"It's the rich wot gets the pleasure and .... "

[Marmora Man]

Does the forum think that proposal to establish a minimum cost for a unit of alcohol is:

a. The ultimate nanny state interference?

b. Social engineering?

c. An infringement of individual and commercial rights?

It is said that a 10% rise in the cost of a unit of alcohol will reduce demand by 5%. Thus for 20 heavy drinkers at risk of poor health - one will be dissuaded.

Those of us lucky enough to be able to afford a glass of wine at Green & Blue or a few pints at The Bishop won't be affect by the fact that supermarket own brand lager and White Lightening cider would cost up to ?1.00 a go more - but the less well off among us will have their opportunity to take a drink restricted by price.

On the other hand - a 5% reduction in alcohol related disease could mean 1,000 less deaths a year, 10,000 less drink related crime and a major reduction in A&E admissions over a weekend as the result of binge drinking.

Given these points and others that may be raised by readers - would you support the proposed increase or not?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

No. Absolutely not. I have few anodynes in my life, alcohol is presently an affordable one.

Besides, I've always espoused Proverbs 31: 6-7

"Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;

Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."

[DJKillaQueen]

It won't make any dfference at all to the number of alcoholics or drunken ladettes getting themselves arrested at weekends in many city centres which is the abuse of alcohol that we actually see...not the results of drinking at home.

This proposal is purely a response to the number of teenagers that get their hands on alcohol....hence the increased tax on cider in the last budget.

We have an attitude to alcohol in this country, unlike any other european country, that is purely cultural. Yet alcohol is cheaper in supermarkets across europe because they don't pay the levels of tax we do.....so go figure MrCamerClegg.

[buggie]

Would be interested in seeing this be taken up and if it has an affect especially if combined with stopping/reducing offers on alcohol.

Really don't think "sensible" drinkers will be affected, but, may reduce the amount of people I see at work hours after accidents as they were too drunk to act upon it at the time.

While there isn't a perfect way to reduce binge/alcohol problems, think this could be a good start - not completely outpricing but could test the waters.

Don't think most local pub/G&B prices would be affected as would be v surprised to find out they were selling drinks at less than 50p a unit.

[silverfox]

Some good questions there Mamora Man. I'm not sure what the answer is, especially given the power and vested interests of the alcohol producers and the supermarkets who hide behind 'Drink Aware' campaigns. Like everything, it will depend whether there is a real will to tackle the problem.

Studies have shown that alcohol has become 75 per cent more affordable since 1980 as incomes have risen much faster than the price. And the problems associated with too much drinking aren't just confined to the poorer members of society - many people open a bottle of wine every evening and exceed safe weekly drinking recommendations.

If the problem is alcohol is simply too cheap then we could treble or even quadruple the price to cut consumption. However, that might lead to job losses and also encourage criminal gangs to smuggle cheap drink in from abroad to meet a need for the poorer and more vulnerable drinkers.

At the risk of creating an outcry from those with vested interests, an alternative suggestion would be to raise the price and change the licensing laws so that only pubs/bars and restaurants are allowed to sell alcohol with a strength more than, say, 2.5%. That means supermarkets/shops can only sell weak beer and no wine or spirits. The increased price and the volume people would need to drink to get drunk would go some way to reducing comsumption, especially for those getting tanked up at home before going out to the pub and club.

Also, most high street pubs should not be open after midnight, with last admission 11pm. If you want to go on drinking go to a club.

(pauses to swig from hip-flask).

[Brendan]

It won?t stop chronic alcoholics from getting their hands on booze it will only stop those who can take it or leave it. They may decide to leave it if it is costing them too much but they aren?t the ones causing the trouble in the first place.

[Brendan]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We have an attitude to alcohol in this country,

> unlike any other european country, that is purely

> cultural.

I don?t think that?s necessarily true. I?ve found Europeans, especially Germans and Southern Scandinavians are just as partial to a slurring booze up as the British and Irish are. Here are some stats on European drink consuption: http://www.heartstats.org/temp/Figsp7.9spweb07.xls

There will always be the problem of alcoholism which exists in a portion of any population that consumes alcohol. We can take that as read.

The issue that seems to have crystallised though for this argument (thanks largely to the popular press) is that of alcohol related bad behaviour. This is caused by a deeper lack of respect for self and others in people. Alcohol isn?t to blame for this it just lower people?s inhibitions so they show it more.

It is the same lack of respect that means smarmy cunts in business suits push onto trains in front of women and older people and take their seats or that makes people let their dogs foul the pavements.

Booze doesn?t make these people anti-social, they already are. Booze just lets them show it more clearly.

[Magpie]

I think its actually yet another example of supermarket using their excessive market power to price products below cost to drive out pubs and smaller shopkeepers. The offers on crates of Stella, for example, make drinking in the pub incredibly expensive relative to buying 24 cans from Sainsbury's.

I also think that the two separate health issues relating to alcohol namely 1) Binge drinking in City centre pubs leading to violence and 2) excessive consumption in the home to the detriment of personal health, should be considered as two different problems and treated as such.

[PeckhamRose]

Like the 'problem' with drugs or teenage pregnancies, and so on, it is and always will be a class issue.

The rich will always be able to afford their problem habits, safe private abortions, and their stays in Priory or wherever.

It is only when problems arise in the news as something that the tax payer has to finance do we get annoyed and the govt start talking taxes.

To answer the question, a little bit of both b and c.

[katie1997]

I think its all of the above. I doubt that the proposed increase will address the problems it intends to.

[Burbage]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the other hand - a 5% reduction in alcohol

> related disease could mean 1,000 less deaths a

> year, 10,000 less drink related crime and a major

> reduction in A&E admissions over a weekend as the

> result of binge drinking.

Speculative and almost certainly wrong. The price of alcohol has never stopped drunkenness, merely shifted the balance between the on-trade, the off-trade, the black market and home-brewing. It's probably worth bearing in mind that moving violence from the public arena to behind closed doors may not be as effective a remedy now as it once was, either.

If your sole aim is to reduce the amount of crime that's reported, and remove the 'alcohol-related' label from a bunch of A&E admissions, then this is a brilliant initiative. If, on the other hand, you want to reduce the burden on the health and social services and/or reduce crime overall, then it's not the best recipe.

A little perspective may help. Alcohol Concern point out that 150,000 prescriptions to treat alcohol-related disorders were handed out in 2009. Against over 750m prescriptiosn overall. Something less than 7,000 deaths were directly related to alcohol (mostly from liver disease) against 500,000 deaths overall according to Alcohol Concern (or, according to drinkaware, in a fit of mystical shroudwaving, 'up to' 33,000). Our of 18m A&E attendances yearly, 250,000 are alcohol-related (according to the Institute of Alcohol Studies). These numbers are rising, but that may be due to the impact of expensive public-awareness campaigns on the people who do the reporting (the only thing that is clear is that expensive public-awareness campaigns are treated with much the same patronising contempt by the public as they attempt to deliver). But, even as they stand, it's not nearly as dramatic as the vested interests like to claim.

The crime figures are more interesting. Not so much the 'alcohol-related' ones, but the 'drunkenness offences', the number of which, according to the IAS, has fallen dramatically over the past three decades. As the IAS nicely put it: "This is particularly clear from the Scottish figures, the most recent of which if taken at face value imply that drunkenness has virtually disappeared north of the border"

This may give a clue to a sensible and progressive solution to the problem. But that's not what we'll get. The economy does much better when self-restraint is abdicated to the credit card and the police much prefer posting flyers to having quiet words with the potentially resentful.

In the end, we probably will get minimum-pricing, especially with the support of an industry that seems more than keen to stop the supermarkets from forcing them to subsidise their marketing gimmicks. I strongly doubt it will do anything productive, however. Quite the opposite.

[DJKillaQueen]

Isn't it more the case that the government wants to be 'seen' to be doing something when we all know it won't make one iota of difference.

I personally am fed up of being taxed for this and that because of the behaviour of a wrecklesss few. We already have fake cigarettes flooding into the country causing far more damage to people's health than legal cigarettes. There have also been problems with fake Vodka.

What government should be asking is what is it that makes people want to numb themselves to oblivion with alcohol in the first place? and then do something about that (if it can).

[Brendan]

Good point but the government isn't going to just let us all quit our jobs now are they.

[david_carnell]

Considering this is a government that has prided itself on a libertarian approach to civil liberties, legislating for a minimum price-per-unit of alcohol seems the height of hypocrisy.

Their whole approach has been that the state does not know best and that individuals can look after themselves. Yet within weeks we have another pointless piece of lobby-fodder law-making.

If this has to happen (and seemingly it does) my only improvement is that it only applies to shops rather than pubs/bars thus helping rectify the demise of the great British pub.

[Marmora Man]

David - I'm with you on the libertarian issues. To be fair to this new gov't it's not themn that's proposing this but quangos (NICE & NHS) and the medical fraternity - particularly the Royal College of Physicians

[katie1997]

Gosh you're not wrong DJKQ - it must be very dangerous to their health. The previous Government banned smoking everywhere (presumably on health grounds?) yet were more than willing to continue selling it (at highly profitable prices).

I guess its no wonder that people are going down the route where its not legit stuff they are buying because they cannot afford it.....(I have never smoked but to me this all seems so wrong). You've got a point, it probably will be fake vodka next.....

[DJKillaQueen]

Smoking is an interesting example because far fewer people smoke than did 30 years ago for example. Most of that has been due to the success of the message on health risks. Cost has not been the prohibitive factor. When the cost gets too high, those that can't afford it find ways they can afford, via the black market.

In other words, prohibition, or methods that have a similar effect in part (like pricing) just do not work. They do however allow the government to be seen to do something whilst raking in even more tax.

[silverfox]

I think it's fair to say though, DJKillaQueen, that nearly all smokers are addicts, and thus find ways to smoke regardless of price.

Most drinkers are not addicted (alcoholics) they just drink to excess (above guidelines) with potentially health damaging consequences. So price may play more of a part in cutting consumption of alcohol.

[Brendan]

It?s true that alcohol is not physically addictive in the same way as nicotine in that only a few people will develop a physical addiction to alcohol but then the same is true for marijuana, ecstasy and LSD and there is no shortage of supply and demand for those.

Getting back to the original point though. Taxing cheap alcohol is state interference specifically targeted a certain type of customer that a certain type of voter feels they can self-righteously vilify. That?s probably the political motivation. I would say that government doesn?t give two hoots about commercial and individual rights except for where the issues surrounding them can win votes.

If this was being done in order to promote competition and protect the pub trade, as David suggested may be an outcome, then there would be some argument for it. Competition law has a place but it is a tricky thing and if economic conditions change it can suddenly end up stifling the competition it was meant to promote.

[Moos]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's fair to say though, DJKillaQueen,

> that nearly all smokers are addicts, and thus find

> ways to smoke regardless of price.

Doesn't that imply though that the reduction of smoking over the last 30 years has been solely due to smokers dying and a reduction in uptake from new smokers? These 2 must be a factor but it seems reasonable that a lot of smokers have kicked the habit, either for financial or health reasons.

[silverfox]

The reduction in smoking has been due to the success of health warnings and also the fact that it is seen as socially unacceptable now, especially with the dangers of passive smoking.

Alcohol doesn't have this stigma as such.

[SteveT]

I do not believe they are taxing it for the benefit of the health of the populace,

the government have found a way to fill their coffers,

with a nod towards health benefits as a cover.

Perhaps they might fill their coffers by taxing expenses,

or fining MP's double the amount they defrauded the country by.

[Brendan]

I thought people were living too long anyway.

[The Chair]

SteveT - I will ask nicely this time:

Please, for the love of God, do not turn every thread into a whinge about MPs expenses. We know you're concerned but it's been discussed at length elsewhere.

Please try and control your outbursts to the subject at hand. Or at least something vaguely related to it.

Many thanks.

The Chair.

[Keef]

Doesn't that imply though that the reduction of smoking over the last 30 years has been solely due to smokers dying and a reduction in uptake from new smokers? These 2 must be a factor but it seems reasonable that a lot of smokers have kicked the habit, either for financial or health reasons.

My guess would be health reasons. I moan at the fact 20 fags is over 6 quid these days, but I still buy them. However, when my breathing is laboured, that is when I think it might be time to give up.

If you are an alcoholic, you are NEVER going to stop because of price, plain and simple.

I can imagine that it might stop some teenagers buying booze, as they don't have a lot of cash, but if they want to get off their heads, and can't afford booze, they could well start swallowing pills, at ?2-?3 a go. That to me is more of a worry than them puking after drinking a few cans.

The sort of drinker who buys a bottle of white lightening is not drinking for the enjoyment of a quality beverage, they are drinking to get drunk. These people will find something to get them drunk whatever the government do.

All in all, I can see it may be a well intentioned idea, but it will do feck all to change anything.