Minimum alcohol pricing
Comments
-
daviesee wrote:pneumatic wrote:
But wait! Look at those two blokes on the left! One of them is smoking and both of them have clearly spent too much time in fast food joints. Time for a health and fitness tax. Your rate of income tax rate is directly related to the number of minutes it takes you to cycle up the Alpe d'Huez.
That should sort it.
Looks like they have steins of beer as well :twisted:
Steins? Oh my god, they're FORRINS!0 -
Alcohol - used by the State to control the masses - Orwell - 1984, the proles who represent the masses; Huxley - Brave New World, in the form of soma as a means of controlling people preventing free thought and subversive behaviour.Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.0 -
shm_uk wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's a cultural problem
This.
The key to solving the alcohol abuse / binge drinking problems is to change attitudes etc toward alcohol consumption.
I can't suggest how though. But it'd take a long time. And probably cost money (shock horror).
All too easy for the govt to whack up prices to try and curtail purchasing & therefore consumption, but in the long run it still doesn't address the root issue.
Everyone's too eager to look for a quick fix I think.
Plus, the cynic in me just believes it's a convenient way of introducing another form of tax.
Cultural problems are notoriously difficult to deal with: you have to use a huge range of different techniques to reach different types of people. One technique which could form part of the armoury might well be to put the price up, of course!
All they've done here is created a new lever which they can pull to adjust drinking behaviour in society. They've set it at a level where it'll ony impact the most flagrant use of alcohol as a loss-leader, thus ensuring that any initial impact (both positive and negative) will be minimal. What I'd now expect them to do is increase it gradually, monitoring the effect it has on the cultural behaviour they want to modify - racking it up gradually if it is reducing alcohol-related incidents, leaving it alone or even scrapping it if it doesn't. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable approach.0 -
I've always thought table service and pretty much seating only would be a start, certainly that's the biggest difference I notice when drinking on the continent that changes the feel of having a few beers, it avoids that ugly scrum at the bar and would possibly slow down consumption a little. I think part of the problem in the UK is the type of bars/pubs we now have, places like Yates and Slug and Lettuce...urgh horrible. Many a decent pub has fallen away to be replaced by such venues. The real tough nut to crack is the sort who like to consume a couple of bottles of wine or whatever before even leaving the house on a night out, not sure how that can be changed.0
-
johnfinch wrote:rhext wrote:Cultural problems are notoriously difficult to deal with: you have to use a huge range of different techniques to reach different types of people.
Kick the bastards' heads in, that'll solve the problem.
Notoriously difficult my ar5e.
Perhaps after a couple of bottles of White Lightening?
0 -
I think they are saying £3 is the minimum cost for a bottle of wine.
If you are buying £3 wine, its your lack of any tatse that is more insulting than any bindge drinking to be honest 0 -
Squillinossett wrote:I think they are saying £3 is the minimum cost for a bottle of wine.
If you are buying £3 wine, its your lack of any tatse that is more insulting than any bindge drinking to be honest
have you been drinking ?0 -
sadly no...0
-
Squillinossett wrote:sadly no...
hard lines, I have, but just in moderation0 -
Im trying to be good, trying soooo hard (week off work n'all)0
-
A few points that the 'oh it's just another tax' crowd seem to have missed
Excessive consumption of alcohol is an issue the govt has every business attempting to deal with. It has massive externalities even if you ignore the cost to the health service of dealing with alcohol-induced diseases:
Increased cost of policing
Victims of alcohol-fuelled violence, both on the street and in the home
Victims of alcohol-caused car crashes
Reduction of amenity in city centres - people feel it's less safe to go out at night
Increase in risky behaviour such as unprotected sex
You and me all end up picking up the tab for this through our taxes.
The problem isn't the cost of alcohol in pubs and bars, it's the cost in supermarkets. People who are determined to get hammered 'preload' on cheap booze before they go out. Combine that with lengthened opening hours and the strange British inability to exercise self-control after two pints and you have people getting far more hammered than they used to.
It's one of the things that struck me most, returning to the UK after a decade away, that the streets of Bath felt dodgier at 11.30 pm than the streets of Sydney.
As for the idea that price won't affect consumption, this is nonsense. There's a proven link between price and the consumption of tobacco, and especially between price and the decision to start smoking.
Unarguably, it's partially a cultural problem. But it's also a market/economic problem, and price is a perfectly legit lever to deal with it.John Stevenson0 -
Squillinossett wrote:Im trying to be good, trying soooo hard (week off work n'all)
keep up the good work, it's hard0 -
The logical conclusion is prohibition.
How did that work out?
Taxes may increase revenue but they will not stop consumption. It may even make people consider other highs. They are already banned. How is that working out?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:A few points that the 'oh it's just another tax' crowd seem to have missed
Excessive consumption of alcohol is an issue the govt has every business attempting to deal with. It has massive externalities even if you ignore the cost to the health service of dealing with alcohol-induced diseases:
Increased cost of policing
Victims of alcohol-fuelled violence, both on the street and in the home
Victims of alcohol-caused car crashes
Reduction of amenity in city centres - people feel it's less safe to go out at night
Increase in risky behaviour such as unprotected sex
You and me all end up picking up the tab for this through our taxes.
The problem isn't the cost of alcohol in pubs and bars, it's the cost in supermarkets. People who are determined to get hammered 'preload' on cheap booze before they go out. Combine that with lengthened opening hours and the strange British inability to exercise self-control after two pints and you have people getting far more hammered than they used to.
It's one of the things that struck me most, returning to the UK after a decade away, that the streets of Bath felt dodgier at 11.30 pm than the streets of Sydney.
As for the idea that price won't affect consumption, this is nonsense. There's a proven link between price and the consumption of tobacco, and especially between price and the decision to start smoking.
Unarguably, it's partially a cultural problem. But it's also a market/economic problem, and price is a perfectly legit lever to deal with it.
Sorry but I couldn't dissagree more; not with the concern over the issue but the belief that the solution is economic. To me it's like puting the price of petrol up to reduce the amount of RTAs.
From a social ill perspective those who want to get off their heads care little of the cost. If they can't afford the booze they'll either steal it (or cash) or mix it with pills to get the same effect; so no change. The health consiquences of long term excessive drinking are seen the most in the poorest areas of the UK - where booze is least affordable - so already the link between affordability and health is loose at best.
The use of pricing as a lever is totally unproven and based on a model dreamt up by Sheffield Uni, and I'd sooner not have legislation imposed on me for solical issues based on financial modeling.
And before we get comfy how about Giv stepping in and looking at cycling? I reckon a law requiring helmets would be easily "proven" to reduce the chance of injury and so cost the NHS less :roll:0 -
John Stevenson wrote:A few points that the 'oh it's just another tax' crowd seem to have missed
Excessive consumption of alcohol is an issue the govt has every business attempting to deal with. It has massive externalities even if you ignore the cost to the health service of dealing with alcohol-induced diseases:
Increased cost of policing
Victims of alcohol-fuelled violence, both on the street and in the home
Victims of alcohol-caused car crashes
Reduction of amenity in city centres - people feel it's less safe to go out at night
Increase in risky behaviour such as unprotected sex
You and me all end up picking up the tab for this through our taxes.
The problem isn't the cost of alcohol in pubs and bars, it's the cost in supermarkets. People who are determined to get hammered 'preload' on cheap booze before they go out. Combine that with lengthened opening hours and the strange British inability to exercise self-control after two pints and you have people getting far more hammered than they used to.
It's one of the things that struck me most, returning to the UK after a decade away, that the streets of Bath felt dodgier at 11.30 pm than the streets of Sydney.
As for the idea that price won't affect consumption, this is nonsense. There's a proven link between price and the consumption of tobacco, and especially between price and the decision to start smoking.
Unarguably, it's partially a cultural problem. But it's also a market/economic problem, and price is a perfectly legit lever to deal with it.
Sorry but I couldn't dissagree more; not with the concern over the issue but the belief that the solution is economic. To me it's like puting the price of petrol up to reduce the amount of RTAs.
From a social ill perspective those who want to get off their heads care little of the cost. If they can't afford the booze they'll either steal it (or cash) or mix it with pills to get the same effect; so no change. The health consiquences of long term excessive drinking are seen the most in the poorest areas of the UK - where booze is least affordable - so already the link between affordability and health is loose at best.
The use of pricing as a lever is totally unproven and based on a model dreamt up by Sheffield Uni, and I'd sooner not have legislation imposed on me for solical issues based on financial modeling.
And before we get comfy how about Gov stepping in and looking at cycling? I reckon a law requiring helmets would be easily "proven" to reduce the chance of injury and so cost the NHS less :roll:0 -
Oh and for the other Daily Mash fans on here, as ever they sum it up perfectly
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 101183442/ 0 -
-
BigG67 wrote:
The use of pricing as a lever is totally unproven
It seems reasonable that if it works for tobacco, it might work for alcohol. It works for tobacco (which is, let's not forget, far more addictive than alcohol).
Rather than dismissing the Sheffield report you mention with a hand-wave, perhaps you'd care to share your expertise on its flaws?
I'm not saying, by the way, that this is just an economic problem, and that price should be the only lever to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Just as in the reduction of smoking over the last 50 years, and the reduction in drink-driving, there have to be cultural changes too.John Stevenson0 -
I'm a normal kid who's had a normal upbringing and goes to uni with equally normal kids but we all go to Tesco and buy the cheapest shit going, neck it before 10 and go out to a club. Point being, it's not some sort of under-class problem associated with thugs and bad people, it's the 'normal' kids, probably your own kids if you have any around this age who are part of this culture.
Personally, i really don't like it. I did it for a while last term but everything goes downhill pretty quickly. Work not done, miss lectures and seminars, get ill, can't sleep and/or over-sleep, eat crap during early hours. Pretty harsh stuff when it's all mixed in.
I live with girls who will sink a bottle of wine each before going out. It's not pretty. Usually ends in tears, literally. Living in the city centre surrounded by clubs i can hear drunk people shouting/singing/fighting in the streets 'til about 3am 6 days out of 7, only Sundays are fairly quiet.
You might think 'get a life you're 19, have some fun' but i've tried it - not fun. The culmination of it last term was my flat-mate getting battered by four other guys on the dancefloor in some grotty club, blood all over my shirt and being started on 3 times in that same week myself by arseholes so wankered they can't stand up straight to face you up and look you in the eye. Sorry but there's more important things in life than cheap booze.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:daviesee wrote:The logical conclusion is prohibition.
No it's not.
Only in the anxious curtain twitcher parellel universe of la la land is that the logical conclusion.
To those who wish to eradicate all the problems caused by alcohol, it is the logical conclusion.
It would not be my personal choice. That is spoken as someone who has been drinking, sometimes heavily, for 33 years and never had any health, legal or moral problems through it. Some people can handle it, some can't and the problems begin.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:daviesee wrote:The logical conclusion is prohibition.
No it's not.
Only in the anxious curtain twitcher parellel universe of la la land is that the logical conclusion.
To those who wish to eradicate all the problems caused by alcohol, it is the logical conclusion.
.
No it's not.
How has banning any substance gone?
More people per 100,000 smoke majurana illegally in the UK than legally in the Netherlands.
It's not at all logical. It's reactionary, and ill-advised.0 -
If you read my initial post on the subject properly from last night, you will see that that was my point :roll:
Two people arguing the same side of the coin?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:BigG67 wrote:
The use of pricing as a lever is totally unproven
It seems reasonable that if it works for tobacco, it might work for alcohol. It works for tobacco (which is, let's not forget, far more addictive than alcohol).
Rather than dismissing the Sheffield report you mention with a hand-wave, perhaps you'd care to share your expertise on its flaws?
I'm not saying, by the way, that this is just an economic problem, and that price should be the only lever to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Just as in the reduction of smoking over the last 50 years, and the reduction in drink-driving, there have to be cultural changes too.
Thing is John...I don't believe that it works for tobacco. Smokers will do without other things in order to afford cigarettes when the price becomes too high....or switch to a cheaper brand....or switch to rolling tobacco.
Sure...the price may put some people off starting...and can certainly be used as a motivator to assist people in stopping....
I have never met a smoker, who simply stopped because the price was increased.....
I don't think it could even be counted, because there have been loads of 'levers' introduced to change the way that that collective psyche views smoking.
I would suggest, that the change in the social acceptance of smoking cigarettes has done far more to reduce the number of smokers than any of the yearly price rises which have been happening for the last 15 years at least.
In fact, it would be interesting to see how the number of smokers compared to the price have moved over the last 20 years say.
Price has gone up every year, pretty much without fail. By your logic, one would assume that the number of smokers also reduced every year accordingly. I don't think that the evidence bears that conclusion.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
-
I guess a missing :roll: is what was wrong then?
Just for fun though - A logical conclusion is not the best solution to an illogical situation.
Anyway, banning won't work and neither will raising prices. Maybe an X-Factor/You've been framed TV show naming and shaming culprits might though. We have enough CTV surely? That could be a more serious answer than i first intended None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Let's bear in mind that alcohol is hardly a basic human necessity...
The number of people in the UK who drink to such an extent that they are a social problem is unbelievable. We cannot sustain the cost associated with the level of alcohol abuse that is now the norm for this country.
Who is paying for the problems of the UK drink culture? I thought it was the honest working tax payer who pays for the health service and the police?
I'm all for freedom of choice but if that means letting people drink themselves to death I'm quite happy that the government sees that as something to focus on.0
