View Full Version : Are we being taken for a ride ?
stivagorm
20-May-12, 06:00
The government want to help "us" and protect us from alcohol abuse / health problems.
How do they do this ? They are raising the minimum cost of alcohol but they still have 24 hour alcohol licenses in place in some pubs, clubs and supermarkets. Isn't this just maximising potential ??
When I stopped smoking in Dec 2005 cigarettes were £4.59 per pack and believe they are £7.50 or so now.
I can remember a survey carried out at the time and they average smoker said they would still smoke until it reached £14 per pack.
Have the government not introduced the "shock tactic" on alcohol like they did with cigarettes i.e. "Alcohol Kills" ? No they haven't. Does that mean the one they introduced onto cigarette packets don't work - why don't they remove then?
Sorry if this sounds like a rant but just feel like we are having the wool pulled over our eyes (polite version as if I am honest, it feels more like being violated) as tax payers.
Shame on you Mr Cameron you should be on Britains got talent because such trickery, illusion and sleight of hand should be commended!
Its the Scottish Government who are introducing this policy. We cant blame Cameron for it Im afraid. I dont like this policy and I dont drink. Well not much. The last time i bought alcohol was Christmas. I dont like it because I dont think it wil work. I think those who have a problem with drink will simply cut down on other stuff and in the worst cases families will have less food or heating. Whether it will reduce teenage boozing remains to be seen. I was however, struck by this piece by Bbc so perhaps we should just wait and see. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18060357
The most ridiculous thing for me about this SNP policy is that the government/people aren't going to make any money out of it.
It is the supermarkets that are going to increase their profits.
Tesco will happily sell a can of lager now for 50p. The day the policy comes in, it will be 90p or so.
40p extra in Tesco's pocket.
Where's the sense in that?
At least with taxation on cigarettes the government has the ability to reinvest any money made.
Cannot understand why the Scottish government are not using this increase in cost of alcohol to fund some initiatives to help with alcohol related problems, be it health issues, homelessness, family abuse, etc etc.
Using the money raised would make more sense than allowing the retailer to pocket the extra profit.
I think the point is to stop very heavy discounting. Supermarkets pubs and off licences that sell 2 for one and 1/2 price etc are useing these as loss leaders. There is no profit in it.
I think the point is to stop very heavy discounting. Supermarkets pubs and off licences that sell 2 for one and 1/2 price etc are useing these as loss leaders. There is no profit in it.
They'll just give away free mixers with their spirits to help keep the price down.
I listened to a professor on the radio last week and he says it may work but at the very least something needs to be done about the binge culture. Its not so much about problem drinkers but about problem drinking. Thats my opinion not the prfessors. If your in the firing line policing or patrolling areas of alcohol abuse its very difficult. Cheap booze means most people will get well tanked up before they go out and probably drink more than they would if the price was more than doubled.
Give it a try. I dont drink but there are some who do who will complain about the price going up because of people who cant control their booze. That's unfortunate but alcohol abuse costs us millions a year already as well as 50 dead a week. Its a big social problem and its good that government is trying something new. Itll also help hard pressed pubs who until now cant compete with Tescos.
This isn't a Scottish only thing, Cameron and the coalition government have a similar policy in the works. This policy is the end result of various studies and consultations, a government is actually taking the advice of scientists for once and not basing policy on their dogmatic politics. It's the opposite of the David Nutt cannabis situation. You should look at the figures, at the amount of effort and money spent by the NHS, police force and the legal system on binge drinking.
It's only the cheap crap that's affected by this anyway, the sort of stuff people drink with the only reason being to get drunk. See the table at the bottom of this link (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/05/minimum-pricing14052012).
One of the annoying things about a democracy is that people seem to think their opinions are as good as the knowledge of experts.
One of the annoying things about a democracy is that people seem to think their opinions are as good as the knowledge of experts.Its one of the good things too. It maybe that 99% of the time our opinions are no good but if we didnt have ordinary people prepared to question and try to prove experts wrong we would have had many more miscarriages of justice and the world we live in would be very different. And not in a good way either. I remain to be convinced that it will make a difference but im prepared to concede that it might be worth trying. We shall see.
It maybe that 99% of the time our opinions are no good but if we didnt have ordinary people prepared to question world we live in would be very different. .
LOL Squidge, I am the 1% who has the correct opinion on Eck, the Nats and Independence [lol]
Its one of the good things too. It maybe that 99% of the time our opinions are no good but if we didnt have ordinary people prepared to question and try to prove experts wrong we would have had many more miscarriages of justice and the world we live in would be very different. And not in a good way either. I remain to be convinced that it will make a difference but im prepared to concede that it might be worth trying. We shall see.
Well it has an expiry clause so if it doesn't work it'll automatically be dropped.
Well it has an expiry clause so if it doesn't work it'll automatically be dropped.
Yes... 6 years, by which time it will be accepted as the norm & will end up staying whether it works or not. 6 months would be a more realistic length of a trial.
Yes... 6 years, by which time it will be accepted as the norm & will end up staying whether it works or not. 6 months would be a more realistic length of a trial.
It is perhaps a bit long, ideally I'd have set it at 1 or 2 years to properly gauge it's impact.
It's only the cheap crap that's affected by this anyway, the sort of stuff people drink with the only reason being to get drunk. See the table at the bottom of this link (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/05/minimum-pricing14052012).
The list at the bottom of that link was so obviously chosen to fit the agenda of the Scottish Government.
Carling (Britains most popular lager) is listed as £4.29 for 4 cans. That's £1.07 a can.
In tesco when an offer is on you can buy 36 for £20. That's 55p a can.
Now, I would argue that it is not only people drinking for "the only reason of getting drunk" that will be affected by this, but the ordinary, sensible drinker who enjoys a can of 4%abv lager and buys in bulk to save some cash.
Now, what's going to happen is Tesco are going to keep that extra profit of 52p a can, the sensible drinker pays more and the government does not earn a penny.
The supermarkets must be rubbing their hands together with delight!
The list at the bottom of that link was so obviously chosen to fit the agenda of the Scottish Government.
Carling (Britains most popular lager) is listed as £4.29 for 4 cans. That's £1.07 a can.
In tesco when an offer is on you can buy 36 for £20. That's 55p a can.
Now, I would argue that it is not only people drinking for "the only reason of getting drunk" that will be affected by this, but the ordinary, sensible drinker who enjoys a can of 4%abv lager and buys in bulk to save some cash.
Now, what's going to happen is Tesco are going to keep that extra profit of 52p a can, the sensible drinker pays more and the government does not earn a penny.
The supermarkets must be rubbing their hands together with delight!
Ah you went with argument A. There are two arguments people opposed to this come out with, they each contradict the other:
Argument A - it's too expensive it will penalise the average responsible drinker.
Argument B - it won't have any impact because the price increase is negligible and drinkers will continue to consume alcohol.
Supermarkets are losing money because alcohol is a loss leader. They sell cheap booze below cost to drag customers through the door.
Unfortunately the Scottish Government does not have the power to adjust alcohol duties - a minimum price per unit is the only legislative power they can currently use. I imagine this will be offset by the imminent windfall tax on big supermarkets anyway.
They're not choosing to target the poor. They're choosing to target the drinks that cause the majority of problems. It is not only the poor that drink these drinks, and nor are these the only drinks which the poor drink. This isn't a policy designed to tackle all of the problems of alcoholism, but it will have an effect on discrete problems that have been identified, especially those of loading up on cheap booze and then going out, causing social problems. To raise the price of a £7 bottle of wine isn't going to have an effect on these problems at all, but it would impact responsible drinkers for no reason.
Placing equity above practicality here seems pointless to me - let's say it was just the poor who were affected by or causing these problems (which isn't true - neds are neds regardless of wealth, people who want to sit at home downing cheap vodka will do it regardless of background), would that mean that the issue shouldn't be tackled because it would be an attack by the rich on the poor? No - there's an issue that has been identified and expert advice given on how to tackle it. I would say it's irresponsible of them not to act on that. I don't understand the mindset that hides behind this as a class issue and not a social issue, or says "hurt everyone equally" when a policy has been designed to deal with a specific problem that everyone knows exists.
Regardless, the fact remains that we do have binge drinking and alcoholism problems and they need to be tackled.
Ah you went with argument A. There are two arguments people opposed to this come out with, they each contradict the other:
No, I never went for either argument.
I was only pointing out that your argument that only "cheap crap" will be affected was not correct, and that the Scottish Government website was deliberately fudging the figures to say so.
Thousands of sensible drinkers who enjoy a can of lager will no longer be able to take advantage of special offers and will now have to pay double to enjoy their pint.
Punish the many for the actions of the few..........
No, I never went for either argument.
I was only pointing out that your argument that only "cheap crap" will be affected was not correct, and that the Scottish Government website was deliberately fudging the figures to say so.
Thousands of sensible drinkers who enjoy a can of lager will no longer be able to take advantage of special offers and will now have to pay double to enjoy their pint.
Punish the many for the actions of the few..........
I'll just post the rest sans that bit again then:
Unfortunately the Scottish Government does not have the power to adjust alcohol duties - a minimum price per unit is the only legislative power they can currently use. I imagine this will be offset by the imminent windfall tax on big supermarkets anyway.
They're not choosing to target the poor or the sensible. They're choosing to target the drinks that cause the majority of problems. It is not only the poor or sensible that drink these drinks, and nor are these the only drinks which the poor or sensible drink. This isn't a policy designed to tackle all of the problems of alcoholism, but it will have an effect on discrete problems that have been identified, especially those of loading up on cheap booze and then going out, causing social problems. To raise the price of a £7 bottle of wine isn't going to have an effect on these problems at all, but it would impact responsible drinkers for no reason.
Placing equity above practicality here seems pointless to me - let's say it was just the poor or sensible who were affected by or causing these problems (which isn't true - neds are neds and people who want to sit at home downing cheap vodka will do it regardless), would that mean that the issue shouldn't be tackled because it would be an attack on the poor or sensible? No - there's an issue that has been identified and expert advice given on how to tackle it. I would say it's irresponsible of them not to act on that. I don't understand the mindset that hides behind this as a class issue and not a social issue, or says "hurt everyone equally" when a policy has been designed to deal with a specific problem that everyone knows exists.
Sensible drinkers don't drink Tesco Value Whisky, Frosty Jacks, Tennents Super etc, people aren't drinking them for their exquisite taste. You only drink these things to get hammered. That is where the 'sensible' drinkers argument falls down.
It may well be possible for you to drink alcohol responsibly but unfortunately a large number of people are unable to do so.
Regardless, the fact remains that we do have binge drinking and alcoholism problems and they need to be tackled.
Just curious, who collects this extra revenue? Where does it go? And what/who will benefit from all the extra cash collected?
Unfortunately the Scottish Government does not have the power to adjust alcohol duties - a minimum price per unit is the only legislative power they can currently use.
I don't disagree. But I don't think that's an excuse for financially punishing the thousands of sensible drinkers with no financial gain for the country.
I imagine this will be offset by the imminent windfall tax on big supermarkets anyway.
I don't think that's got anything to do with minimum pricing on alcohol. Are you suggesting the government will justify the windfall tax to the supermarkets based on the extra money they're making on beer?
They're not choosing to target the poor or the sensible. They're choosing to target the drinks that cause the majority of problems. It is not only the poor or sensible that drink these drinks, and nor are these the only drinks which the poor or sensible drink. This isn't a policy designed to tackle all of the problems of alcoholism, but it will have an effect on discrete problems that have been identified, especially those of loading up on cheap booze and then going out, causing social problems. To raise the price of a £7 bottle of wine isn't going to have an effect on these problems at all, but it would impact responsible drinkers for no reason.
This, to me is absolute nonsense.
"Problem drinkers" don't drink buckfast, or cheap cider, because they like it. They drink it because that's the way they can get the biggest hit per pound. Were you never a teenager?
The drink is not the problem, it is the drinker!
People will continue to drink regardless of price. Making "crap" drinks more expensive, where every unit has a minimum price will only mean you're more likely to see teenagers drinking vodka than cider.
Sensible drinkers don't drink Tesco Value Whisky, Frosty Jacks, Tennents Super etc, people aren't drinking them for their exquisite taste. You only drink these things to get hammered. That is where the 'sensible' drinkers argument falls down.
Maybe not, but they do drink Carling, Carlsberg and Magners. And many of them take advantage of special offers currently available to "stock up" and save money.
These people are now being punished.
Sensible drinkers don't drink Tesco Value Whisky, Frosty Jacks, Tennents Super etc, people aren't drinking them for their exquisite taste. You only drink these things to get hammered. That is where the 'sensible' drinkers argument falls down.
I don't doubt it.
But if Tesco value whiskey costs the same as a bottle of Grouse, all that will happen is the "non sensible" drinkers will enjoy getting hammered on a higher class of beverage!
It may well be possible for you to drink alcohol responsibly but unfortunately a large number of people are unable to do so.
Exactly my point.
So we all get punished because of the minority? Nonsense.
Regardless, the fact remains that we do have binge drinking and alcoholism problems and they need to be tackled.
I agree entirely.
But I think this approach is one chosen to be "seen to be doing something" rather than tackling the problem directly.
Just curious, who collects this extra revenue? Where does it go? And what/who will benefit from all the extra cash collected?
The minimum price means the supermarkets will have to raise their prices and stop special offers.
The supermarkets will collect the cash.
The supermarkets will benefit from the extra cash collected.
I don't disagree. But I don't think that's an excuse for financially punishing the thousands of sensible drinkers with no financial gain for the country.
I don't think that's got anything to do with minimum pricing on alcohol. Are you suggesting the government will justify the windfall tax to the supermarkets based on the extra money they're making on beer?
This, to me is absolute nonsense.
"Problem drinkers" don't drink buckfast, or cheap cider, because they like it. They drink it because that's the way they can get the biggest hit per pound. Were you never a teenager?
The drink is not the problem, it is the drinker!
People will continue to drink regardless of price. Making "crap" drinks more expensive, where every unit has a minimum price will only mean you're more likely to see teenagers drinking vodka than cider.
Maybe not, but they do drink Carling, Carlsberg and Magners. And many of them take advantage of special offers currently available to "stock up" and save money.
These people are now being punished.
I don't doubt it.
But if Tesco value whiskey costs the same as a bottle of Grouse, all that will happen is the "non sensible" drinkers will enjoy getting hammered on a higher class of beverage!
Exactly my point.
So we all get punished because of the minority? Nonsense.
I agree entirely.
But I think this approach is one chosen to be "seen to be doing something" rather than tackling the problem directly.
I wish it weren't so but we all get punished because of the minority as it is on other things.
I'd rather someone did something that failed, than sitting around accepting the status quo and doing nothing, but perhaps that's just me. They aren't doing something wildly either they're accepting the of non-politicals for once.
It all comes back to placing equity above practicality, which seems pointless to me - let's say it was just the poor or sensible who were affected by or causing these problems (which isn't true - neds are neds and people who want to sit at home downing cheap vodka will do it regardless), would that mean that the issue shouldn't be tackled because it would be an attack on the poor or sensible? No - there's an issue that has been identified and expert advice given on how to tackle it. I would say it's irresponsible of them not to act on that. I don't understand the mindset that hides behind this as a class issue and not a social issue, or says it "hurts everyone equally" when a policy has been designed to deal with a specific problem that everyone knows
It could of course have a very negative effect. Like junkies that can't afford their habit and turn to crime to pay for it.
The minimum price means the supermarkets will have to raise their prices and stop special offers.
The supermarkets will collect the cash.
The supermarkets will benefit from the extra cash collected.
Next question, why push through this legislature, if it is only going to benefit the Supermarkets? Are Tesco's funding Eck and his cronies? Is that why there is no Asda in Week? [disgust]
Next question, why push through this legislature, if it is only going to benefit the Supermarkets? Are Tesco's funding Eck and his cronies? Is that why there is no Asda in Week? [disgust]
If it were the Tories that were pushing this through I'm sure thet would be the accusation.
Next question, why push through this legislature, if it is only going to benefit the Supermarkets? Are Tesco's funding Eck and his cronies? Is that why there is no Asda in Week? [disgust]
If it were the Tories that were pushing this through I'm sure thet would be the accusation.
The coalition government has a similar policy in the works, the only different is they're charging it at 40p per unit.
Once again... experts... advice... studies... a government following recommendations for once - why do I even bother. Yes, if you do something arbitrarily or have a history of such things then those statements are justified.
EDIT: Incidentally this is more than just an SNP policy within the Scottish parliament it got support from a lot of others.
EDIT: Incidentally this is more than just an SNP policy within the Scottish parliament it got support from a lot of others.
Because it's been spun in such a way it would now be seen as political suicide not to support it.
Because it's been spun in such a way it would now be seen as political suicide not to support it.
I think Scottish Labour were, still are against it. UK wide Labour did a u-turn to being in favour back when the Conservations and Lib Dems changed their minds after Cameron announced they were introducing a similar policy.
Dunno why people don't just brew their own. No tax and an interesting hobby.
Dunno why people don't just brew their own. No tax and an interesting hobby.
Micro/home brewing has been getting more popular in general. Brewing your own stuff can be more economical, but usually isn't, because you'll want to make better stuff and upgrade your equipment. People usually spend more money brewing their own stuff because they learn that they value taste over alcohol content.
I think Scottish Labour were, still are against it. UK wide Labour did a u-turn to being in favour back when the Conservations and Lib Dems changed their minds after Cameron announced they were introducing a similar policy.
Labour is at sixes and sevens over this policy. In westminster the Labour party are supporting the minimum price of alcohol. In Holyrood the Scottish Labour party are abstaining from the vote and refusing to support the bill. This is despite Johan Lamont supposedly being the leader of all Scottish Labour party Mps and MSPs. In practice this means that the Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland refuses to support the minumum price on Alcohol whilst her deputy Anas Sarwar, is supporting the same policy in Westminster... What a shambles. I might not support this policy but I dont support it here or in England. Why would the Labour party not be able to get their act together on this. As a party you either support something or you dont - labour are simply refusing to support this policy here in scotland because it is being driven by the SNP.
It just makes me shake my head in disbelief.
I refer the honourable lady to my post earlier in the thread. Oopsy! Not this thread, this thread:
I suspect Labour having never taken the SNP seriously is now just waiting for them to go away and being uncooperative in the meantime.
yes ducati - you did say that. Its disappointing though. What hope is there for a reasonable debate on anything if that is the quality of the opposition. And what on earth are we doing with Labour/Tory Coalitions.... sheesh.
secrets in symmetry
22-May-12, 21:46
There is a claim that the minimum price will only affect cheap booze, and that drinkers who don't drink dirt cheap booze won't pay much more. I think this is naive and disingenuous garbage. Do people really think decent drinks will remain the same price when the price of grotty cheap booze is raised to their level?
There is a claim that the minimum price will only affect cheap booze, and that drinkers who don't drink dirt cheap booze won't pay much more. I think this is naive and disingenuous garbage. Do people really think decent drinks will remain the same price when the price of grotty cheap booze is raised to their level?
Now that is a very good point.
There is a claim that the minimum price will only affect cheap booze, and that drinkers who don't drink dirt cheap booze won't pay much more. I think this is naive and disingenuous garbage. Do people really think decent drinks will remain the same price when the price of grotty cheap booze is raised to their level?
That did occur to me but then again that's just the standard perception that more expensive = better. I would hope people were no longer that naive, then again lots of over priced crap continues to sell with the perception that it's better.
secrets in symmetry
23-May-12, 22:07
That did occur to me but then again that's just the standard perception that more expensive = better. I would hope people were no longer that naive, then again lots of over priced crap continues to sell with the perception that it's better.Sure, a lot of crap is overpriced, but the folklore is that decent "normal priced" drinks will not increase in price. I would bet good wine that this claim is false, and that people will start moaning as soon as their favourite medium-priced beer, wine, whisky, gin, etc becomes much more expensive.
That did occur to me but then again that's just the standard perception that more expensive = better. I would hope people were no longer that naive, then again lots of over priced crap continues to sell with the perception that it's better.
Why is Buckfast not going to be included in this plan, its a well known tipple in the Glasgow area, is it any different than super lager or cheap cider?
secrets in symmetry
23-May-12, 22:35
Why is Buckfast not going to be included in this plan, its a well known tipple in the Glasgow area, is it any different than super lager or cheap cider?Perhaps Eck and Nicky tank up on Buckfast before wild nights of mutual self indulgence in Holyrood?
That did occur to me but then again that's just the standard perception that more expensive = better. I would hope people were no longer that naive, then again lots of over priced crap continues to sell with the perception that it's better.
50p a can on a multipack offer for Carling lager.
Nothing to do with expense and quality.
But, then again, maybe the drinkers of the biggest lager brand in the UK are all scum who need changed?
Why is Buckfast not going to be included in this plan, its a well known tipple in the Glasgow area, is it any different than super lager or cheap cider?
It is simply a question of mathematics. Buckfast is 15% proof, supposedly a fortified wine, but many normal wines are now 13-14% proof. A bottle of 40% proof whisky has 28 units and is 700ml quantity, Buckfast is a 750ml bottle and works out at 11.25 units, meaning the 50p per unit pricing would see a bottle at £5.63, however "Buckie" is around about £7 per bottle anyway and is therefore unaffected. The reason why Buckfast is the "Scally's Swally" is probably because of the sweet taste and caffeine content of eight cans of coca cola per bottle. Like Red Bull, it turns alcohol into "Buzzwagon" material.
Supermarket bought alcohol has not kept pace with pub prices over the years and I am sure many who consider themselves to be sensible drinkers are actually taking a lot more alcohol than they really need. I don't buy into the notion that sensible drinkers deserve to have alcohol available at artificially low prices. It is a luxury item, not a necessity for "We" responsible drammers.
If this piece of punitive legislation was all about improving health then we'd all be for it. Unfortunately it is all about punishing the poorer classes in society.
Cheap booze is seen as an affordable means of escapism from the harsh reality that was constructed by the rich political elite. While the rich political elite still enjoy their own forms of escapism eg expensive cars, houses. holidays and of course expensive booze like champagne, they do not want the poor to escape from the economic downturn even if for a few hours of cheap intemperance.
If this piece of punitive legislation was all about improving health then we'd all be for it. Unfortunately it is all about punishing the poorer classes in society.
Cheap booze is seen as an affordable means of escapism from the harsh reality that was constructed by the rich political elite. While the rich political elite still enjoy their own forms of escapism eg expensive cars, houses. holidays and of course expensive booze like champagne, they do not want the poor to escape from the economic downturn even if for a few hours of cheap intemperance.
Ah... it's a while since I had the opportunity to call someone a looney.:lol:
secrets in symmetry
25-May-12, 10:13
If this piece of punitive legislation was all about improving health then we'd all be for it. Unfortunately it is all about punishing the poorer classes in society.
Cheap booze is seen as an affordable means of escapism from the harsh reality that was constructed by the rich political elite. While the rich political elite still enjoy their own forms of escapism eg expensive cars, houses. holidays and of course expensive booze like champagne, they do not want the poor to escape from the economic downturn even if for a few hours of cheap intemperance.Lol! Nice one! :cool:
Sadly, there is an element of reality in it....
Ah... it's a while since I had the opportunity to call someone a looney.:lol:
Looney eh?
So if it is about improving the health of the population then pray tell us your highness how this piece of punitive legislation stops the rich from boozing too much?
I think I know the answer to this and it doesn't.
It isn't the rich that clog up the NHS every night after boozing to extinction then having fights/accidents/being helped down the stairs by Policemen.
linnie612
25-May-12, 16:56
No, they go to places like The Priory and Betty Ford.
Yes I have them on speed dial! :lol:
It isn't the rich that clog up the NHS every night after boozing to extinction then having fights/accidents/being helped down the stairs by Policemen.
Well well.
The only reason why you think you are correct is that by definition the rich elite who can still afford their expensive drink after this punitive piece of legislation is introduced are exactly that, rich and elite, ie few in number. There is no evidence to suggest that the poorer classes are more susceptible to anti-social behavior whilst under the influence of drink.
So while the rich drunk elite may be or may not be more numerous in proportion their sober counterparts, they still feel it necessary to keep the poorer classes where they belong..........poor and unable to buy a bit of escapism from the shackles of rampant capitalism.
Far from help solving certain problems, this politically driven act is socially and politically divisive and will only serve to shift more harm to other areas of society.
secrets in symmetry
26-May-12, 12:20
I usually like your posts Rheghead, but you're really on the ball with his one.
Fantastic! :cool:
Well well.
The only reason why you think you are correct is that by definition the rich elite who can still afford their expensive drink after this punitive piece of legislation is introduced are exactly that, rich and elite, ie few in number. There is no evidence to suggest that the poorer classes are more susceptible to anti-social behavior whilst under the influence of drink.
So while the rich drunk elite may be or may not be more numerous in proportion their sober counterparts, they still feel it necessary to keep the poorer classes where they belong..........poor and unable to buy a bit of escapism from the shackles of rampant capitalism.
Far from help solving certain problems, this politically driven act is socially and politically divisive and will only serve to shift more harm to other areas of society.
Blimey! I thought you were joking. :eek:
he says backing away wishing he had a weapon
tonkatojo
25-Jul-13, 20:14
It looks as though you are not alone some other alcohol producing counties are having a look at Salmonds idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22182607
Whitewater
25-Jul-13, 22:31
Minimum prices/unit does not work. In Norway where it will cost you £17 per pint for lagger there is a much worse problem than there is here. The streets are also full of beggars trying to raise the money for their booze. It is a very poorly thought out policy. (If any thinking was done). We Eck and his cronies should have a look at the countries where it has been introduced and they will get the answer.
neilsermk1
26-Jul-13, 12:38
Next question, why push through this legislature, if it is only going to benefit the Supermarkets? Are Tesco's funding Eck and his cronies? Is that why there is no Asda in Week? [disgust]
The additional cash raised by the supermarkets will be taxed in the normal way just like Starbucks and Amazon;)
We are being taken for a ride those who want to smoke ..will smoke
those who want to drink will drink
just like anything else in this world just because its illegal or overpriced wont stop it
just more money for same effort
people can make there own decisions, freedom is a 7 letter word i d'ont recognize anymore
cost of the production of cigs alcohol energy food dont just rise that steep that quick
time for people to open there eyes or hide behind there duvets and let these people continue raising prices
Tangerine-Dream
31-Jul-13, 23:12
You must pop over the road for a "cheap" drink Russ (whilst we still have access to it) you and I have a LOT in common.
Mike.
My tuppence worth.....a bit late because I hadn't noticed this thread when it was first posted.
Imo, it does rather depend on how your addictions impact and how much you can or can't control them.
I went down to smoking roll-ups (with extra slim tips) when tobacco prices increased...so I smoke less (because if I'm busy I don't stop and roll and light......though I would definitely have lit a handy tailor made....but after one drag it would have burnt out in the ashtray and been wasted) and it costs me less because I can smoke for a week on what it would have cost me for a day or so's smoking at current tailor made rates at the 40 a day level I smoked (because I am crap at rolling fags so they turn out more as common pins than fat spliffs..but boost the nicotine levels adequately enough). And as an aside, smoking tailor mades after roll-ups makes me feel queasy now.....maybe as a result of the additives added to tailor mades to make them even more addictive and encourage future sales.
Re the alcohol pricing....I don't think it is aimed at alcoholics who already get disability benefits to help them to support their addiction, and are pretty well lost bar other more specific targeted interference.......but is aimed at people who will drink what is in the house just because it is in the house and not think they have a problem.........or kids setting out on alcohol drinking for whatever reason and who would be less likely to afford to spend a lot to achieve oblivion. Frankly, I don't really see why people should be worrying about the cost of alcohol except if it reduces the amount they can afford because of the amount they habitually drink.
I am an ordinary drinker...and I know how much I can take and still remain fairly lucid to other people, so I don't ever buy more than I can drink comfortably the same night (just in case I think....oh heck....there are another 22 cans in the fridge.... what is another 1 or 2 or 3 etc going to hurt........because I know it will eventually hurt me.)
Responsible drinkers are those who can buy 24 cans of whatever and make them last more than a single night's binging.....or those who don't buy the cheap offers because they know that it will mean they will demolish them the same day. Maybe the best way to sort out the Scottish binge drinking culture is to make it illegal to sell booze other than in single cans..then everyone is in the same position re purchase.
The rich can buy Lamborghinis and Ferraris....but is anyone whining because the poor can't afford them or the middle classes take years to save up enough for them? If alcohol (or tobacco) was an essential foodstuff..........then I'd see the point of complaining at the cost if it was exorbitant.....but they aren't...they are a choice made by individuals.......in the same way as being a vegan, vegetarian or a carnivore is a choice.
In 2009, Scotland had the eighth highest alcohol consumption level in the world..out of 190+ countries...and if it takes sensible pricing and removal of cheap packs of multiple cans to alter that statistic..then so be it.
Minimum alcohol pricing, is nothing more than a mechanism to maximize the profit of UK PLC, it has nothing to do with any health issues, if it was health related in any way shape or form, you would expect any sensible government to BAN the product. Has that happened? No it hasn't. Why? Well alcohol and tobacco are control mechanisms, if you are addicted to a substance, e.g. tobacco, the government know that the amounts of duty and vat made from such addiction are pure profit, you control the substance you control the man or woman. It's all about control, you control the food you control the people, you control the energy you control the country. All governments know this, if you place a minimum price on something it maximises the tax earned potential for the government.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.