Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Fantastic bill from one of our members.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Only if it became persistent, regardless that element of the law remains redundant as it is not the being drunk itself that leads to refusal but the consequences, without that element of the 2003 act the drink would still be refused, and the act is still being ignored.
    Even if it only the excuse used, that law is used to stop the sale of alcohol to people who have had enough and become a problem. As you yourself point out, there isn't a better measure we can go by that behavioural.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    what to, just 4 or remove the limit all together?
    No, that section is more than fair to keep alcohol out of the hands of young children. It is crazy that I will be fined more for giving tobacco to a 17-year-old than alcohol to a 6-year-old. Changing the word consumption to sale fixes the problem if you are worried about it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    No, that section is more than fair to keep alcohol out of the hands of young children. It is crazy that I will be fined more for giving tobacco to a 17-year-old than alcohol to a 6-year-old. Changing the word consumption to sale fixes the problem if you are worried about it.
    For the first part I don't quite get your point
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    For the first part I don't quite get your point
    I'm confused now. My point is that at the moment I can be fined at lv 5 for supplying tobacco to someone under the age of 18 but for alcohol, this is lv 4 and at 5 years old. I don't want to reverse the change this Bill would introduce that would level the fine at lv 5 and raise the age to 11. Instead, I will change the description to say that the Bill lowers the age at which a person can be sold alcohol in a controlled environment rather than saying the age a person can consume alcohol.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I'm confused now. My point is that at the moment I can be fined at lv 5 for supplying tobacco to someone under the age of 18 but for alcohol, this is lv 4 and at 5 years old. I don't want to reverse the change this Bill would introduce that would level the fine at lv 5 and raise the age to 11. Instead, I will change the description to say that the Bill lowers the age at which a person can be sold alcohol in a controlled environment rather than saying the age a person can consume alcohol.
    No, I mean your argument that the "it's illegal to serve drunk people" bit isn't redundant on the basis that the reason they're kicked out rarely relies on the existence of that part of the law and the fact it is universally ignored.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Nay

    This bill actually does the opposite to what is claimed in the description it does not “enable the consumption of alcohol in a controlled environment at an earlier age” it increases it by 6 years, seems this government likes to try to mislead people.
    Yes, well, it wasn't the intention that you can start your toddler off earlier – the controlled environment referred to is a licensed premises. Arguably the home is (from the perspective of the state) the least controlled environment there is, however.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Yes, well, it wasn't the intention that you can start your toddler off earlier – the controlled environment referred to is a licensed premises. Arguably the home is (from the perspective of the state) the least controlled environment there is, however.
    If you think the home is less controlled than the pub you have **** pubs too

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at 7% being "strong".

    Seriously though. It says "enable the consumption of alcohol in a controlled environment at an earlier age" then straight after it raises the age at which people can be fined for giving alcohol from 5 to 11... that's quite misleading of the Government to claim that. And I believe that education about drinking and providing help to those that struggle with drinking problems will reduce problem drinking... not increasing tax. Seeing that our preferences are switching more towards wine it makes sense that people wouldn't really drink any less wine if the price increased. The graphs... also need some work.

    It will probably be a Nay at the moment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Lol at 7% being "strong".

    Seriously though. It says "enable the consumption of alcohol in a controlled environment at an earlier age" then straight after it raises the age at which people can be fined for giving alcohol from 5 to 11... that's quite misleading of the Government to claim that. And I believe that education about drinking and providing help to those that struggle with drinking problems will reduce problem drinking... not increasing tax. Seeing that our preferences are switching more towards wine it makes sense that people wouldn't really drink any less wine if the price increased. The graphs... also need some work.

    It will probably be a Nay at the moment.
    There was quite substantial discussion while drafting this bill about what that age should be, with one school of thought being that it should be raised as high as 16. I argued vehemently against that - while under 16s drinking is clearly not ideal, I absolutely understand why parents would choose to permit it in their homes and would not want to see them criminalised for that alone. But I cannot see any reason whatsoever why you'd want or need to give alcohol - which, for all our cultural traditions around it which we rightfully defend, is still a potent and dangerous drug - to a ten-year-old. There's got to be a limit somewhere and 11 is more than generous.

    That mention of controlled environment quite clearly refers to the licensed and regulated environments this bill primarily concerns, not the home which as far as the government is concerned is not a controlled environment. Can we not debate the contents and merits of the bill rather than the semantics?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    There was quite substantial discussion while drafting this bill about what that age should be, with one school of thought being that it should be raised as high as 16. I argued vehemently against that - while under 16s drinking is clearly not ideal, I absolutely understand why parents would choose to permit it in their homes and would not want to see them criminalised for that alone. But I cannot see any reason whatsoever why you'd want or need to give alcohol - which, for all our cultural traditions around it which we rightfully defend, is still a potent and dangerous drug - to a ten-year-old. There's got to be a limit somewhere and 11 is more than generous.
    I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m just saying that the Government shouldn’t mislead us.

    That mention of controlled environment quite clearly refers to the licensed and regulated environments this bill primarily concerns, not the home which as far as the government is concerned is not a controlled environment. Can we not debate the contents and merits of the bill rather than the semantics?
    It seems you haven’t read my reply properly at all. This bill increases the price of some alcohol by increasing the tax on it. With our preferences tending more to wine where the price is being increased it won’t do anything to combat drinking problems. Which is why I said it’s better we focus on education and helping those who have alcohol problems instead of increasing tax on a good that is insensitive to changes in price.

    That is not semantics.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Lol at 7% being "strong".

    Seriously though. It says "enable the consumption of alcohol in a controlled environment at an earlier age" then straight after it raises the age at which people can be fined for giving alcohol from 5 to 11... that's quite misleading of the Government to claim that. And I believe that education about drinking and providing help to those that struggle with drinking problems will reduce problem drinking... not increasing tax. Seeing that our preferences are switching more towards wine it makes sense that people wouldn't really drink any less wine if the price increased. The graphs... also need some work.

    It will probably be a Nay at the moment.
    It may at least incentivise people to consider the alcoholic content of theire wine, or other alcolic drink, more before purchase though. This ends the situation where you can be taxed less by buying more alcohol and, in the process, simplifies the tax code, making it more efficient.

    Its a fairly small tax increase overall as raising revenue is not the aim of the bill. Im all for spending extra tax generated on programs to rehabilitate people with drinking problems if that would help. Afterall funding from those programs has to come from somewhere. With the lower taxes for pubs (and the fact that beer, which goes down, is by far our favorite alcoholic drink) it isn't really any more of an increase than the ones in line with inflation that were used to. I'm going to sleep, but I'll get the coatings data I've been collecting sorted tomorrow.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    No, I believe cheap drinks should be valued, if individuals have an alcohol problem the solution is not taxing alcohol, the solution is to promote counselling.
    Hear hear !
    Nay from me
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Hear hear !
    Nay from me
    Once again, this isn't intended as a tax raise and the most popular drinks see their tax decrease, not increase. It is a crazy situation now where adding more alcohol to a drink can make is be taxed less. Simplifying that tax system helps everyone, with the only people who are taxed more are heavy drinkers while the majority of drinkers see their alcohol tax costs go down.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Once again, this isn't intended as a tax raise and the most popular drinks see their tax decrease, not increase. It is a crazy situation now where adding more alcohol to a drink can make is be taxed less. Simplifying that tax system helps everyone, with the only people who are taxed more are heavy drinkers while the majority of drinkers see their alcohol tax costs go down.
    Except you're not at all far from doing so, wine is on the brink of being more popular than beer and spirits are far more popular than ciders and alcopops. More than half of drinks would see an increase in tax and nearly a quarter a significant increase. The minority would see a cut, not the majority and this will disproportionately hit women and students.

    Given convention states net changes in spending/taxation greater than £100m should be costed can we get some costing, I haven't worked out any rough figures yet but the consumption stats suggest tax revenues could be increased by billions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except you're not at all far from doing so, wine is on the brink of being more popular than beer and spirits are far more popular than ciders and alcopops. More than half of drinks would see an increase in tax and nearly a quarter a significant increase. The minority would see a cut, not the majority and this will disproportionately hit women and students.

    Given convention states net changes in spending/taxation greater than £100m should be costed can we get some costing, I haven't worked out any rough figures yet but the consumption stats suggest tax revenues could be increased by billions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By on the brink you mean about half? It's also the drink usually prefered by people over 50. The reason wine drinking is on the rise is that there is a growing problem of alcohol dependency in older people. Binge drinking is still predominantly beer, and young alcoholics are more likely to drink spirits. Most drinks wouldn't, as nearly 50% of all drinks sold are beer under 7.5%. Older women would indeed see a rise, which is fair in terms of the damage they are doing to themselves by drinking. I fail to see how it is unfair for people to pay an amount of tax based on how much of a drug they are consuming.

    I will include a costing in the next draft. Without the subsidy for pubs I had this at a little under £400mn, I'll have to find out how much that part would effect the increase.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Strong nay.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    It may at least incentivise people to consider the alcoholic content of theire wine, or other alcolic drink, more before purchase though. This ends the situation where you can be taxed less by buying more alcohol and, in the process, simplifies the tax code, making it more efficient.
    Yeah keyword here is "may" - even you aren't certain of how exactly this will encourage people to consider the alcohol content before purchase. Like I said, wine is becoming more popular and it makes up more of the tax revenues than spirits and beers so increasing the tax will do nothing - whether it is intended or not.

    Its a fairly small tax increase overall as raising revenue is not the aim of the bill. Im all for spending extra tax generated on programs to rehabilitate people with drinking problems if that would help. Afterall funding from those programs has to come from somewhere. With the lower taxes for pubs (and the fact that beer, which goes down, is by far our favorite alcoholic drink) it isn't really any more of an increase than the ones in line with inflation that were used to. I'm going to sleep, but I'll get the coatings data I've been collecting sorted tomorrow.
    Then what is the aim? Because it's not like you've made it clear to anyone... Why would linking the alcohol content to tax make people think about the content of alcohol before purchase? That isn't explained. As aforementioned, our preferences are switching more towards wine and something like that is insensitive to increases in price so it will do nothing but try and burden those who want to drink it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Eh, spirits are where the drink related issues come from for the most part, wine not so much. I also suspect that wine drinkers also contribute disproportionately much because I imagine that probability of being a wine drinker correlates to income to an extent.
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Most do, in healthcare costs. Somebody who drinks 1 litre vodka per week would lose £300 a year under this, and I think that is reasonable in exchange for taking almost 50p off the tax of a pint for the majority of people who drink less than that and are not putting as big a strain on the nations health service.

    As a nice side effect, it allows us to boost our pub industry, which could really use a boost at the moment without needing to put public money into the industry or watch it die out and our drinking culture get worse.
    The problem is not the spirits, the problem is the individuals consuming the spirits who do not know their safe limits. Most spirit drinkers consume amounts that neither damage their health to level needing healthcare nor intoxicate them to the point where they end up being taken to hospital. The individuals placing strain on resources drink because they have an addiction to alcohol, the addiction to alcohol is not going to be ended by increasing taxes on alcohol; they will change their budgetary plans to be able to buy the same amount of alcohol. This bill unfairly penalises the spirit drinkers who do not over-consume, do not demand more resources than the average for each citizen, and sensibly enjoy spirits: the majority.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    By on the brink you mean about half? It's also the drink usually prefered by people over 50. The reason wine drinking is on the rise is that there is a growing problem of alcohol dependency in older people. Binge drinking is still predominantly beer, and young alcoholics are more likely to drink spirits. Most drinks wouldn't, as nearly 50% of all drinks sold are beer under 7.5%. Older women would indeed see a rise, which is fair in terms of the damage they are doing to themselves by drinking. I fail to see how it is unfair for people to pay an amount of tax based on how much of a drug they are consuming.

    I will include a costing in the next draft. Without the subsidy for pubs I had this at a little under £400mn, I'll have to find out how much that part would effect the increase.
    I mean that it's something like 35% beer 32% wine and the recent trend has been a closing gap suggesting soon wine will be more popular than beer.

    Your line of argument is already absurd because people already do pay more if they drink more, if I buy a second pint I don't get a tax rebate, the tax paid is double.

    you will also find that just like smoking the taxes that exist already MORE than cover the cost to the NHS, in the region of 3 times over for alcohol duty
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 14, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.