Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Minimum Sherbet Price?
90 Answers
http://
sensible or punishing all for a few numpties?
sensible or punishing all for a few numpties?
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.
Alba, it will apply to pubs too but they're almost always above the 50p/unit anyway.
From the BBC website:
Minimum pricing will not raise the prices of all alcoholic drinks because many are already above the threshold.
Pubs and bars are unlikely to be affected as they usually charge much more than 50p per unit.
The aim is to hit consumption of strong alcohol which is sold at low prices.
The new laws would be "experimental" and expire after six years unless renewed.
From the BBC website:
Minimum pricing will not raise the prices of all alcoholic drinks because many are already above the threshold.
Pubs and bars are unlikely to be affected as they usually charge much more than 50p per unit.
The aim is to hit consumption of strong alcohol which is sold at low prices.
The new laws would be "experimental" and expire after six years unless renewed.
Returning to the thread -
The response of many AB'ers - echoing the response of large parts of the population, shows a difference in attitude to drugs of choice.
Alcohol and nicotine are drugs that are woven into the fabric of our society with lengthy histories behind both.
They are 'respectable' drugs, unlike cannabis and heroin which are seen as 'criminal' drugs, with attendant sub-cultures of violence and anti-social reputations.
But if you take an objective look at them as drugs, and ignore the social context, you can reach a consensus of opinion that examines the effects of each in terms of society as a whole.
Taking that viewpoint, alcohol is a far worse and more damaging drug than cannabis or heroin, and it should be controlled at least as tightly, if not more so, given the pervasive effects it has on society as a whole in terms of long term health damage, with attendant strains on an already stretched health service.
On that basis - introducing prohibitive costs to lift alcohol out of the reach of those least able to control their consumption seems an eminently sensible idea.
To those who complain that they are being 'penalised' - you need to assess your pleasure for what it is, and adapt accordingly.
Your drug of choice is such that, were it introduced into society today, it would potentially be a Class A drug in view of its potential for addiction, and documented effects of violence among excessive users.
In a modern society, it is a responsible approach to concede that your drug is dangerous, and as such, should be limited, and if you wish to indulge in it, then you have no right to insist that is cheaply available to you, when that availability is damaging society as a whole.
If you are a 'moderate' drinker, then the price rise will not unduly affect you - if it does, then you need to examine your intake and adjust accordingly.
Drugs are nasty things folks, just because they have always been around doesn't mean that's it's not high time we made some adjustments in our outlook, and our ways of controlling them.
The response of many AB'ers - echoing the response of large parts of the population, shows a difference in attitude to drugs of choice.
Alcohol and nicotine are drugs that are woven into the fabric of our society with lengthy histories behind both.
They are 'respectable' drugs, unlike cannabis and heroin which are seen as 'criminal' drugs, with attendant sub-cultures of violence and anti-social reputations.
But if you take an objective look at them as drugs, and ignore the social context, you can reach a consensus of opinion that examines the effects of each in terms of society as a whole.
Taking that viewpoint, alcohol is a far worse and more damaging drug than cannabis or heroin, and it should be controlled at least as tightly, if not more so, given the pervasive effects it has on society as a whole in terms of long term health damage, with attendant strains on an already stretched health service.
On that basis - introducing prohibitive costs to lift alcohol out of the reach of those least able to control their consumption seems an eminently sensible idea.
To those who complain that they are being 'penalised' - you need to assess your pleasure for what it is, and adapt accordingly.
Your drug of choice is such that, were it introduced into society today, it would potentially be a Class A drug in view of its potential for addiction, and documented effects of violence among excessive users.
In a modern society, it is a responsible approach to concede that your drug is dangerous, and as such, should be limited, and if you wish to indulge in it, then you have no right to insist that is cheaply available to you, when that availability is damaging society as a whole.
If you are a 'moderate' drinker, then the price rise will not unduly affect you - if it does, then you need to examine your intake and adjust accordingly.
Drugs are nasty things folks, just because they have always been around doesn't mean that's it's not high time we made some adjustments in our outlook, and our ways of controlling them.
Zacs - // Here endeth the sermon from the reverend Hughes. //
Is a typical response - if someone suggests that alcohol is a drug and should be controlled, they are labelled a zealot.
I am tee-total, so I couldn't care less if they hike the price 500% - but I do care about the society in which I live, and that is why my view is as it is.
Is a typical response - if someone suggests that alcohol is a drug and should be controlled, they are labelled a zealot.
I am tee-total, so I couldn't care less if they hike the price 500% - but I do care about the society in which I live, and that is why my view is as it is.
TTT - // so lets all bin the sherbet and take up the FBWD! right oh! //
Even though I don't know what 'FBWD' means, I do know you have evoked the 'So' rule - I can't say something if I don't know what it means, so you can't be contradicting what I said - you have simply said something else, and acted as though that was what I wrote.
It wasn't.
Even though I don't know what 'FBWD' means, I do know you have evoked the 'So' rule - I can't say something if I don't know what it means, so you can't be contradicting what I said - you have simply said something else, and acted as though that was what I wrote.
It wasn't.
Mamya - // All about choice, I'll stay with my usual glass. //
My argument is that it is absolutely not about choice.
In some instances, society has to be controlled, and its choices taken away from individuals for the greater good.
It's my 'choice' to talk on my mobile phone while driving without my seat belt on - but that choice is taken from me for the greater good, and my own protection.
(It's not my choice by the way!)
My argument is that it is absolutely not about choice.
In some instances, society has to be controlled, and its choices taken away from individuals for the greater good.
It's my 'choice' to talk on my mobile phone while driving without my seat belt on - but that choice is taken from me for the greater good, and my own protection.
(It's not my choice by the way!)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News51 mins ago
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.