Do you agree with minimum alcohol pricing? (From The Argus)

Quite frankly I don't think you can build a case for minimum pricing having done anything to lower consumption in anything but the very shortest of terms. On the other hand it has increased the introduction of smuggled products, contraband products and adulterated products.

Thereby effectively increasing the cost to society overall.

You want to do something effective regarding alcohol abuse? Zero tolerance on all criminal/anti-social conduct that is alcohol fuelled. Clarify street drinking and ban it. Completely! No, mitigating, no using the officers' discretion, no ah well, it wasn't quite within the banned area. Ban it on every street, bus, station or shopping centre ... everywhere.

Effective and accessible alcoholism programmes and where parents are in receipt of benefits and acknowledged problem drinkers, ensure that they have a supervisor during their shopping trips to make sure that decent food for the kids is the priority item in the trolley.

Don't fine outlets that sell to under age drinkers. Close them down! No ifs ands or buts! Put the sellers of alcohol to under age children on a central register thereby ensuring they will never be able to apply for another licence. No excuses accepted such as it was my shop assistant and s/he has only been working here a couple of weeks. They hold the licence, they are responsible.

Make it a requirement that all purveyors of alcohol MUST produce some form of ID ... even those who are evidently over age.

Residents/tenants that cause mayhem due to over consumption of alcohol should be required to do community service ... repeat breaches, increase the hours. They breach often enough, they won't have time to imbibe as all their spare time will be taken up doing reparation in the community.

Drink drivers should be treated as we would treat anyone waving a loaded weapon around in a public space.

Oops sorry, it was a question you wanted. Okay my question is this. Can you prove that the highly inflated cost of tobacco and tobacco related products has indeed lowered the overall cost to society in treating tobacco related diseases. Is it not true that there has been a substantial increase in the smuggling of said products effectively increasing the cost to society with regards to tackling that. Not to forget the increase in adulterated tobacco products and the negative effect these have had.

Not at all the poor will suffer once again and the better off will still drink!english are notorious drinkers all through history we love a drink , it's a different world now people got married at 18 and worked had kids now it's college , uni then your made to feel abnormal for wanting kids everyone's screwed up and confused !!!

He is entitled to His opinion however I think He needs to spend as much time as possible looking after the Housing needs of those in the City and leave alcohol problems to the relevant body

Abuse of alcohol is no worse that abuse of food. People have a choice whether to over indulge or not.

Hard drugs are more of a problem in the country because it fuels crime.

The nanny state never works and the alcohol prohibition in 1920's America is the best example of this folly.

Jushhhh leave ushhh alone! dwinkin's fun....wahooo "hic" who ya lookin at eh! eh! I bloomin love you i do!

Anyway the gov are hypocrites their always drunk with their brandy in parliment that's why they keep nodding off !!!

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
Abuse of alcohol is no worse that abuse of food. People have a choice whether to over indulge or not.

Hard drugs are more of a problem in the country because it fuels crime.

The nanny state never works and the alcohol prohibition in 1920's America is the best example of this folly.

Hard drugs only fuel crime because they are expensive and meanwhile, at a personal and at a family level, alcohol does far more damage to far for people.

I'd like to see it banned completely.

fredaj wrote:

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
Abuse of alcohol is no worse that abuse of food. People have a choice whether to over indulge or not.

Hard drugs are more of a problem in the country because it fuels crime.

The nanny state never works and the alcohol prohibition in 1920's America is the best example of this folly.

Hard drugs only fuel crime because they are expensive and meanwhile, at a personal and at a family level, alcohol does far more damage to far for people.

I'd like to see it banned completely.

far MORE people.

It sounds so simple doesn't it? "Increase the cost of drink and people will stop getting drunk and live forever. Increase the cost of cheap food so that the proles don't get so disgustingly fat. Increase the cost of parking and make driving difficult so that people use public transport."

It really doesn't matter if the policies don't work and don't solve the underlying problems; they match the ethos of this New Puritan era which is why they get proposed.

fredaj wrote:

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
Abuse of alcohol is no worse that abuse of food. People have a choice whether to over indulge or not.

Hard drugs are more of a problem in the country because it fuels crime.

The nanny state never works and the alcohol prohibition in 1920's America is the best example of this folly.

Hard drugs only fuel crime because they are expensive and meanwhile, at a personal and at a family level, alcohol does far more damage to far for people.

I'd like to see it banned completely.

And here's a New Puritan... You want to ban alcohol and punish everybody because of the problems it causes for a few. Jeez.

fredaj wrote:

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
Abuse of alcohol is no worse that abuse of food. People have a choice whether to over indulge or not.

Hard drugs are more of a problem in the country because it fuels crime.

The nanny state never works and the alcohol prohibition in 1920's America is the best example of this folly.

Hard drugs only fuel crime because they are expensive and meanwhile, at a personal and at a family level, alcohol does far more damage to far for people.

I'd like to see it banned completely.

Yeah, because the glass of wine (or two) I have with my dinner really turns me into a raging psychopath.

I am completely opposed to the use of taxation to control our lives. Tell us about the risks and assume that we are intelligent enough to deal with it. Where there is a clear health issue that the NHS has to deal with then tax to cover the health costs and no more.

Morpheus wrote:
I am completely opposed to the use of taxation to control our lives. Tell us about the risks and assume that we are intelligent enough to deal with it. Where there is a clear health issue that the NHS has to deal with then tax to cover the health costs and no more.

Fine in theory, but (some) people are clearly not intelligent enough to deal with it.

I'd also suggest its more about giving us all a better quality of life, though, rather than controlling our lives.

Here's the question:
If increasing the cost of alcohol is so effective at reducing consumption, can you explain to me why, in the Scandinavian countries, where alcohol is about 3 times the price it is here, having high priced alcohol only available from government outlets, has had little or no effect on the amount consumed?
You only have to go to Oslo or Rekyavik and wander around in the evening to see that this is the case.

I agree with "mimseycal " who says "Zero tolerance on all criminal/anti-social conduct that is alcohol fueled"
I am strongly opposed to inflating the cost of something for the reasons given (mainly health grounds) for one thing this is unfair to the vast majority of people who enjoy a drink for another it will not stop either excessive drinking of the bad social behavior that goes with it, if the government want to genuinely get extra funds for the cost of health care due to excessive drinking then they should increase the the duty on alcohol as that is more honest.
Falsely inflating the price of alcohol will not stop alcohol abuse you only have to look at what prohibition did in America, crime increased, moonshine caused more health issues, prisons got even more crowded, it just isn't the answer to inflate prices.

I heard today on the radio that the proposal is to introduce a minimum price of £4.22 for a bottle of wine.
Now as a poor person approaching retirement I can buy a reasonable bottle of wine for £3.60 which lasts over three dinners. If this is going to cost £4.22, what is the currently priced £4.20 bottle going to be? £4.80 perhaps?
I can see this minimum pricing as an excuse to jack up all prices and profitability in the off trade.
The excessive drinker will just pay more, at the detriment to his contribution to his family funds.

As has happened with tobacco products, I expect we would see an increase in boot leg alcohol, maybe even cheap Chinese rice wine - enjoy!

kkj wrote:

Morpheus wrote:
I am completely opposed to the use of taxation to control our lives. Tell us about the risks and assume that we are intelligent enough to deal with it. Where there is a clear health issue that the NHS has to deal with then tax to cover the health costs and no more.

Fine in theory, but (some) people are clearly not intelligent enough to deal with it.

I'd also suggest its more about giving us all a better quality of life, though, rather than controlling our lives.

I agree that some people are not intelligent enough to run thier own lives but it is THIER OWN life and not the governments. The main problem I have with things like this is that polititians and do gooders think that hiking taxes on things will resolve all of society's problems. I just do not understand the logic. If someone is addicted to something they WILL get it one way or another, even if it costs them extra money to pay for it. All this will do is make people more broke than they are now. Most people like a drink and are responsible about it, after all we live in such depressing times we need something to numb us from the tory goverment, green council and the endless bills. Now we're being told to pay even more for one little pleasure just because of the actions of a minority, and because people in government cannot actually think up, or cannot be bothered to implement a real solution. So lazy, it's either "throw a tax at it" or "ban it", with every problem.

Stand in the booze aisle of sainsbury on the Lewes road on an early evening and see students buying themselves bottles of vodka each to pre load before they go out at 11.30pm to drink until 4am. Twenty years ago kids would knock back pints which have a lower alcohol content, go out at 9pm
And clubs in the city would close at 1pm. Now they knock back vast amounts of spirits at 40 per cent proof and then go out at 11.30 and drink Jeigerbombs and other shots for
Several hours.
Yes the British have always been boozy but the type of alcohol, the strength and the number of hours doing it have increased.
When I was younger we would never drink spirits as they were bloody expensive in pubs and supermarkets. Now Vodka is cheaper per litre than car de icer per litre.

mimseycal wrote:
Quite frankly I don't think you can build a case for minimum pricing having done anything to lower consumption in anything but the very shortest of terms. On the other hand it has increased the introduction of smuggled products, contraband products and adulterated products.

Thereby effectively increasing the cost to society overall.

You want to do something effective regarding alcohol abuse? Zero tolerance on all criminal/anti-social conduct that is alcohol fuelled. Clarify street drinking and ban it. Completely! No, mitigating, no using the officers' discretion, no ah well, it wasn't quite within the banned area. Ban it on every street, bus, station or shopping centre ... everywhere.

Effective and accessible alcoholism programmes and where parents are in receipt of benefits and acknowledged problem drinkers, ensure that they have a supervisor during their shopping trips to make sure that decent food for the kids is the priority item in the trolley.

Don't fine outlets that sell to under age drinkers. Close them down! No ifs ands or buts! Put the sellers of alcohol to under age children on a central register thereby ensuring they will never be able to apply for another licence. No excuses accepted such as it was my shop assistant and s/he has only been working here a couple of weeks. They hold the licence, they are responsible.

Make it a requirement that all purveyors of alcohol MUST produce some form of ID ... even those who are evidently over age.

Residents/tenants that cause mayhem due to over consumption of alcohol should be required to do community service ... repeat breaches, increase the hours. They breach often enough, they won't have time to imbibe as all their spare time will be taken up doing reparation in the community.

Drink drivers should be treated as we would treat anyone waving a loaded weapon around in a public space.

Oops sorry, it was a question you wanted. Okay my question is this. Can you prove that the highly inflated cost of tobacco and tobacco related products has indeed lowered the overall cost to society in treating tobacco related diseases. Is it not true that there has been a substantial increase in the smuggling of said products effectively increasing the cost to society with regards to tackling that. Not to forget the increase in adulterated tobacco products and the negative effect these have had.

One of the most intelligent and reasoned responses on this forum. The Argus should print it as an article, well done.

Given the main problem stems from the homeless street drinkers, there is an alternative approach, which could address much of the problem that minimum pricing was targeting, through affecting the 'spending power' ratio.

Its quite simple all we need to do is reduce the money we give to these people. I don't have the detail of the amount of benefits they enjoy, but simply halve them. Also if you are one of the mugs who 'spares them some change' for their 'bus fare home' then simply don't, or if you must, halve it.

There - job done without the need for pointless legislation.!

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:
Given the main problem stems from the homeless street drinkers, there is an alternative approach, which could address much of the problem that minimum pricing was targeting, through affecting the 'spending power' ratio.

Its quite simple all we need to do is reduce the money we give to these people. I don't have the detail of the amount of benefits they enjoy, but simply halve them. Also if you are one of the mugs who 'spares them some change' for their 'bus fare home' then simply don't, or if you must, halve it.

There - job done without the need for pointless legislation.!

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that the main aim of this is not out of concern for the health and well being of the drinker. Nor is it to decrease the nuisance factor to society. Those are just some handy selling points to make it palatable. Decreasing spending power is the last thing that is wanted. They just want people to aim their spending power at stuff that will cost the state as little as possible, in effort and responsibility, but make it lots of lovely cold hard cash at minimum inconvenience.

So as far as your suggestion is concerned ...No, all you would need is to prove that they are excessive drinkers. That would involve, even at its most basic and minimal, medical and law enforcement reports.
Then you would need a court to determine that they are indeed 'excessive drinkers'; involving expensive legal representation and all that that brings in its wake.

Assuming success in all the above, you will need the appropriate rules and regulations to ensure that they do not have the funds available. Which of course will require extra staff, office space and other paraphernalia, to ensure that these rules and regulations are applied.

Extremely costly and therefore, given that the aim in reality is to decrease the overall cost to society and increase the income for the public purse, counter-productive.

Quite aside from the fact that your posts intimates that the only people that can be classed as excessive drinkers are those who are in receipt of benefits of some sort. Much along the lines that a poor person who doesn't conform is mad and a rich non-conformer merely eccentric ;-)