Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Time For Mimimum Unit Alcohol Pricing?
80 Answers
Just watching dispatches, apparently 50p per unit minimum pricing would save 1000 lives and save £5bn. So what do we think ABers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have seen 5 people drink themselves to death and it was very sad. One had a 5 year old daughter who was left orphaned. Of the examples I have seen, I don't think higher prices would have detered any of them. It is not unusual for them to buy alcohol instead of food. Increasing the price will put more of them into that situation. The country might save a fortune because they will stop buying food sooner and die quicker. Not sure that is what is intended.
A bad idea, a scatter gun approach rather than targetting effectively those most a risk. And it impacts too greatly on the poor. The hospitals are full of middle class alcohol abusers who drink several bottles of wine a week. And they tend not to drink the cheap stuff.
A bad idea, a scatter gun approach rather than targetting effectively those most a risk. And it impacts too greatly on the poor. The hospitals are full of middle class alcohol abusers who drink several bottles of wine a week. And they tend not to drink the cheap stuff.
Off Licenses disappeared when licensing restrictions were relaxed. After this any shop from a corner store to a supermarket could get a licence to sell alcohol automatically just by applying for it.
Good quality booze is well over the minimum price unit anyway, as said this is aimed at cheap strong cider and super strength larger commonly known as 'tramp juice'.
Good quality booze is well over the minimum price unit anyway, as said this is aimed at cheap strong cider and super strength larger commonly known as 'tramp juice'.
A bad idea, a scatter gun approach rather than targetting effectively those most a risk.
Those most at risk are the alcoholics? What about teenagers?
It's not a bad idea imo. There is far too many teenagers drinking cheap lager on street corners. But I suppose when it is cheaper than pop ...why not?
Those most at risk are the alcoholics? What about teenagers?
It's not a bad idea imo. There is far too many teenagers drinking cheap lager on street corners. But I suppose when it is cheaper than pop ...why not?
// There is far too many teenagers drinking cheap lager on street corners. But I suppose when it is cheaper than pop ...why not? //
The stated aim is to save lives and save the NHS money, not keep teenagers in check. There are usually by-laws that forbid public drinking off licensed premises and fines can ve used to stop it. Not increasing the price to pensioners and the less well of.
The stated aim is to save lives and save the NHS money, not keep teenagers in check. There are usually by-laws that forbid public drinking off licensed premises and fines can ve used to stop it. Not increasing the price to pensioners and the less well of.
The proposed minimum limits wouldn't affect most "normal" drinkers. The program was mostly discussing the issue of teenagers "preloading" ... getting hammered on cheap supermarket booze before hitting the pubs and clubs which then stay open longer, using the 24 hour licensing introduced in 2003, in order to maintain their income. This double-whammy of cheap supermarket booze and longer pub and club opening hours is causing the problem. You must have seen TV programmes and newspaper reports of teenagers drunk on our towns' streets - this is the root cause.
Another problem is the terrible attitude that many young Brits have towards alcohol. Most develop a more sensible approach as they get older - but by then the damage could be done. A solution that somehow changed attitudes, rather than enforced a minimum price or maximum drinking hours, would be preferable.
Another problem is the terrible attitude that many young Brits have towards alcohol. Most develop a more sensible approach as they get older - but by then the damage could be done. A solution that somehow changed attitudes, rather than enforced a minimum price or maximum drinking hours, would be preferable.
The nay-sayers alwayas quote 'responsible drinkers' - as though it's possible to be 'responsible' using a drug.
If that's the case' then why are responsible dope smokers ansd coke sniffers and heroin shooters penalised?
If it's possible to be 'responsible' using one recreational drug, then why not all of them?
If that's the case' then why are responsible dope smokers ansd coke sniffers and heroin shooters penalised?
If it's possible to be 'responsible' using one recreational drug, then why not all of them?
Issue has been discussed before. I am against penalising the poorer members of the community for the actions of the few (and also against tax being the answer to everything). But I can see reasons for ensuring it's not used as loss leaders and suchlike resulting in social problems and health consequences. It would mean a low level as minimum.
Perhaps a good start would be for the government to scrap Labour's idiotic 24 hour drinking laws.
http://
http://
http://
New laws will make it illegal to sell alcohol at a loss in a bid to clamp down on binge drinking
the ban on ultra-cheap booze will come into effect on April 6.
Have supermarkets ignored this?
New laws will make it illegal to sell alcohol at a loss in a bid to clamp down on binge drinking
the ban on ultra-cheap booze will come into effect on April 6.
Have supermarkets ignored this?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.