Coalition to set minimum alcohol price

[Gary L]

Don't be ridiculous. a man crush on David.

he wouldn't look twice at me. would he?

Ahem! Topic.

[lordofangels]

voting yes,
I'm afraid it's the kids that have ruined it for all the responsible drinkers.
The same as those who liked the odd spliff, spoilt by kids.

I vote no because there is no proof that it will work.Only a small minority abuse cheap alcohol and frankly if they won't listen to all the advice then they won't worry about paying more for alcohol either.They will still go out and get bladdered on a weekend.

After all smokers were paying silly money (and still are) but it didn't stop them smoking.The only thing that worked was a public smoking ban.

I suggest something similar has to be introduced and the rules on supplying alcohol to underage drinkers should be implemented far more than they are and the punishments should be far more stringent and vicious.And yes I know many of those in the city centres are not all underage but I bet they got the habit as underage drinkers.
That's the group that really should be targeted because they turn into the irresponsible drunken yobs of the future.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I vote no because there is no proof that it will work.Only a small minority abuse cheap alcohol and frankly if they won't listen to all the advice then they won't worry about paying more for alcohol either.They will still go out and get bladdered on a weekend.

After all smokers were paying silly money (and still are) but it didn't stop them smoking.The only thing that worked was a public smoking ban.

I suggest something similar has to be introduced and the rules on supplying alcohol to underage drinkers should be implemented far more than they are and the punishments should be far more stringent and vicious.And yes I know many of those in the city centres are not all underage but I bet they got the habit as underage drinkers.
That's the group that really should be targeted because they turn into the irresponsible drunken yobs of the future.

100% agreement with the above maggy j.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by richard1960

100% agreement with the above maggy j.

Ditto!

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The exchequer should get the money.

If we're going to pay over the odds I'd rather it went to the country's balance book and not the retailer/wholesaler

have to agree i am against a minumum price unless its done via tax

[Arthurgray50@blu]

This stupid idiot government comes out with all these silly ideas, l deal with drinkers every day, and the government will not stop alcoholics drinking what ever they do.

Shopkeepers and big stores will find a loophole that they can get round, and as far as l am aware, what Cameron is doing is illegal.

[Taf]

He gives the poorer people a tax break, then hikes up the prices of things they can just afford, knowing that the revenue and VAT will come straight back to the treasury.

You don't get something for nothing with this coalition.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This stupid idiot government comes out with all these silly ideas, l deal with drinkers every day, and the government will not stop alcoholics drinking what ever they do.

Shopkeepers and big stores will find a loophole that they can get round, and as far as l am aware, what Cameron is doing is illegal.

I don't think they are trying to stopping alcoholics drinking. I believe they are trying to stop more people drinking to excess. As such, stopping them becoming alcoholics.

As for what Cameron is doing being illegal, since when has it been illegal to set a minimum price?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

There was an article in one of todays newspapers, that they cannot do that by european law.

Another crackpot idea from the ever inteferring nanny state.

This will have zero effect on the drunken louts, who will think nothing of paying a bit more for their alcohol. All this will do is put up the prices for the rest of us.

What do our nannies have lined up next, a minimum price for the sugar in soft drinks ?

Originally Posted by Paul M

Another crackpot idea from the ever inteferring nanny state.

I am normally very sceptical of state interference but I think we have to recognise the potential distortion the state itself causes to our attitudes to our health via the NHS.

Having a comprehensive health system that is free at the point of delivery is fantastic but carries the risk of diluting personal responsibility. The state is not going to start charging people for treatment of self-inflicted illness like alcoholic liver damage or smoke-induced lung cancer, so I think looking for ways to prevent those illnesses from coming about in the first place is a legitimate pursuit for the state to undertake.

Originally Posted by Chris

I am normally very sceptical of state interference but I think we have to recognise the potential distortion the state itself causes to our attitudes to our health via the NHS.

Having a comprehensive health system that is free at the point of delivery is fantastic but carries the risk of diluting personal responsibility. The state is not going to start charging people for treatment of self-inflicted illness like alcoholic liver damage or smoke-induced lung cancer, so I think looking for ways to prevent those illnesses from coming about in the first place is a legitimate pursuit for the state to undertake.

Then let's start with really cracking down on underage drinking and those who supply the underage with alcohol..Followed up by campaigns aimed at them because frankly the older binge drinkers are probably beyond redemption.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I vote no because there is no proof that it will work.Only a small minority abuse cheap alcohol and frankly if they won't listen to all the advice then they won't worry about paying more for alcohol either.They will still go out and get bladdered on a weekend.

After all smokers were paying silly money (and still are) but it didn't stop them smoking.The only thing that worked was a public smoking ban.

I suggest something similar has to be introduced and the rules on supplying alcohol to underage drinkers should be implemented far more than they are and the punishments should be far more stringent and vicious.And yes I know many of those in the city centres are not all underage but I bet they got the habit as underage drinkers.
That's the group that really should be targeted because they turn into the irresponsible drunken yobs of the future.

I agree as well.

at weekends and summer holidays its a regular event to hear drunken school kids in the park across the road from me, in the summer they there until 2-3am drunk nearly every night.

There should be an agressive push to stop underage drinking instead of just randomly pumping up tax to punish everyone, of course the former doesnt generate tax revenues tho.