaining.

Reply 32

Tycho

14

Original post by HomoSapiensSap

Alcohol is essentially a toxin and an unneeded one...

...All you need to do is imagine life now, but with no alcohol - you'd have lots more suicides, lots more violence, lots more depression, lots more riots and general disorder.

Alcohol is to keep the citizen at bay, to keep them motivated in their sober life and jobs. It is (ironically) legally there to keep order in sober life. So, really, the huge cost to the country that alcohol-related health problems and incidents etc generate are nothing compared to the costs that would ensue if alcohol was illegal or non-existent.

Your two main paragraphs contradict each other. In the first one you state that alcohol is an unneeded toxin, and in the second one you suggest that it's essential for the sanity of society. So which is it, unneeded or essential? The truth is that the "history" of alcohol that you speak about is not nearly as relevant in today's society. We don't need alcohol to prevent suicides and keep the population in order. Your assessment of having no alcohol is nonsense. You fail to mention the terrible effects of alcoholism on the health and crime systems, and their knock-on effects on society as a whole. The costs and social impact associated with these is breathtaking. The number of lives that are destroyed by those who consume too much alcohol makes it a dangerous drug, without which suicides would decrease. It's also true to say that riots and disorderly behaviour would decrease without alcohol in the picture. Why do you think most fights outside nightclubs and pubs are carried out by people who are under the influence of alcohol? Your views (or the views of whichever publication you have taken such nonsense from) are completely at odds with the evidence we see before us.

Frankly, I think most people are missing the point. There is irrefutable evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between increasing the price of alcohol and a reduction in alcohol-related problems. Most on here are simply stating what their opinion of the new legislation is and what they think the outcome will be, but the above is a fact which has been demonstrated by such legislation being introduced in other countries. So if the correlation is reflected in our society then this will indeed reduce alcohol-related problems, and therefore I'd say it's a good thing. Now I don't know why or how it reduces alcohol-related problems, and there is undoubtedly other things which will also reduce these problems. But anything which reduces the scourge of this binge drink culture on our society receives my support.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 33

py0alb

3

Firstly, lets be clear: binge drinking has halved since the licencing hours were changed in 2004. There is no binge drinking problem anymore. The number of underage drinkers has plummetted. The Home Office themselves acknowledge that alcohol is not directly responsible for a single crime in the UK and this won't make a blind bit of difference.

Anyone who thinks an extra 20p on a can of special brew is going to cure a single person of alcoholism needs their head checking.
Anyone who thinks an extra £2 on a bottle of vodka is going to stop a single preloader from getting trashed needs their head checking.

The only people that will be affected are the poor working class family who can only afford to buy a multipack of cheap lager and drink it over the course of a few weeks in front of the X-factor because the pub got too expensive for them a decade ago. Their already moderate consumption may drop, and ironically, this will probably have negative health consequences.

Its basically a transfer of weath directly from the poorest and worst off to the massive supermarket corporations. A perfect Tory policy, simultaneously regressive and morally patronising.

Reply 34

sarahthegemini

10

The government notice a problem ... they decide the "cure" for it, is to put the price up. Erm, that doesn't work. They know it doesn't work. They're doing it to get more money out of people under the illusion that they are 'trying to help'

Reply 35

sarahthegemini

10

Original post by minimarshmallow

Fine, I'll use a real life example. Three weeks ago I slipped on a wet floor and hurt my shoulder when I grabbed a chair to try to stop myself from falling. I visited A&E, had an x-ray, saw an orthopaedic doctor, had a prescription for pain killers and claimed back my travel costs due to being on a low income. I could have just not grabbed the chair, it's my fault I'm injured. Should I have had to pay for that? That was at least partly my fault...
I also have a long term debilitating idiopathic injury in my right hand caused by writing. I chose to write a lot, it's my fault. Should I have had to pay for my 12 GP's visits, my x-ray, my ultrasound, my physiotherapy, my hand and wrist supports, my two visits to rheumatology, my constant prescriptions for pain killers and now my prescription for my medication? I mean, after all, it's my fault for writing so much.

The problem comes with where you draw the line. You can say my shoulder injury was an accident and therefore I should definitely be treated or you can say it was my fault and I should pay. In the end, there'd be pretty much no need for a national health service because we'd probably all need health insurance for the things that wouldn't be covered under the system you're proposing, so they may as well just cover the things you're saying the NHS should cover. And that worked so well in America.

This idea doesn't work, stop proposing it.

Reply 36

minimarshmallow

18

Original post by sarahthegemini

If you have a low income you can get your bus fare back, with a HC2 certificate.
It doesn't sound like much but I had to go twice in two days, that's almost a fiver. If I'd had to come back for physio (thankfully I didn't) then that would have been another £2.30 each time. Adds up.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 37

py0alb

3

Original post by sarahthegemini

The government notice a problem ... they decide the "cure" for it, is to put the price up. Erm, that doesn't work. They know it doesn't work. They're doing it to get more money out of people under the illusion that they are 'trying to help'

But the additional money doesn't go to the government, it goes to the supermarkets.

Reply 38

That Bearded Man

22

Original post by Frube

Sarcastic or not charging fat people, smokers and extreme thrill seekers is a good idea. No need to be pathetic and exaggerate the proposal. People who are injured or hurt through no fault of their own should always be treated for free.

Obesity is predicted to cost the NHS £5 Billion a year. Smoking and drink related illnesses cost even more. Its not fair people have to fund others who choose to damage their bodies.

I guess smoking can be ignored because of huge taxes on cigarettes themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

When you say obesity, do you include diabetes? You are aware diabetes is a multifactorial disease.