Should cheap booze be banned?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ing-doctors-warn.html

First it was cigarettes and tobacco, now it is alcohol, next is almost definitely going top be the very food that we eat.

Will the measure to stop supermarkets selling cheap booze do anything to cut the rate of drinking by our youngsters? Judging by the price they pay for their drinks in the clubs these days, I don't think so somehow.

/// Diane Abbott, shadow public health minister, also added to the calls for tougher measures, claiming "alcohol has been too cheap for too long". ///

Maybe it has on her salary, and taking into account the subsidy on drink, enjoyed in the Houses of Parliament bar.

But not to the pensioner or the hard working couples who enjoy a drink after a hard days work.

[ichkeria]

There's a difference between people, usually of slender means - who buy drink because it is cheap (either more of it or drink full stop) and regular, possibly mature, possibly alcoholic, probably wealthier folk. The latter will indeed cough up more for their "poison". The former stand a good chance of being deterred.

[anotheoldgit]

pa___ul3

Drinking at home has it's advantages, one doesn't have to turn out on a cold winters night.

The drinks are cheaper.

One can listen to one's favourite music in the background, instead of what someone has put on the jukebox or is being blurred out of karaoke speakers, that's not to mention that infernal noise coming from those one-armed bandits.

Or perhaps one can choose to watch a favourite DVD while enjoying a much better selection of snacks than just nuts, crisps, or pork scratchings.

And then when the evenings over (controlled by one's self and not by the landlord) one doesn't have to face that cold walk home, but simply climbs the stairs to go to bed.

But don't let me put you off your pub.

[pa___ul3]

ha, I know it does AOG, I suppose I'm only really a social drinker, I enjoy a pint in good company, although I have taken to enjoying the odd bottle of Crabbies while watching a film... but that's unlikely to be affected by such a hike. We're talking cheap alcohol here and the point of cheap alcohol is to get drunk, not to be enjoyed, and getting drunk at home usually either means; a) getting stacked up before a night out, thus keeping trade from the pubs b) alcohol dependency to one degree or another which has it's own problems.

[emmie]

No, it won't stop people buying, they will just buy less.

[tonywiltshire]

Unfortunately those addicted to alcohol will do anything and pay any price or commit offences for alcohol and deprive their dependants or themselves of anything to be able to consume alcohol, it might reduce the drinking of some people who are not addicted and do not have a large disposable income but why should alcohol only be available to the rich?

[ichkeria]

"No, it won't stop people buying, they will just buy less. "

But that's good isn't it?

"but why should alcohol only be available to the rich? "

I think, with respect, that that is a spurious argument. You could equally ask: why should poorer, or indeed younger people with less income, be seduced into alcoholism and crime by cheap offers from outlets who, let's face it, don't give a stuff about them, or their rights vis-a-vis the joys of alcohol.

[emmie]

I think all it would do is punish those who like a social drink, who aren't binge drinkers and can't afford pub prices any longer, which incidentally is one of the reasons that many pubs are closing. It's not the only reason but is a contributing factor.

[ichkeria]

Do social drinkers really go for these cheapo offers though?
And I'd have thought it was these very offers which were killing pubs, or at least not helping, since it encourages people to drink at home, although I think there's probably a lot more to it than that.
I don't support simply raising the price of all alcoholic drinks, including in pubs, but IMHO many of the bargain booze offers in some stores are indeed irresponsible.

[naomi24]

No. Diane Abbott is a past-master in 'do as I say, not as I do'.

[emmie]

naomi, as in against children getting a good education, then sending her child to a fee paying school, one of the bigger hypocrites in parliament.

[naomi24]

Exactly!

[tonywiltshire]

Cheap offers of Alcohol are available to all they are not reserved for the young or poor, if prices increase it will only be those with an addiction or have the money available who will continue too drink as they would wish. It is true that owners of establishments that sell alcohol do not have the health of their customers at the forefront of their thoughts; they are in business to make profits. Let market forces dictate the cost of alcohol.

[ichkeria]

"Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, has been reluctant to consider a minimum price per unit for fear it would fall foul of EU competition regulations. "

Nice to see the government finally embracing Europe. Hope he hasn't told his boss though :-)

[emmie]

then perhaps what one should be doing is give the pub it's off licence back, and scrap the supermarkets selling booze at all, it's not a level playing field.

[ichkeria]

"Cheap offers of Alcohol are available to all they are not reserved for the young or poor, if prices increase it will only be those with an addiction or have the money available who will continue too drink as they would wish. It is true that owners of establishments that sell alcohol do not have the health of their customers at the forefront of their thoughts; they are in business to make profits. Let market forces dictate the cost of alcohol. "

No they are not, but guess who they appeal to most, plainly, being cheap (!)
I simply don't agree that banning cheap offers (as opposed simply to increasing the tax on alcohol, which I don't support) is going to drastically affect the drinking habits of most. But I'd take some convincing that it wouldn't stop situations like the one I described earlier.
As for "market forces" dictating the price of alcohol, plainly they do not always. If stores sold alcohol uniquely at the prices they fix for loss-leading offers then I doubt they'd be in business very long.

[sandyRoe]

Drink is relatively cheaper now than it was 30 years ago. It should at least cost as much now in real terms as it did then.
We see in the press that there's an epidemic of liver disease caused by drink affecting young people. If they can afford to drink so much that they are risking their lives then it is too cheap.

[ichkeria]

"then perhaps what one should be doing is give the pub it's off licence back, and scrap the supermarkets selling booze at all, it's not a level playing field. "

Why not indeed. No need to stop supermarkets selling altogether, but something along those lines.
Did you know incidentally that until comparatively recently supermarkets in Northern Ireland weren't allowed to sell alcohol, and even now they have to sell it in separate, partitioned areas of the store and only to be paid for from designated check-outs.

[Khandro]

It's simply a ruse to raise more taxes and for politicians appear to addressing the problem. Alcoholic beverages are, compared to the UK, very cheap here in Germany, I can buy a perfectly good bottle of French, Italian, German, etc. for around £2.00 in a supermarket, a bottle of vodka for a fiver. In six years of living here, I have hardly ever seen anyone drunk (well, perhaps when occasionally glimpsing in the mirror! :-)

[tonywiltshire]

I do wish Diane Abbott head been elected to head the Labour Party.
EM10 good to see you up and about, it was only a cold then?

[sandyRoe]

Don't the brewers contribute to Tory funds? Would Cameron really make enemies of his bankers?