Alcohol - Price Per Unit

[Less]

Originally Posted by Eric

and try to convince others that smokers, drinkers, gamblers etc. are somehow morrally inferior. They are not.

Whoa hang on, I drink, smoke and if given the chance of a sympathy thrutch, fornicate, I've been doing all three for a ridiculous number of years and no-one has ever offered me encouragement, are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel guilty because some busybody stranger wants to rule my life and insists that I stop?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

It's a strange thing this "bad habit" idea. The government (of any persuasion) wants to ban smoking (as it has done in the work place) and is trying, supposedly, to curb people's drinking through this latest bonkers idea. The problem is that the revenue raised by alcohol and smoking is immense. We all know this. The whole thing smacks of pandering to the chattering classes and "being seen" to do the right thing.
The fact is if there were no smoking and alcohol consumption where would the economy be? We wouldn't just lose the revenue, hundreds of thousands would be out of work and claiming social and the revenue from their income tax would also be lost.
So many of the "bad" things that we are warned about keep the economy afloat. The same is true (even more so) of crime. We all hate it (apart from those in it) but if there were no crime the economy would be in melt-down. If you consider all the crime related legitimate jobs (police, security, jails, cctv companies, legal firms, courts, alarm companies, etc.) we'd be in a hell of a mess without it.
Kinda strange when you start thinking about it, isn't it? The economies of most countries in the world are heavily reliant on that which is bad for you or illegal.
I'm a life-long non-smoker by the way.

As well as all the points you mentioned, it seems like the government want people to live forever, yet they moan about how they are going to find enough money to pay the pensions that these folk would get.
It is all fascist meddling as far as I am concerned...and I neither drink(well, so little I consider myself to be a non-drinker) or smoke, so I have no axe to grind....it is just another way for them to dip their greedy mitts into out wallets.
they will tax fresh air if they can find a way to measure who is taking most of it.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

they will tax fresh air if they can find a way to measure who is taking most of it.

No, they will always manage the figures so that the poorest of our society pay the most.

[Guinness]

HBC had a meeting this week. After 30 minutes spent chatting about the government plan to price alcohol at 50p per unit, they voted to agree with the government...Like they'd have a choice?

During their chat, Councillor Pam Barton said that alcohol prices are currently 44% less than in 1980, now I paid around 65p for a pint back then, which would mean Pam is currently paying around 37p at her local, anyone know where she drinks? And an arrogant Britcliffe said that most people don't know what a unit is..(kinda surprised he didn't use the word 'plebs' instead of people)

[MargaretR]

At least PB said 'most people' and not '75% of people'

The concept of a unit is flawed. The effects of alcohol can vary tremendously between people and even vary in each individual, depending on whether it is taken on an empty stomach or a full one.

The people who enjoy the mind numbing effects of excess alcohol will just choose to eat less and drink the same.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Guinness

And an arrogant Britcliffe said that most people don't know what a unit is..(kinda surprised he didn't use the word 'plebs' instead of people)

Of course we know what a unit is.

1 unit is the equivalent of a full bath.
A full bath can be divided equally by six sacks of coal.
I haven't had a full unit in years, have you seen the price of coal?

As a member of the great unwashed I'm lucky if I can store more than two sacks in my bath at a time.

[Houseboy]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

At least PB said 'most people' and not '75% of people'

The concept of a unit is flawed. The effects of alcohol can vary tremendously between people and even vary in each individual, depending on whether it is taken on an empty stomach or a full one.

The people who enjoy the mind numbing effects of excess alcohol will just choose to eat less and drink the same.

Agree with that!
The idea of a "unit" being some kind of universal yardstick is a total nonsense. We all (or nearly all) have an idea of when we are being affected by alcohol in an adverse way and it varies massively. I am probably pretty average but I know that I could drive competently after 3 large glasses of wine in the evening (before anyone asks I don't drink if I have any alcohol at all) because I know how I feel even though technically I'd be "over". I am used to wine and know how it affects me. If, however, I had a pint of beer in the afternoon (technically legal) I wouldn't even dream of trying to drive because it affects me completely differently.
How you handle alcohol depends on food intake, body size and mass and even gender (apparently). Even the time of day affects me and I'm sure that doesn't just apply to me. I used to know a man-mountain of a builder who could down 10 pints of beer in no time and he wasn't even drunk.
Who has the right to say what is correct for all when it is so obvious to anyone with half a brain that you can't press everyone into a procrustean bed of uniform conformity.

[susie123]

Seems like yet another group is singled out for drinking too much...

BBC News - Warning over middle class parents' alcohol habits

[Less]

Originally Posted by susie123

Seems like yet another group is singled out for drinking too much...

BBC News - Warning over middle class parents' alcohol habits

Aye, nowt worse than careless folk with more money than sense.
I'd rather be a skint peasant or an aristocrat on my uppers than someone that needs to drink beyond their means.

[Guinness]

And this ladies and gentlemen is what everything is based on...

Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model - Research - Sheffield Alcohol Research Group - Research - Public Health - Sections - ScHARR - The University of Sheffield

Research my backside..it's guesstimation by a bunch of esoteric freeloaders who can't hold down proper jobs.

Let me tell you what my on the street research tells me...

1. Binge drinkers get lashed on alcopops and shots, NOT cheap strong lager from supermarkets. Alcopops and shots cost way more than 45p a unit.

2. The people who drink cheap strong lager are, in the main, underage kids and people on a low income. There is already a law in place for underage drinking, which is rarely enforced, except as a votecatching photo opportunity (CANsafe) for politicians.

3. Friday and Saturday night casualty departments are not full of the results of drunken fights caused by £3.99 bottles of plonk from Asda. They are caused by people who think its acceptable to have a few to drink and go and pick a fight every weekend.

4. A saving of £3 by buying 24 cans at once instead of buying 8 cans on 3 different journeys reduces my carbon footprint, it doesn't encourage me to knock back all 24 in one session.

Conclusion
I'm a responsible drinker, this won't affect me all that much. If I was a binge drinker it wouldn't affect me all that much. If I was a low income hard worker or a pensioner, this would affect me greatly.

Education and awareness is what is needed. Drink driving was once thought acceptable until the hard hitting campaigns, strict enforcement of the law and severe punishment for transgressors. This is the way to go with binge drinking...make it socially unacceptable.

Stop punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go the next morning with a slap on the wrist!

[Margaret Pilkington]

I drink very little alcohol, but I think this is the wrong approach and penalises the wrong people (as Guinness has said in his post).
A lot of young people go out to get drunk...not to have a good time, not to enjoy banter with friends...but just to get drunk.
How do you stop this.......well, the first thing would be to take the alcohol licence away from all supermarkets.......give it back to the selling out shops....and perhaps the off sales in public houses. Go back to the licencing hours that were in place before somebody thought to 'continentalise' us with all day drinking.
It is no damn good thinking that giving free rein to the sale of alchol will produce the same kind of drinking habits that are enjoyed on the continent...the whole culture is different.

Guinness you are right, this penalises those responsible drinkers on a fixed income...and will do little to prevent binge drinking,alcohol fuelled violence and hospital admissions.

I'm fed up of governments trying to be my conscience, my nanny.....trying to tell me how to live my life......and in the process, removing more money from my pocket(which will find its way to Rwanda or the EU coffers).
It is high time they got on with the job of sorting out the economy, the EU,fostering some confidence in business, dealing with unemployment and other pressing issues - except, these are all much harder to solve aren't they?

[Barrie Yates]

Fully agree with what Guinness has pointed out - research by a bunch of academics who have probably never lived in the real world.
This minimum price will not affect me too much and nor will it affect the binge drinkers/drunken yobs, of both sexes.
What would have a considerable affect is more rigid enforcement by the police and realistic sentencing by the magistrates and judges - put them into prison for a minimum period and bring back Borstals for the ones too young to go to into adult prison.

However, looking on the bright side, the supermarkets could well cut prices on beers to use them as loss leaders to encourage more people to go and do their normal shopping there - some hope maybe, but why not be an optimist?