Minimum pricing?

[observer]

Will minimum pricing for booze change anyone's drinking habits?

[Lt Kije]

No

[Cleopatra]

No.

Trouble is kids today have too much money to spend.

[inky pete]

The kids - and big drinkers generally - don't drink the sort of products which would be affected by this. It's just a back hand sweetener to the supermarkets to allow them all to put the prices up without fear of losing trade through competition. The increase in price isn't going to be taxation, it's just more profit for the retailers.

[Bazj]

No.

Trouble is kids today have too much money to spend.

 

Cleo; I thought everything was all inclusive in Egypt.....

[Cleopatra]

Huh?

[observer]

The motivation appears to be "problem drinkers" - well if it's a case of addiction, surely such folk will spend their last penny on booze rather than other things? Can imagine home made alcohol will soon make an appearance?

[Lt Kije]

I agree with inky and Obs, it just will not work.

[Bazj]

Huh?

 

.....errr everytime I've been to Egypt it has been to an "all inclusive" resort...... it was a joke!!

 

I'll get me coat!

[Cleopatra]

Good job you don't do it for a living.

[Nick Tessla]

The minimum price has been set low

 

My concerns, with a significantly higher price would be

 

 

1) It is a form of collective punishment where moderate drinkers on lower incomes, who are never guilty of anti-social behaviour or excessive drinking are being made to (literally) pay for the "sins" of others.

 

 

2) A class/economic based belief that those above a certain income level, or in certain socio-economic groups, would never get blathered every night or even cause trouble. (Or even have earned the "right" to do so)

[asperity]

I agree with you there Nick :wink:

[wolfie]

Will minimum pricing for booze change anyone's drinking habits?

 

It won't change mine.

[asperity]

I don't have a drinking habit. I just wear my everyday clothes :wink:

[observer]

Addiction to alcohol isn't a class issue; it's affordability maybe.

[Cleopatra]

I don't have a drinking habit. I just wear my everyday clothes :wink:

Love it! Good one!

[RingoDave]

The main thinking behind a minimum price per unit is to cut down on the availability of extremely cheap alcohol, bought purely for the purpose of getting as drunk as possible as quickly as possible. When any underage child can get a three litre bottle of very strong cider for a couple of quid, it encourages them to do so - and it does happen more than people think.

The other point is that, yes, confirmed alcoholics will still drink two bottles of vodka before going out to the pub every day, but why should we make it easy for them by allowing that vodka to be sold for less than the price of a couple of pints of beer?

Please understand here, that I am speaking from bitter experience. While running the Ring O' Bells, we attended a few funerals of customers who had effectively drank themselves to death. I regularly had to refuse to serve someone who had obviously had a lot to drink before coming out. The Supermarkets still served those same people - as they told me, "and it's cheaper there!"

[observer]

Fair points Dave; so why fiddle around with "minimum pricing" which basically just goes to the retailers; why not just tax the booze more, just like they tax fags; and use the money to fund preventative education for the young and in dealing with the consequences that occure in our City Centres and Hospitals? :unsure:

[Nick Tessla]

Fair points Dave; so why fiddle around with "minimum pricing" which basically just goes to the retailers; why not just tax the booze more, just like they tax fags; and use the money to fund preventative education for the young and in dealing with the consequences that occure in our City Centres and Hospitals? :unsure:

 

 

The sad reality is that it would not play well politically - cries of - "this isn't about health this is just another way of lining the politicians pockets" , compare it with the similar reaction, from some, to any speed camera, which is seen as not being about road safety but about filling coffers.

 

Should you tax all booze equally -hard-pressed, responsible pub landlords, like Dave was, as well as cheapo boozo off-licences or would you try and differentiate between, for example, on and off licences?

 

Would you tax on a reverse sliding scale, so that cheaper booze is taxed more , thereby hitting cheap cider and lager , which may cut yoof consumption but is arguably regressive and hitting the low-income, responsible drinker harder than better paid p***heads and anti-social drinkers?

[observer]

Historically, we've always been a Nation of p**heads; the Puritans tried and failed to cure it; one reason they brought the King back. So, if prevention isn't possible; perhaps drinkers (like smokers), should pay for the consequences that occure, albeit by a minority - IE increased policing requirements and increasing demands on the NHS. It maybe unfair to the majority to increase taxation on booze; but neither is it fair for them to pay for the social consequences through ordinary taxation either. :unsure:

[Peter T]

If the yobs couldn't afford the prices, they would do what they do now. Just walk in, pinch a large pack and walk out.

[algy]

I think perhaps I should change my avatar, I'm getting fed up with watching that sheep supping my bitter anyway