View Full Version : Alcohol prices
Loch not Lock
16-Mar-09, 10:55
These recent recommendations about upping the cost of alcohol is ludicrous as in the vast majority of cases it will only punish the lesser well-off families who enjoy a drink after work. It won't make an iota of difference to affluent quaffing their "Bolly".;)
Bad Manners
16-Mar-09, 11:02
I am allfor the prices rising if alcohol were more expensive then it may well cut down the amount of binge drinking. I am not against drinking however in moderation. if alcohol were more expensive it would be threated more as a treat. I wont even go into the health benifits that drinking less would achive.
Its not going to stop people drinking it just means they'll spend more and give the government more money.
Bad Manners
16-Mar-09, 14:02
Its not going to stop people drinking it just means they'll spend more and give the government more money.
If this is the case so be it however the extra money the goverment get will help with the NHS to treat all the drink related conditions they have to deal with
The NHS is already heavily funded by Smokers and Drinkers anyway.It'll just mean more dosh for Mr Brown to throw at some hair brained scheme.The chances of it finding its way to the Grass roots of the NHS is very slim.It will be taken up by some quango or another.
Why should someone that likes a wee tipple have to pay for Binge drinking?
If someone has a small car they pay less Road tax,wheras Gas Guzzlers pay more.Why not put a levy on the AMOUNT of alcohol bought that way it wouldnt penalise Mr and Mrs Average but would make Del Boy 50 pints pay more.
These recent recommendations about upping the cost of alcohol is ludicrous as in the vast majority of cases it will only punish the lesser well-off families who enjoy a drink after work. It won't make an iota of difference to affluent quaffing their "Bolly".;)
We had this discussion very recently:-
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=69647
I would suggest reading the following:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7945357.stm
The Chief Medical Officer for England estimates that his proposal would add £1 a month to the drinks bill of a moderate drinker, hardly a disaster!! A bottle of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50, again not a problem if you are as "moderate" a drinker as you think you are. There are loads of people in the UK who drink too much for the good of their health, but they don't see themselves as a problem drinker. It continues to amaze me that "sensible" drinkers keep shouting about being penalised for the sins of others. If your drinking sensibly, it is not going to break your bank having to pay a £1 for a tin of lager, instead of 50p. If you are taking 20 cans a week, you are paying £10 more or £1.40 a day, not life changing money I would have thought. You are also drinking twice the recommended amount of alcohol per week, three times if you are a woman.
I wish people would get their head round the fact that this proposal is aimed at the CHEAP end of the market. It is ludicrous to talk about Hooray Henrys sipping Bollinger. It is the White Lightning Brigade who are the target here.
riggerboy
16-Mar-09, 15:12
i think all bottle and canned beer,lager,cider,alco pops and such like should be a minimum of £3 a shot, then if you cant afford it you dont have it, and if cant afford it but have it anyway and give food a miss you probably beyond help,
Another point to consider is that cheap supermarket drink has been killing Britain's pubs. Even if beer does go up to a £1 a can, it is still half the price (or less) of the same can in a pub. Drinking in pubs creates social interaction and (to some extent) responsible drinking. Sitting in the hoose with yer 50p tinnies, nobody is seeing you, you have an ample supply, and you are far more likely to be blootered by the end of the night. I can assure you that Gordon Brown is dreaming if he thinks that there are not hundreds of thousands of households where the curtains are pulled most nights and the ring-pull goes "Ffffssstt" moments later.
Penelope Pitstop
16-Mar-09, 16:01
IMO, it won't make any difference...if someone wants to get off their face on drink then they will...price will make no difference. If drugs prove to be cheaper then I'm sure they'll get them instead.
Just a thought - Will the government enforce pubs to reduce the price of non-alcoholic drinks do you think :confused Sometimes a coke is just as dear as an alcoholic drink!!
i think all bottle and canned beer,lager,cider,alco pops and such like should be a minimum of £3 a shot, then if you cant afford it you dont have it, and if cant afford it but have it anyway and give food a miss you probably beyond help,
Aye so true. Some people are so addicted to it that they can't see anything wrong with having the drink instead of food. one of my partners friends pratically lives in the pub, so much so that we call his visits to the pubs when he's home from being offshore, paying his rental. He doesn't care if he wastes all his money on drink. We actually worked out exactly what he would be spending on the drink when he's home and it came to about £653 a week:eek:
Stupid fools and their drink. They don't seem to realise the damage it does to them. My partners friend in particular doesn't see that he is an alcholic. I'm sure that if he could he would be drinking when he's on the rigs too.
These recent recommendations about upping the cost of alcohol is ludicrous as in the vast majority of cases it will only punish the lesser well-off families who enjoy a drink after work. It won't make an iota of difference to affluent quaffing their "Bolly".;)
If u enjoy a drink after work u have a problem and if raising the prices stops the lesser well of families from going to the pub then thats a good thing then they will have more money to spend on there family and not in the pub
I think its a good idea and i hope they knock the price right up and it will do everyone a favour in the long run
Aye so true. Some people are so addicted to it that they can't see anything wrong with having the drink instead of food. one of my partners friends pratically lives in the pub, so much so that we call his visits to the pubs when he's home from being offshore, paying his rental. He doesn't care if he wastes all his money on drink. We actually worked out exactly what he would be spending on the drink when he's home and it came to about £653 a week:eek:
Stupid fools and their drink. They don't seem to realise the damage it does to them. My partners friend in particular doesn't see that he is an alcholic. I'm sure that if he could he would be drinking when he's on the rigs too.
I would not get too excited about this punter - if he is boozing £650 in a week he will be brown bread from liver failure by the end of this month.
Penelope Pitstop
16-Mar-09, 19:32
If u enjoy a drink after work u have a problem
....What........geez.....that seems a bit of a rash statement:eek:
I know some people go for a drink of a Friday after work....kind of a social thing at the end of the week.....I wouldn't say they have a problem...... (no I'm not one of them before you start on me!!!)............:(
First they came for the smokers
I did not speak out as I was not a smoker
Then they came for the drinkers
I did not speak out as I was not a drinker
Then they came for the "junk food" eaters
I did not speak out as I was not a "junk food" eater
Then they came for the motorists
I did not speak out as I was not a motorist
Then they came for me
And there was no one left to speak out for me
Anon
I guess the "Excuse me young man, but would you please not drink too much as you cause an absoute nuisance when drunk" approach hasn't quite worked?
IMO its the same as the proposed chocolate tax. Its not done for your health, its to get more money off you.
oldmarine
16-Mar-09, 20:12
If I were not a diabetic I probably would be bothered by all of this. However, now that I no longer can drink alcohol it doesn't bother me. Perhaps I should feel for those who are affected and I will say "tuff."
Time to dig out the homebrew equipment!
oldmarine
16-Mar-09, 20:32
Time to dig out the homebrew equipment!
Geo: that's a good way to go. I used to enjoy making wine and homebrew. It's a great hobby that can be enjoyed with the drinking.
IMO, it won't make any difference...if someone wants to get off their face on drink then they will...price will make no difference. If drugs prove to be cheaper then I'm sure they'll get them instead.
Just a thought - Will the government enforce pubs to reduce the price of non-alcoholic drinks do you think :confused Sometimes a coke is just as dear as an alcoholic drink!!
Your statement makes no sense at all. Imagine Joe Average and his Wife, who have a couple of bottles of wine on two nights of the week. Say they are buying a, what I would call a pretty average, bottle of wine at £3.99 on each occasion. They are spending £15.96 a week on drink. Under the proposal, the bottle of wine would have to be at least £4.50, making their weekly spend £18 instead. What's the problem with that? Hardly cause to start your own vineyard. Your suggestion about drinkers turning to drugs is ludicrous. How many, so called "Moderate" drinkers are suddenly going to resort to taking drugs instead? It's a laughable concept. An ALCOHOLIC may well turn to desperate measures to achieve a hit but we are NOT talking about alcoholics here. We are talking about a measure to reduce the intake of people who are borderline problem drinkers or who may have just started experimenting with alcohol. Hospitals are inundated with people who did not think they were drinking too much but whom now have problems (often serious ones)
You are totally missing the point regarding the soft drinks being as expensive as alcholic drinks. The actuality of the situation is that alcohol is as CHEAP as a soft drink!! (If not cheaper in supermarkets!!)
Gene Hunt
16-Mar-09, 21:32
IMO its the same as the proposed chocolate tax. Its not done for your health, its to get more money off you.
Exactly, the most sensible comment so far.
Gordon Brown would tax a snake for wriggling if he could, its all about getting more money out of us. Watch out for a tax on Home-Brew kits next.
Everyone seems to be trying to cash in on the whole "Alcohol" thing.
Seen an advert in The sun for a company that you call up with a pen and a bit of paper and they will tell you if you are alcohol dependant!!!
Or if you have a loved one you can call on their behalf.
Oh by the way it is a pre-recorded line that charges £1 a minute!!!!
Sounds like someone somewhere will make alot of money out of it!!![lol]
Exactly, the most sensible comment so far.
Gordon Brown would tax a snake for wriggling if he could, its all about getting more money out of us. Watch out for a tax on Home-Brew kits next.
Your theory doesn't stack up chaps, because Gordon Brown is against the proposal!!
Gene Hunt
16-Mar-09, 23:37
Your theory doesn't stack up chaps, because Gordon Brown is against the proposal!!
Never ever let the truth get in the way of slagging off Gordon Brown. It just takes all the fun out of it.
Your theory doesn't stack up chaps, because Gordon Brown is against the proposal!!That's partly because he and Mr Darling are already increasing the tax on alcohol.
From the March 2008 Budget: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290372.stm)
Drinkers will also bear the brunt of Mr Darling's spending plans with alcohol tax to go up by 6% above inflation - and then by 2% above inflation for each of the next four years, potentially boosting Treasury coffers by £635m annually by 2010. The first increases come into effect on Sunday.Who would gain from the minimum price proposals of Nicola Sturgeon and Sir Liam Donaldson, the brewers and retailers or the taxman? I don't know but I do know that the Treasury benefits from tax rises. For once the moaning minnies may be correct about Mr Brown's intentions but not for the right reasons. :roll:
Penelope Pitstop
17-Mar-09, 13:29
Your statement makes no sense at all. Imagine Joe Average and his Wife, who have a couple of bottles of wine on two nights of the week. Say they are buying a, what I would call a pretty average, bottle of wine at £3.99 on each occasion. They are spending £15.96 a week on drink. Under the proposal, the bottle of wine would have to be at least £4.50, making their weekly spend £18 instead. What's the problem with that? Hardly cause to start your own vineyard. Your suggestion about drinkers turning to drugs is ludicrous. How many, so called "Moderate" drinkers are suddenly going to resort to taking drugs instead? It's a laughable concept. An ALCOHOLIC may well turn to desperate measures to achieve a hit but we are NOT talking about alcoholics here. We are talking about a measure to reduce the intake of people who are borderline problem drinkers or who may have just started experimenting with alcohol. Hospitals are inundated with people who did not think they were drinking too much but whom now have problems (often serious ones)
You are totally missing the point regarding the soft drinks being as expensive as alcholic drinks. The actuality of the situation is that alcohol is as CHEAP as a soft drink!! (If not cheaper in supermarkets!!)
Get off your soap box.......if my statement doesn't make any sense to you perhaps it's because you're not reading it right....!!!....good god no wonder folk can't be bothered to post on here....there's always someone just waiting to pounce down your throat:mad:...there is a nice way to say your "bit" and a horrible way to say it......I don't like your tone one bit.....guess which way you sound to me...[disgust]
Moving on, It's not me that's missing the point about soft drinks being EXPENSIVE (again in IMO) If you think that £3 is cheap for a lemonade then your better off than me.
I did not suggest that all drinkers would start to do drugs.......don't read something that isn't there.
One of the reasons for the government putting up the price of alcohol is to stop teenage binge drinkers. Do you think for a minute that they wouldn't try out drugs to get the "buzz" if they could get "E"s cheaper than drink.
Get off your soap box.......if my statement doesn't make any sense to you perhaps it's because you're not reading it right....!!!....good god no wonder folk can't be bothered to post on here....there's always someone just waiting to pounce down your throat:mad:...there is a nice way to say your "bit" and a horrible way to say it......I don't like your tone one bit.....guess which way you sound to me...[disgust]
Moving on, It's not me that's missing the point about soft drinks being EXPENSIVE (again in IMO) If you think that £3 is cheap for a lemonade then your better off than me.
I did not suggest that all drinkers would start to do drugs.......don't read something that isn't there.
One of the reasons for the government putting up the price of alcohol is to stop teenage binge drinkers. Do you think for a minute that they wouldn't try out drugs to get the "buzz" if they could get "E"s cheaper than drink.
I try to tell it like it is. If you don't like my logical approach, that is your prerogative. You were the one making a sweeping generalisation regarding a price increase leading to drug taking. It would have made more sense if you had stated that the price increase would make no difference in SOME cases.
Teenagers already choose whether or not to take drugs. Some kids dabble, some don't. Plenty of kids will choose alcohol because it is a more socially acceptable substance. Unless someone has an addiction problem, I don't think they will automatically take the leap from trying some alcopops, to harder and totally illegal drugs.
Incidentally, I do not know of anywhere locally that charges £3 for a lemonade. More fool anyone paying that amount. It is certain that it is not the norm. It HAS been the norm very recently though, for supermarkets to churn out beer for anywhere between 33p and 50p per can. Thirty years ago I was buying beer for 30p a pint, it is astonishing that a can can (no dance intended) be only 3p more expensive now.
By the way, I don't know you and it is merely your statement I was referring to. It is not a comment on you personally. I aim to encourage people to have a think about what I've said and maybe have a wee think about what they have said themselves, in reflection. I have admitted my mistakes and apologised several times on this forum!!
There can often be a barrier put up between posters that no amount of logic will ever breach and there can be a dogged resistance to conceding even the most clear cut point of view. I think that this fact causes more departures from the org than any other reason.
Penelope Pitstop
17-Mar-09, 16:19
I try to tell it like it is. If you don't like my logical approach, that is your prerogative. You were the one making a sweeping generalisation regarding a price increase leading to drug taking. It would have made more sense if you had stated that the price increase would make no difference in SOME cases.
....your opinion.
Plenty of kids will choose alcohol because it is a more socially acceptable substance. Unless someone has an addiction problem, I don't think they will automatically take the leap from trying some alcopops, to harder and totally illegal drugs.
I wouldn't agree that a drunk is any more socially acceptable than a druggie. I don't believe kids try drugs because they are already addicted to another substance....IMO it is often due to their pier group. If the drink is dearer and the drugs are cheaper......
Incidentally, I do not know of anywhere locally that charges £3 for a lemonade. More fool anyone paying that amount. It is certain that it is not the norm .
Have you eaten out lately?
I aim to encourage people to have a think about what I've said and maybe have a wee think about what they have said themselves, in reflection. I have admitted my mistakes and apologised several times on this forum.
Well done!!
There can often be a barrier put up between posters that no amount of logic will ever breach and there can be a dogged resistance to conceding even the most clear cut point of view. I think that this fact causes more departures from the org than any other reason!
I think it is sometimes possibly not what is said, but how it is said that can cause the barrier ;)
PP
....your opinion.
I wouldn't agree that a drunk is any more socially acceptable than a druggie. I don't believe kids try drugs because they are already addicted to another substance....IMO it is often due to their pier group. If the drink is dearer and the drugs are cheaper......
PP
Well, I tried but you proved my point perfectly!!
My opinion? Of course it is my opinion, the forum is for opinions. The Chief Medical Officer for England happens to agree with me though, and it is an opinion I have given several times before on the Forum, before his proposal was announced.
I didn't say a drunk was more socially acceptable, I said alcohol was more socially acceptable. That is a self-evident truth because it is a LEGAL substance, whereas drugs are ILLEGAL. If you wish to continue to fly in the face of that fact, please feel free.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the eateries charging £3 for a lemonade, in order that I can avoid them. By the way, I DID say it was not the norm.
Finally, if their "pier group" are responsible for drawing teenagers into alcohol, I hope they don't HARBOUR any grudges later in life ;)
Penelope Pitstop
17-Mar-09, 18:18
Well, I tried but you proved my point perfectly!!
My opinion? Of course it is my opinion, the forum is for opinions. The Chief Medical Officer for England happens to agree with me though, and it is an opinion I have given several times before on the Forum, before his proposal was announced.
I didn't say a drunk was more socially acceptable, I said alcohol was more socially acceptable. That is a self-evident truth because it is a LEGAL substance, whereas drugs are ILLEGAL. If you wish to continue to fly in the face of that fact, please feel free.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the eateries charging £3 for a lemonade, in order that I can avoid them. By the way, I DID say it was not the norm.
Finally, if their "pier group" are responsible for drawing teenagers into alcohol, I hope they don't HARBOUR any grudges later in life ;)
You've lost me on you first comment.
Your opinion, my opinion, I'm all for that. And mine is again .... just in case you've lost sight of it or read something more into it.....is that raising the price of alcohol won't make a blind bit of difference......
IMO there is no difference between the socially acceptability of a drunk or a druggie. I think we all know which is legal and which is not.......who's flying in the face of what fact.....reading too much into something again scorrie.
As I said eat out and find out. I don't do name and shame on a public forum;)
Typo.....shoot me....what a crime......if you must have to pick then pick away.......
Hey, Penelope & Scorrie, go easy on each other or we'll all be feeling in need of a drink!:lol:
I'd rather they didn't increase the price of my pint in the pub, but I agree that there should be a limit on how "cut-price" alcohol can be in supermarkets - it is sometimes so ridiculously cheap it's hard to resist.
You'll maybe not have ever noticed, but discounted prices and "special offers" are already illegal on cigarettes and on baby milk (for babies under 6 months). You should never see these products discounted for any reason - it's illegal to do so and most store managers comply. One reason for this law is to avoid the obvious temptation a "Buy one get one free" offer might pose to those trying to give up smoking and those trying to continue breastfeeding - each facing their own personal health challenges but suffering the same vulnerability to marketing techniques.
Those trying to cut down on alcohol intake find it harder if there's cheap booze in the supermarket - I'm the living proof of that! My liver would certainly thank the government for ridding my life of cheap booze, even if my brain wouldn't! :)
You've lost me on you first comment.
Your opinion, my opinion, I'm all for that. And mine is again .... just in case you've lost sight of it or read something more into it.....is that raising the price of alcohol won't make a blind bit of difference......
IMO there is no difference between the socially acceptability of a drunk or a druggie. I think we all know which is legal and which is not.......who's flying in the face of what fact.....reading too much into something again scorrie.
As I said eat out and find out. I don't do name and shame on a public forum;)
Typo.....shoot me....what a crime......if you must have to pick then pick away.......
Hardly surprising you got lost.
Drunk or druggie? PLEASE try to read my post again. I never mention Drunk or Druggie. I said ALCOHOL. Your attempts at gaining a logical foothold have fallen pathetically short.
As an observation, I would note that the letters i and e are a long way apart on a computer keyboard, I never hit an i when I am trying to hit an e. An even-minded poster would simply admit that they had only really HEARD of Peer Pressure, and not read about it.
You don't name and shame on a public forum? That is because you CANNOT do it!! I challenge you publicly to either name them, or admit that you can't. I cite Tesco with 60 cans of Tennent's Lager for £20, i.e. 33.3333333333333333333333p per can. I have witnesses who can vouch to this offer. Where are yours?
I think we see a closed mind at work here. Some people will never learn.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.