Booze Curbs That Work?

[Theland1]

Asked to fill in an opinion survey recently on alcohol problems and minimum pricing, I said that I thought the availability of alcohol was a major factor in the social problems it caused, and not the price.
I believe that the poorer people who like a drink should not be discriminated against, but rather a return to more restrictive opening hours, reduced hours for clubs in particular, and designated alcohol outlets rather than the corner shop and supermarkets.
What do you think?

[woofgang]

I think its societal...irregardless of price and availability, where it is considered acceptable for folk to get throwing up drunk, pee in public etcetera, then that will continue to be the norm. years ago I visited New Orleans, long before the floods. In Bourbon Street then, the tourism then was built on the bars and the jazz and the drinks were huge, cheap and strong but you never saw bad behaviour because it wasn't tolerated..yes people had a few and some were drunk but the cheerful helpful bar staff and friendly (huge) policemen dealt with that small minority.
Like smoking, you have to get public opinion to a tipping point where the majority don't think its a good idea.

[ummmm]

Designated alcohol outlets....like what? Pubs?

[Theland1]

offees ..... and pubs of course

[ummmm]

But that's not fair on people who do not live near to local amenities. And, people tend to drink in the house because of the affordability factor. They are far less likely to be throwing up in the street or peeing in doorways...

[Gromit]

The number of outlets where alcohol can be purchased must have quadrupled over the last 20 years. That in itself bring extra competition, and prices much cheaper relatively.

Another factor, is what we buy. 20 years ago, it would have been bitter or lager at about 3.5 - 4%. Now it is more likely to be Ciders, lagers or alcho-pops at 5%+. Girls have been heavily marketed at, and they are just as likely to get smashed than the lads.

Added to all that, the demise of the local pub. Here, the landlord kept an eye on his customers, and refused (enforced by law) to serve people who were too drunk. He could lose his license (and livelihood) if people were found to be intoxicated on his premises, so they self police rigurously.

The average young person today starts off at home on cheap booze from the supermarkets, and they are already drunk when they go into the clubs where it is impossible to keep tabs on the hundreds of drinkers. The result is many get very very drunk.

Unfortunately, all the answers seem to penalise sensible drinkers as much as the problem ones.

[weecalf]

I would imagine the economy could not withstand a drastic fall in the sale of drink .Just like fuel the tax is one of the goverments biggest earners.So putting it up is not deal ing with the problem but a excuse to tax people more If the extra money generated went to help those who have drink problems then maybe .That would be odd because the more drunk the more goes to those who drink more .I dont know

[jake-the-peg]

weecalf's argument always comes up when related to petrol or cigarettes or drink.

It's subtext seems to be a veiled threat to government "don't tax the things we like too heavilly or you'll hurt yourseves!"

But Cigarette consumption has fallen through the floor in the last 30 years or so and doesn't seem to have affected the tax revenues to severely.

The fact is that people who give up these things spend money in other areas often in other highly taxed areas.

I dare say excess alcohol consumption costs the country a lot of money too - NHS of course but also policing costs, social costs from domestic violence and broken homes. A&E from the Saturday night alcohol fueled fights Insurance costs from drunken vandelism. Costs to the economy on days off work from hangovers the list goes on and on.

And public policy is not simply designed just to raise money - the country is not a business

[weecalf]

Agree with what you say jake -the-peg If smoking has dropped so much then why are they so costly .People have decided to stop smoking in large numbers .So what happened the cost goes up to cover the loss of tax .

[Gromit]

The tax on cigarettes was deliberately raised first to make them more expensive and to encourage people to give up. It wasn't supplemental to cover lost tax.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think the logic works that way - that's what I mean by it's not a buisness - the primary objective is not to make a profit.

The primary objective is to try to modify people's behaviour in such a way as to not cause wide spread civil disobedience and riots.

That's why they don't simply ban cigarettes but rather slowly increase the real cost of them to try to disuade people.

That has not been happening with alcohol - the real cost of it has been decreasing - partly to do with shops offerring it as a loss leader which this was meant to address - but (I'm tempted to say as always with the Tories) they fight shy of imposing regulations on businesses that represent a lot of their primary support and financial backing and have set it at a level where the effects will be minimal.

I think the estimate from an academic working in the area was that this level will probably save about 20 lives a year.

[ummmm]

Gromit, I did laugh at this bit of your answer..

Here, the landlord kept an eye on his customers, and refused (enforced by law) to serve people who were too drunk.

Not in my experience....and if you had the misfortune of falling asleep in our pub there was a chance that someone would draw all over you and take photos. Ahhh, those were the days :-)

[Davethedog]

Gromit, with respect I don't belive that about cost. All governments say what they want and spin doctor it. So they justify the rise in prices but saying its a preventative measure but still collect the tax. If they meant it they would give the money raised to organisations the are combating cancer and chest diseases.

[R1Geezer]

it was the rediculous licensing laws that caused the current situation. Deregulating is not going to sort it overnight. It'll take a generation. Just sit tight and It'll get better.

[ummmm]

You think R1? So lock ins were a myth?

[R1Geezer]

Of course not, but they were not the norm. The binge drinking culture was born out of the need to get enough down yer neck before some arbitrary closing time. When they relaxed the licensing laws we were always going to go through a "kid in a sweetshop" phase.

[anotheoldgit]

For starters, limit the number of alcoholic drinks one could purchase from pubs and clubs, in one visit by issuing drink vouchers.

The vouches could be issued in exchange for cash and according to the units of alcohol, and only used on the date of issue..

All visit made to the accident & emergency due to the effects of alcohol, should be privately charged for.

All silly drinking games in clubs could be also be banned.

The most recent one I heard of, was the dangerous act of pouring neat vodka into the eyes, this way they say the alcohol reaches the blood stream more quickly.

[R1Geezer]

so you are going to punish all of us because young snotty gets out of order on half a shandy are you AOG? right oh!

[ummmm]

I don't agree Geezer. Most locals had lock ins...and most locals still do. I think they should change the licensing laws back to what they were.

[R1Geezer]

what? so now they can open when the like legally and you'd like to go back to openning when they like illegally! Right oh! That's a giant leap for mankind ummmm!