# Minimum price for alcohol



## pjd57 (16 Nov 2017)

Now that it's going ahead , will it make a difference ?

Lot of people going on about nanny states etc, but personally I think it's worth trying it.
Not as a quick fix , but as part of a long term attempt to reduce the damage caused by alcohol use / abuse.

Doing nothing isn't really an option any longer.


----------



## Freds Dad (16 Nov 2017)

Opens the market for booze smuggling from England.

Transit vans will be going round estates in Scotland selling booze out of the back.


----------



## I like Skol (16 Nov 2017)

Not sure about this really. I like a drink occasionally and price is not a factor or concern for me. People from less affluent environments will still drink for all the same reasons that they already do, but this will now take up even more of their limited income and lead too greater hardship and it will be the people around them that suffer the most.


----------



## Piemaster (16 Nov 2017)

Freds Dad said:


> Opens the market for booze smuggling from England.
> 
> Transit vans will be going round estates in Scotland selling booze out of the back.


Hadn't thought of that. But I know a couple of Geordies that will have


----------



## Levo-Lon (16 Nov 2017)

I thought those skirt wearer types were al on that iron bru stuff?

And No it wont stop anything, just piss people off


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Nov 2017)

Yes, something needs to be done, but as stated there are too many gangsters and schemers ready and willing to make a few quid out of the situation.
Also, how will it stop an addict? Hard drugs are illegal, but addicts still get their hands on them.


----------



## User6179 (16 Nov 2017)

I wonder if it would be legal to buy from a supermarket in England and have a Scottish branch deliver it?


----------



## gavroche (16 Nov 2017)

It won't make any difference. People will find the extra money, it will only be extra revenue for the treasury.


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

Extra revenue that could be invested in better therapeutic interventions and support for recovering alcoholics, alcohol awareness for young people, education, healthcare and all sorts of socially useful things?

Excellent! Bring it on!


----------



## Phaeton (16 Nov 2017)

Has it worked for cigarettes?


----------



## gavroche (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5043917, member: 10119"]Extra revenue that could be invested in better therapeutic interventions and support for recovering alcoholics, alcohol awareness for young people, education, healthcare and all sorts of socially useful things?

Excellent! Bring it on![/QUOTE]
Do you honestly believe that? I wish I could share your faith. Have you ever wondered why we have so many charities in this country?


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Let me look it up for you. Yes it has. In 1974 over 50% of adult men and over 40% of adult women smoked. In 2015 the equivalent numbers are 19% and 15%.



And the majority of the teens think that it is _deeply_ uncool these days, based on the responses of my teen and his mates. Assuming you are talking about smoking straight fags, natch.

Funny thing - a friend of a friend is the tory MP who was largely responsible for the stricter rules and regulations about cigarette marketing/display etc getting implemented. Can't remember her name... Girl done good, I reckon.


----------



## Yellow Fang (16 Nov 2017)

I'm concerned about the slippery slope. Soon it will be everywhere and they will keep on increasing the minimum price until it's unaffordable to nearly everyone. Governments would ban alcohol if it was a new drug, like they do every other.


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> I'm concerned about the slippery slope.



Well, you do need to watch out for those slippery slopes. Especially after a couple of litres of liver-rot.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

As i understand it, all it's really going to affect is super-cheap-super-strong booze such as Diamond White and cheap wine from Aldi and Lidl. I heard on the radio that's going to be 50p per unit... most 'normal' booze already works out more than that.


----------



## raleighnut (16 Nov 2017)

I don't know about drink being 'smuggled' from England but I bet the counterfeiters are rubbing their hands with glee.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...-cheap-booze&usg=AOvVaw3uGOJT-CB8uEkNwCxHyXUT


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2017)

I live on the border of Denmark and Germany, the Danish side. We go into Germany for our beer and can get 3 cases of beer for a tenner. Much cheaper than in Denmark.

But we actually go to buy nuts as there is a huge amount of tax on nuts in Denmark.

I have just realised that we are "Nut Smugglers"


----------



## slowmotion (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> As i understand it, all it's really going to affect is super-cheap-super-strong booze such as Diamond White and cheap wine from Aldi and Lidl. I heard on the radio that's going to be 50p per unit... most 'normal' booze already works out more than that.


I quite like 5% yellow beer, not exactly knockdown juice. A 500ml can would go up from £1.10 to £1.50 under Scottish rules. I'm glad I live in London.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (16 Nov 2017)

Personally I'm sick to death of all these hand-wringing nanny state do-gooder types who keep lecturing us on what sort of food we should eat, how much alcohol we should limit ourselves to etc. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them should just **** off and keep their noses out of everyone else's business!


----------



## Drago (16 Nov 2017)

They'll simply nick it instead.


----------



## BoldonLad (16 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Personally I'm sick to death of all these hand-wringing nanny state do-gooder types who keep lecturing us on what sort of food we should eat, how much alcohol we should limit ourselves to etc. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them should just **** off and keep their noses out of everyone else's business!



Couldn't have put it better myself..... well said


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Personally I'm sick to death of all these hand-wringing nanny state do-gooder types who keep lecturing us on what sort of food we should eat, how much alcohol we should limit ourselves to etc. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them should just **** off and keep their noses out of everyone else's business!





BoldonLad said:


> Couldn't have put it better myself..... well said



We have people getting obese on a diet of sugar packed convenience food. People drinking too much, smoking too much... putting a strain on our health service... and you don't think anyone's allowed to suggest a healthier way of living ???


----------



## BoldonLad (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> We have people getting obese on a diet of sugar packed convenience food. People drinking too much, smoking too much... putting a strain on our health service... and you don't think anyone's allowed to suggest a healthier way of living ???



Suggest is not the same as lecturing, slapping a tax on (whatever)....

If Government REALLY wanted to deter smoking, drinking alcohol and pigging out, they would raise the price to unaffordable levels. Instead, they increase them just enough to NOT deter it too much, hence ensuring the taxes continue to roll in.

As another poster mentioned, many drugs are illegal, does that stop people obtaining them or taking them? I don't think so.


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> We have people getting obese on a diet of sugar packed convenience food. People drinking too much, smoking too much... putting a strain on our health service... and you don't think anyone's allowed to suggest a healthier way of living ???



Indeed, how positively anarchic! Taxation is a pretty standard item in the toolbox used to encourage behaviours considered desirable, like saving/pension planning/cycling to work isn't it? And nobody is proposing outlawing alkyfrolic drinks - just raising prices at the cheap-n-nasty end of the market. I don't think it is unreasonable for behaviours damaging to our world or our society, such as flying/driving/excessive drinking to cost a bit.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE="MontyVeda] We have people getting obese on a diet of sugar packed convenience food. People drinking too much, smoking too much... putting a strain on our health service... and you don't think anyone's allowed to suggest a healthier way of living ??? [/QUOTE]

I'm a grown up and if I choose to do something that's bad for me, or even downright dangerous, it's my right to do so. I grew up in the 70's and 80's and back then kids were drinking just as much fizzy sugary drinks, and eating just as much junk food, as they do today. The reason we weren't fat back then is that we didn't sit around indoors all day gawking at the TV or playing computer games. We were out running around, climbing things, riding around on push bikes etc.
The same goes for the lardarse adults you see that are too lazy to walk a quarter of a mile to the shops so they take their car, or too lazy to walk home from the pub - so they call a minicab even though it's only a 10-minute walk.
The problem is not what people consume, it's the fact they don't DO any activity to work it off!


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Suggest is not the same as lecturing, slapping a tax on (whatever)....
> 
> If Government REALLY wanted to deter smoking, drinking alcohol and pigging out, they would raise the price to unaffordable levels. Instead, they increase them just enough to NOT deter it too much, hence ensuring the taxes continue to roll in.
> 
> As another poster mentioned, many drugs are illegal, does that stop people obtaining them or taking them? I don't think so.


SkipdiverJohn was talking about being lectured, and suggested they keep their noses out of everyone's business. You agreed. 
Should we not lecture people over the risks associated with their lifestyle?


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Personally I'm sick to death of all these hand-wringing nanny state do-gooder types who keep lecturing us on what sort of food we should eat, how much alcohol we should limit ourselves to etc. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of them should just **** off and keep their noses out of everyone else's business!



Should we legalise those currently illegal drugs, do you think? Is it nanny state do-gooding for cannabis/crack to be illegal?


----------



## Threevok (16 Nov 2017)

I believe they did a similar thing in Australia. 

When a friend of mine went there for a six month stint, he said everyone just got ratted in the streets on wine boxes instead.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5044130, member: 10119"]Should we legalise those currently illegal drugs, do you think? Is it nanny state do-gooding for cannabis/crack to be illegal?[/QUOTE]

Personally I'd legalise all drugs for personal consumption in private, but make it a serious matter to be under the influence of said drugs in a public place. Making drugs illegal just generates profits for criminals, and makes people commit crime to obtain money to buy drugs from illegal dealers. It doesn't actually stop people taking drugs. Alcohol prohibition in the USA achieved nothing whatsoever except to generate vast profits for gangsters and bootleggers. Same goes for drugs.


----------



## raleighnut (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5044130, member: 10119"]Should we legalise those currently illegal drugs, do you think? Is it nanny state do-gooding for cannabis/crack to be illegal?[/QUOTE]
Yep, making something illegal just pushes things 'under the counter' allowing criminal organisations to make massive amounts of cash. Look at America under 'Prohibition'.


----------



## BoldonLad (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5044130, member: 10119"]Should we legalise those currently illegal drugs, do you think? Is it nanny state do-gooding for cannabis/crack to be illegal?[/QUOTE]

Since you ask, IMHO, that would be a yes.

It is quite clear we have lost "the war on drugs". Far better to legalise them and control them in the same way as alcohol.

If adults choose to self destruct, that is their choice.

But, I have a few caveats, which are applicable not only to illegal drugs, but, the legal ones too... ie tobacco, alcohol. So, as far as I am concerned consumption of a substance (illegal or otherwise) is not an acceptable excuse for bad behaviour. For example, the well used excuse of ".. I had drunk x cans of lager and cannot remember .. _insert suitable crime_ ... " just does not wash. If adults choose to consume behaviour changing substances, then, they have to accept responsibility for the consequences.

Before anyone asks:

1. I have never smoked, except for a brief period as a youth (long time ago)
2. I have never taken, nor do I have any wish to take, any (currently) illegal substances.
3. I do drink alcohol (approximately within current guidelines).


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Personally I'd legalise all drugs for personal consumption in private, but make it a serious matter to be under the influence of said drugs in a public place. Making drugs illegal just generates profits for criminals, and makes people commit crime to obtain money to buy drugs from illegal dealers. It doesn't actually stop people taking drugs. Alcohol prohibition in the USA achieved nothing whatsoever except to generate vast profits for gangsters and bootleggers. Same goes for drugs.


Ok... lets legalise drugs. And lets not have the 'nanny-state' telling anyone that they're bad for you... is that what you want?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> ...
> 
> Before anyone asks:
> 
> ...


May is ask why you've never smoked, taken recreational drugs or drank to excess?

Could be anything to do with the 'nanny-state' lecturing the people about the risks involved with such things?


----------



## Mr Celine (16 Nov 2017)

gavroche said:


> It won't make any difference. People will find the extra money, it will only be extra revenue for the treasury.



[QUOTE 5043917, member: 10119"]Extra revenue that could be invested in better therapeutic interventions and support for recovering alcoholics, alcohol awareness for young people, education, healthcare and all sorts of socially useful things?

Excellent! Bring it on![/QUOTE]

They aren't increasing the duty, just making selling cheap drink illegal. 

This may bring in some extra revenue through VAT or corportation tax on the drinks companies profits, which may increase due to the higher prices they will have to charge. 

Now the good news. Ever since the Scotch Whisky Association have been opposing this sensible measure in the courts the Celine household has been boycotting their products. No whisky worth drinking is less than 50p a unit anyway.


----------



## dodgy (16 Nov 2017)

A link would have been helpful for context, I didn't have a clue what this thread was about at first.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41981909


----------



## User10119 (16 Nov 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> They aren't increasing the duty, just making selling cheap drink illegal.



So it _isn't_ just 'extra revenue for the treasury'?


----------



## raleighnut (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Ok... lets legalise drugs. And lets not have the 'nanny-state' telling anyone that they're bad for you... is that what you want?


I don't think anything would change much, I don't think any more people would start taking them than currently do. I've got a couple of friends who work in the field and the main focus these days for them is minimising risk associated with consumption.

The other thing is if Chemists/Pharmacies were allowed once again to sell these products then the issues around quality/strength/adulteration could be addressed leading to far fewer deaths.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2017)

raleighnut said:


> I don't think anything would change much, I don't think any more people would start taking them than currently do. I've got a couple of friends who work in the field and the main focus these days for them is minimising risk associated with consumption.
> 
> The other thing is if Chemists/Pharmacies were allowed once again to sell these products then the issues around quality/strength/adulteration could be addressed leading to far fewer deaths.


The point to address is the second part... Skipdiver was moaning about being lectured by the 'nanny-state' and that's the point i was raising.


----------



## Threevok (16 Nov 2017)

I've tried just about everything - legal and illegal - cheap and expensive

I see little point in this latest price hike personally


----------



## classic33 (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> May is ask why you've never smoked, taken recreational drugs or drank to excess?
> 
> Could be anything to do with the 'nanny-state' lecturing the people about the risks involved with such things?


Me, I never wanted anyone saying they were responsible for anything else.


----------



## Mr Celine (16 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5044225, member: 9609"]I'm curious as to what the supplier will do, will they let the shop earn more from their sales or will they have a separate price for the shops they supply in Scotland (which would probably be illegal) , and will they somehow try and prevent chains north and south of the border vanning it up to their scottish outlets.

Personally I think england should just follow scotlands lead.[/QUOTE]

Hmm yes it's probably the retailers (ie the big supermarkets) who are going to see their profits increase rather than the drink companies. Even if the latter could negotiate different prices north and south of the border it would be hard to police.

OTOH many years ago the now Mrs Celine was living in Eyemouth and used to go shopping in Berwick. The supermarkets were full of exotic English produce such as Tartan Bitter, McEwans Best Scotch and Carling Black label. Five miles north in Eyemouth the first two were branded as Tartan Special and McEwans 80 /- whilst the third was thankfully unavailable.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (16 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Ok... lets legalise drugs. And lets not have the 'nanny-state' telling anyone that they're bad for you... is that what you want?



I don't need to be told that taking drugs can be bad for you. OD on the wrong stuff, and you're dead. Smoke ciggies for long enough and there's a good chance you'll get cancer or some other unpleasant respiratory disease. Drink stupid amounts of booze and you'll eventually pickle your liver. Anyone with half a brain knows that doing all these things can be harmful, especially if taken to excess. We don't need a bunch of self-righteous, busybody middle-class finger waggers to point out the bloody obvious!
For the record:- 1) I don't take illegal drugs. 2) I don't smoke. 3) I do drink, and drink more than the "experts" say I should. 4) I also eat whatever sorts of foods I like the taste of, whether they are healthy or unhealthy.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Gosh... this ‘no politics’ malarkey’s working out well I see.


It's not politics. Look, they've stuck it in the *Training, Fitness and Health*, with all the other threads complaining about the nanny state.


----------



## User482 (16 Nov 2017)

User said:


> I presume they’re leaving the sexist threads in the Cafe, where they tend to originate?


They're onto anal sex now. The hetero kind, obvs.


----------



## MarkF (16 Nov 2017)

Freds Dad said:


> Opens the market for booze smuggling from England.
> 
> Transit vans will be going round estates in Scotland selling booze out of the back.



Nailed it in just the second post.

What load of catmuck! I work in a hospital I know what it's always full of, cluttering up beds and suffering long term related ailments....................fast food fatso's!


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Gosh... this ‘no politics’ malarkey’s working out well I see.


Sssshhhhh. 
They haven't noticed!


----------



## smutchin (17 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'm a grown up and if I choose to do something that's bad for me, or even downright dangerous, it's my right to do so.



Is it your right to make everyone else subsidise your 'grown up' behaviour? Are you completely oblivious to the burden on the state created by such 'grown up' behaviour? Are you really as 'grown up' as you think you are?


----------



## dan_bo (17 Nov 2017)

Whats 8Ace gonna do now?


----------



## dan_bo (17 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> Is it your right to make everyone else subsidise your 'grown up' behaviour? Are you completely oblivious to the burden on the state created by such 'grown up' behaviour? Are you really as 'grown up' as you think you are?


and what happens when you fall off your bike when you're racing around?


----------



## slowmotion (17 Nov 2017)

How does booze fit in to the equation? Wasn't it recently shown that smoking was a net gain to the Treasury, by a long chalk? Yes, there's a huge emotional costs for those and their families who suffer ill heath, but is that actually any business of HMG? Are we allowed to make our own mistakes? I certainly don't want to delegate my life to Westminster.


----------



## smutchin (17 Nov 2017)

dan_bo said:


> and what happens when you fall off your bike when you're racing around?



I can tell you what _doesn't_ happen: I don't go whining on the internet about how hard done by I am because the government won't subsidise my reckless behaviour.


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Nov 2017)

MarkF said:


> Nailed it in just the second post.
> 
> What load of catmuck! I work in a hospital I know what it's always full of, cluttering up beds and suffering long term related ailments....................fast food fatso's!



But your hospital isn't in Scotland. Average alcohol consumption is 20% higher up here.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Nov 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> ...................Average alcohol consumption is 20% higher up here.



Having spent time working in Scotland, (Glasgow), I cannot imagine why.


----------



## Joffey (17 Nov 2017)

User said:


> There is something inherent about Glasgow that makes people drink more?



Yeah, everyone is miserable and ignorant. Drink is their only friend.


----------



## Time Waster (17 Nov 2017)

Isn't cycling a healthy pastime which means you're less likely to need the NHS until later on life? In more enlightened countries you can get subsidized for exercise and exercise equipment. Gym costs come out of your tax, bikes do too I think my Sweden living friend once told me. So if you do take a spill in sure you'll probably still do better than break even over a cycling lifetime.

Drugs and alcohol have no positive effect on your health. Well prescription drugs for medical reasons excepted if course. 

I understand that because of duties on tobacco products there is research out there saying smokers give more to the pot than take out because of their filthy habit. Drink and illegal drugs don't contribute more AFAIK. If course illegally obtained drug profits probably gets used for legal purchases which gives something back.

Personally I think this is the wrong way to go about it but the principle of trying to change behaviour from an unhealthy one to a healthier one is a good idea. I'd certainly like to live longer and stay active for longer. The price of giving up excessive alcohol and no smoking is a small price to pay for that.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> May is ask why you've never smoked, taken recreational drugs or drank to excess?
> 
> Could be anything to do with the 'nanny-state' lecturing the people about the risks involved with such things?



You may certainly ask, and, I will attempt to answer:

1. I did not say I never smoked, I said I smoked for a short period in my youth. Decided, I did not like it.

2. I did not say I never drank to excess, I said I approximately drank within the currently advised limits. I most certainly have drunk to excess, on more than one occasion, and, sometimes, still do. However, on balance, I think the hangover is not worth the fun. So, I stick to my limits. It so happens that, AFAIK, two/three bottles of red, plus three/four pints of beer, and an occasional brandy, per week, are, on average, roughly within the "guidelines".

3. I do not like taking drugs, legal or illegal. Even the legal ones have undesirable side effects, which, even the nanny state does not advertise. Indeed, one of the reasons I returned to cycling, was, to increase my exercise levels and decrease my weight and blood pressure, rather than simply pop an extra pill. It worked, and, I enjoy it.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5044225, member: 9609"]I'm curious as to what the supplier will do, will they let the shop earn more from their sales or will they have a separate price for the shops they supply in Scotland (which would probably be illegal) , and will they somehow try and prevent chains north and south of the border vanning it up to their scottish outlets.

Personally I think england should just follow scotlands lead.[/QUOTE]

I think they may re-build Hadrian's Wall. 

- Good news for Stonemasons. 
- Not sure how long it will take to get Planning Permission however.
- No doubt it will be necessary to ship the labour in from Eastern Europe


----------



## dan_bo (17 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I can tell you what _doesn't_ happen: I don't go whining on the internet about how hard done by I am because the government won't subsidise my reckless behaviour.


How very magnanamous of you.


----------



## User482 (17 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> As Rod Liddle said on Question Time last night, its just a tax on the poor. The middle classes will continue to drink just as much, if not more, whilst quaffing their unchanged Sauvignon Blanc and bemoaning the 'common people' with their Aldi cider.
> 
> #notpolitics


How is that different to taxing tobacco? Or petrol?

As far as I'm concerned, if you find yourself agreeing with Rod Liddle, it's time to stop and have a think.


----------



## User482 (17 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> Stop clocks are right twice a day and of course no different.
> 
> Edit: Of course its different!! Its a minimum price on alcohol, it only affects the cheap stuff.
> 
> #notpolitics


My point was that the middle classes are better able to afford tobacco and petrol. Taxes affect them far less. I find Liddle to be rather less than sincere in his claims to be concerned about the plight of poor drinkers.


----------



## User482 (17 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> I think we're making the same point.
> 
> #notpolitics



Are we? Well as this isn't politics I shan't disagree. Beer?


----------



## jefmcg (17 Nov 2017)

User482 said:


> My point was that the middle classes are better able to afford tobacco and petrol. Taxes affect them far less.


But the difference is that the middle class are paying the tobacco and petrol, even if they aren't worried about paying them.

But the middle class will not be paying this price at all, that's the difference.

It will make a 12% wine have to cost £4.50. If you are paying less than £4.50 for your wine, then please return your middle class card. Thank you for playing.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Try to look on the bright side. Politics suffuses all life, and each and every such instance demonstrates it.


Sure. Politics suffuses everything, and it can't be avoided.

But this thread is about a *DECISION MADE IN PARLIAMENT BY POLITICIANS.* It's not suffused, it's a literal discussion about politics.

If you are going to have a rule banning discussing politics, then surely at a minimum that must mean not starting discussion with things done and said by politicians. That has to be the narrowest possible definition.


----------



## iandg (17 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> As i understand it, all it's really going to affect is super-cheap-super-strong booze such as Diamond White and cheap wine from Aldi and Lidl. I heard on the radio that's going to be 50p per unit... most 'normal' booze already works out more than that.



So it will have no effect on middle class alcoholism


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Nov 2017)

wicker man said:


> So it will have no effect on middle class alcoholism


Nope... unless they're partial to the odd bottle of Diamond White.


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> ... AFAIK, two/three bottles of red, plus three/four pints of beer, and an occasional brandy, per week, are, on average, roughly within the "guidelines".
> 
> ...


I think someone needs to lecture you on the guidelines... since you've exceeded them with just two bottles of red.  ...and if you look closely, you'll find a list of possible side-effects on all prescribed drugs


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> But the difference is that the middle class are paying the tobacco and petrol, even if they aren't worried about paying them.
> 
> But the middle class will not be paying this price at all, that's the difference.
> 
> It will make a 12% wine have to cost £4.50. If you are paying less than £4.50 for your wine, then please return your middle class card. Thank you for playing.



Is that "middle class" like the Middleton's are Middle Class?

If not, where do I send my card too?


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Sure. Politics suffuses everything, and it can't be avoided.
> 
> But this thread is about a *DECISION MADE IN PARLIAMENT BY POLITICIANS.* It's not suffused, it's a literal discussion about politics.



No it isn't. @pjd57 started the thread to debate the effects of the Supreme Court decision that the Scottish Parliament can impose the minimum price for alcohol that it decided to impose in May 2012. 
The politics behind the latest decision were all done and dusted by 2012. All of the political parties in Scotland support this measure so there is no political debate about it up here at all. 

It's obviously current affairs but we'll keep quiet about that.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 Nov 2017)

User said:


> if a person can only afford 4 cans and 2 loaves of bread a day, the rise in alcohol price will cause that same person to only afford 4 cans and one loaf of bread.



That's absolutely true, because problem drinkers, just like junkies, will prioritise obtaining their daily booze intake way ahead of "luxuries" like food, heating, or paying the rent. This is one reason why these chattering class health fascist types annoy the hell out of me; they invariably live a comfortable existence afforded them by a secure, salaried job. They endlessly pontificate about how anything deemed "unhealthy" should be taxed and made unaffordable, completely ignoring the fact that all that happens in reality is people of limited means will still find the money for the "bad" things regardless, only they then sacrifice the "good" things to pay for them - like keeping a house together and feeding their kids. The net result is all the do-gooders actually make the situation worse, but they self-congratulate themselves for "doing their bit" for society whilst polishing off another bottle of expensive Red at their dinner party table. A bunch of nauseating hypocrites....


----------



## Banjo (17 Nov 2017)

If a person seriously addicted to booze cant afford it they will resort to anything to get it. If that means kids have to shoplift for dinner that's what will happen. Cutting waiting lists for people needing help would help. Raising prices just ruins lives even more.


----------



## pjd57 (17 Nov 2017)

It won't be a quick fix, but it's a start.
The people we probably all cycle past sitting in the park , or by the canals with their daily fix of cheap cider are unlikely to change.
But hopefully it will cut down the binge drinking in youngsters.
They won't stop chipping in a few quid each for their cargo , but they won't be able to get anywhere near as much booze for their pocket money.


----------



## Threevok (17 Nov 2017)

I don't think an addict of any substance can be priced out of the market. 

That said, I understand where they are coming from, although the increase should have been in TAX ( as with tobacco)


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Nov 2017)

User said:


> if a person can only afford 4 cans and 2 loaves of bread a day, the rise in alcohol price will cause that same person to only afford 4 cans and one loaf of bread.



If an alcoholic can only afford 4 cans and 2 loaves of bread a day they will buy 6 cans a day. 
If price rises limit that to 5 cans it's a start.


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Nov 2017)

pjd57 said:


> It won't be a quick fix, but it's a start.
> The people we probably all cycle past sitting in the park , or by the canals with their daily fix of cheap cider are unlikely to change.
> But hopefully it will cut down the binge drinking in youngsters.
> They won't stop chipping in a few quid each for their cargo , but they won't be able to get anywhere near as much booze for their pocket money.



Unfortunately it's not going to affect the price of Buckfast.


----------



## pjd57 (17 Nov 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> Unfortunately it's not going to affect the price of Buckfast.



The real hard core drinkers stick to cheaper brands than Bucky.


----------



## slowmotion (17 Nov 2017)

pjd57 said:


> The real hard core drinkers stick to cheaper brands than Bucky.


The Lacquer Lads used to use lemonade and hairspray. The propellant has probably changed for environmental reasons so I don't know if it's still popular.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

slowmotion said:


> The Lacquer Lads used to use lemonade and hairspray. The propellant has probably changed for environmental reasons so I don't know if it's still popular.



That reminds me, back in the late 70's and early 80's, sniffing glue was quite popular locally amongst teenagers who were too young to get served with alcohol. If you ventured into the underground car park on the local council estate you'd encounter them leaning against walls and sitting on car bonnets, high as a kite, inhaling their fix from one of those old-fashioned brown paper bags the greengrocer used to put your fruit in. People have always sought pleasure/escape through intoxication. If you price them out of one substance they'll get it from something else, possibly something more dangerous and harmful.


----------



## screenman (18 Nov 2017)

How much disposable do you have to have before you become middle class?


----------



## Freds Dad (18 Nov 2017)

screenman said:


> How much disposable do you have to have before you become middle class?



Enough not to compare the prices in Waitrose to other supermarkets.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

screenman said:


> How much disposable do you have to have before you become middle class?



If you asked that question to an American, they would quote you a range of so many Dollars a year income for each class. For them, their class system is fundamentally about earnings power. Not in this country though, at least not in a strict linear relationship. Our class system in this country is more about attitudes and culture. Money does play a part and generally the higher up the strata you are, the more wealthy you'll be, but it's not black and white. I'm 100% working class, yet I have a job in which I can earn a fair bit of money if I do the overtime hours - quite possibly I have a higher disposable income than a lot of people that I would refer to as "middle class". Culturally though, they and I are a world apart. I don't believe in busybodies poking their noses in other peoples business, and I believe that adults should take personal responsibility for doing stupid things, and not seek to pass the buck on to someone else. If you drink yourself to death or OD on drugs, you knew what you were doing and you got what you deserved. It's not the job of the nanny state to prevent people self-destructing - if that's the path they choose to go down.


----------



## screenman (18 Nov 2017)

So assuming that somebody who is middle class can afford to buy expensive booze is possible wrong.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

screenman said:


> So assuming that somebody who is middle class can afford to buy expensive booze is possible wrong.


Some can afford it some can't. The point is, there is just as much middle class problem drinking as working class, but it's hidden. it mostly involves wine and is done behind closed doors. The booze involved is already above minimum price, so it won't affect this group. What you have now is a load of pious self-righteous health fascists targeting what they see as a visible problem with street drinking, whilst conveniently turning a blind eye to the hidden variety that lies much closer to home.


----------



## Mr Celine (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Some can afford it some can't. The point is, there is just as much middle class problem drinking as working class, but it's hidden. it mostly involves wine and is done behind closed doors. The booze involved is already above minimum price, so it won't affect this group. What you have now is a load of pious self-righteous health fascists targeting what they see as a visible problem with street drinking, whilst conveniently turning a blind eye to the hidden variety that lies much closer to home.



The middle class problem drinkers aren't the ones requiring a disproportionate amount of police, ambulance and A+E staff time at the local hospital. This is one of the problems that this measure is aimed at combatting. 

I take it you're quite happy to pay through your taxes for the cost of the damage that cheap alcohol is doing to society.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> The middle class problem drinkers aren't the ones requiring a disproportionate amount of police, ambulance and A+E staff time at the local hospital. This is one of the problems that this measure is aimed at combatting.
> 
> I take it you're quite happy to pay through your taxes for the cost of the damage that cheap alcohol is doing to society.



I'm not happy about all the A & E timewasters and troublemakers, but I wouldn't mess around pandering to them myself. They'd simply be carted off in the back of a police meatwagon to a jail cell and get a prison sentence or very large fine at court for all the aggro they cause. Like I said, personal responsibility. Do what you choose to do in life, but YOU pay the consequences for bad behaviour. As a responsible drinker, I don't see why I should pay more for my pleasures just because of a load of idiots who can't handle their drink.


----------



## FishFright (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> If you asked that question to an American, they would quote you a range of so many Dollars a year income for each class. For them, their class system is fundamentally about earnings power. Not in this country though, at least not in a strict linear relationship. Our class system in this country is more about attitudes and culture. Money does play a part and generally the higher up the strata you are, the more wealthy you'll be, but it's not black and white. I'm 100% working class, yet I have a job in which I can earn a fair bit of money if I do the overtime hours - quite possibly I have a higher disposable income than a lot of people that I would refer to as "middle class". Culturally though, they and I are a world apart. I don't believe in busybodies poking their noses in other peoples business, and I believe that adults should take personal responsibility for doing stupid things, and not seek to pass the buck on to someone else. If you drink yourself to death or OD on drugs, you knew what you were doing and you got what you deserved. It's not the job of the nanny state to prevent people self-destructing - if that's the path they choose to go down.




'Working class' are not the words I'd use to describe those attitudes. Those are basic Daily Mail peevish middle class attitudes .
I'm working class from a working class background and I don't share any of those prejudices so would you please not tar the rest of us blue collar folk with the same narrow brush.


----------



## raleighnut (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'm not happy about all the A & E timewasters and troublemakers, but I wouldn't mess around pandering to them myself. They'd simply be carted off in the back of a police meatwagon to a jail cell and get a prison sentence or very large fine at court for all the aggro they cause. Like I said, personal responsibility. Do what you choose to do in life, but YOU pay the consequences for bad behaviour. As a responsible drinker, I don't see why I should pay more for my pleasures just because of a load of idiots who can't handle their drink.


A good friend of mine was found passed out in a doorway smelling of drink by the police who did precisely that to him.
Unfortunately he wasn't drunk but was suffering a stroke, if he'd been taken to hospital he may have survived but being stuck in a cell to 'sober up' overnight by the police meant that he died instead.


----------



## Siclo (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'm not happy about all the A & E timewasters and troublemakers, but I wouldn't mess around pandering to them myself. They'd simply be carted off in the back of a police meatwagon to a jail cell and get a prison sentence or very large fine at court for all the aggro they cause. Like I said, personal responsibility. Do what you choose to do in life, but YOU pay the consequences for bad behaviour. As a responsible drinker, I don't see why I should pay more for my pleasures just because of a load of idiots who can't handle their drink.



Not a solution. The cost of the police, and the courts, then the court again for resulting non fine payment and on and on.


----------



## User10119 (18 Nov 2017)

raleighnut said:


> A good friend of mine was found passed out in a doorway smelling of drink by the police who did precisely that to him.
> Unfortunately he wasn't drunk but was suffering a stroke, if he'd been taken to hospital he may have survived but being stuck in a cell to 'sober up' overnight by the police meant that he died instead.



Condolences, although I'm aware they may be somewhat after the fact. What a dreadful way to go, or indeed to lose someone.


----------



## Mr Celine (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'm not happy about all the A & E timewasters and troublemakers, but I wouldn't mess around pandering to them myself. They'd simply be carted off in the back of a police meatwagon to a jail cell and get a prison sentence or very large fine at court for all the aggro they cause.



That's pretty much what happens now. Why should your and my taxes be wasted on paying for police time, the cost of transporting drunks, the use of jail cells, court expenses, judges and lawyers salaries etc etc? If minimum pricing reduces this then it's a good thing.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> That's pretty much what happens now.



No it isn't. Visit an A & E these days and you'll find it full of drunk/drugged up idiots making a nuisance of themselves, annoying other patients, and harassing the nurses. This sort of behaviour just shouldn't be tolerated at all. In the past it wasn't this bad, a casualty dept didn't resemble a war zone. They shouldn't get any medical treatment, especially not at the taxpayer's expense. They should simply be removed immediately from the hospital and put in a police cell in whatever condition they are in. I couldn't care less what happens to them, they brought it on themselves. Anyone who attacks the nurses in the hospital should do prison time, no messing about.


----------



## Drago (18 Nov 2017)

Freds Dad said:


> Enough not to compare the prices in Waitrose to other supermarkets.



Waitrose is for people who merely think they're middle class.


----------



## Siclo (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> In the past it wasn't this bad, a casualty dept didn't resemble a war zone.



But why's it like that? It's not as if alcohol has become more available or anybody changed the status of heroin etc. It's not even as if there are more alcoholics or drug users. You need to ask how these people were being treated previously and look at what changed.

As to bringing it on themselves, where do you stop? Involved in an RTA? Were you wearing a car?


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Nov 2017)

Siclo said:


> . You need to ask how these people were being treated previously and look at what changed.
> 
> As to bringing it on themselves, where do you stop? Involved in an RTA? Were you wearing a car?



I tell you what has changed, when I was young, society didn't tolerate or make excuses for misbehaviour. and we are only talking 30-ish years ago, not an eternity. If you crossed the line and attacked or abused figures of authority, you got punished. You didn't have some leftie social worker type writing up a report saying that it was OK that you kicked the A & E nurse because you had a deprived childhood.
A late neighbour of mine, a good old boy, told me he once punched a local Copper in the 1960's during an argument whilst drunk. There were no witnesses and he made off from the scene. The next day, he received a "visit" from the local plod, who bundled him into the back of a meatwagon, drove down the road to somewhere quiet, and gave him a right good hiding to teach him a lesson. Then he was kicked out back on the street. There was no court time, no lawyers and no extra public cost involved. Justice was done and from the Coppers perspective it was seen to be done. There was no malice afterwards and the assailant even used to say Good Morning to the PC's if he met them. He never got into any further bother with the Law.


----------



## Siclo (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The next day, he received a "visit" from the local plod, who bundled him into the back of a meatwagon, drove down the road to somewhere quiet, and gave him a right good hiding to teach him a lesson. Then he was kicked out back on the street.



An acquaintance from school is currently serving 15 years for doing pretty much what you describe after someone punched his girlfriend while she was working, his 'lesson' went very wrong.

You can't run a society on revenge and fear.

There has to be an acceptance that with alcohol and narcotics in a society there is going to be a fallout, a cost, both financial and human but simply saying that because you can pay more for your poison makes the fallout somehow better strikes me as very wrong. I think I'll leave this here.


----------



## raleighnut (18 Nov 2017)

A fella who lived down the road from me worked in nightclubs as a 'bouncer', he once had to eject a very drunk copper from a club. about a week or so later this fella and 3 of his oppo's tried to give him a kicking after work..........................they failed, Danny battered the lot of them mainly due to the fact that they'd had a bit of 'dutch courage' whereas he was a lifelong teetotaller (he'd grown up with alcoholic Irish parents) and was a former amateur champion boxer.


----------



## Inertia (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No it isn't. Visit an A & E these days and you'll find it full of drunk/drugged up idiots making a nuisance of themselves, annoying other patients, and harassing the nurses. This sort of behaviour just shouldn't be tolerated at all. In the past it wasn't this bad, a casualty dept didn't resemble a war zone. They shouldn't get any medical treatment, especially not at the taxpayer's expense. They should simply be removed immediately from the hospital and put in a police cell in whatever condition they are in. I couldn't care less what happens to them, they brought it on themselves. Anyone who attacks the nurses in the hospital should do prison time, no messing about.


I volunteer in an a+e and i dont see any of that. Most people are grateful for the help although they do grumble at waiting times.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No it isn't.* Visit an A & E these days *and you'll find it full of drunk/drugged up idiots making a nuisance of themselves, annoying other patients, and harassing the nurses. ...


Do you work there? If not, how many times have you visited A&E in the last twelve months?


----------



## raleighnut (18 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Do you work there? If not, how many times have you visited A&E in the last twelve months?


Read the Daily Mail headlines about 'violence in A&E' more like.


----------



## User10119 (18 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I tell you what has changed, when I was young, society didn't tolerate or make excuses for misbehaviour. and we are only talking 30-ish years ago, not an eternity. If you crossed the line and attacked or abused figures of authority, you got punished. You didn't have some leftie social worker type writing up a report saying that it was OK that you kicked the A & E nurse because you had a deprived childhood.
> A late neighbour of mine, a good old boy, told me he once punched a local Copper in the 1960's during an argument whilst drunk. There were no witnesses and he made off from the scene. The next day, he received a "visit" from the local plod, who bundled him into the back of a meatwagon, drove down the road to somewhere quiet, and gave him a right good hiding to teach him a lesson. Then he was kicked out back on the street. There was no court time, no lawyers and no extra public cost involved. Justice was done and from the Coppers perspective it was seen to be done. There was no malice afterwards and the assailant even used to say Good Morning to the PC's if he met them. He never got into any further bother with the Law.



Can anyone really say that this discussion _isn't_ political? 

Fwiw, I am planning to hit 'post' then report my own comment. I can't, within the roolz, challenge any of this but it is a classic of the 'stands to reason' 'common sense' political comments that I've sometimes seen left standing in the Cafe.


----------



## raleighnut (18 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5046643, member: 10119"]Can anyone really say that this discussion _isn't_ political? 

Fwiw, I am planning to hit 'post' then report my own comment. I can't, within the roolz, challenge any of this but it is a classic of the 'stands to reason' 'common sense' political comments that I've sometimes seen left standing in the Cafe.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure @SkipdiverJohn has ever met any social workers,



SkipdiverJohn said:


> I tell you what has changed, when I was young, society didn't tolerate or make excuses for misbehaviour. and we are only talking 30-ish years ago, not an eternity. If you crossed the line and attacked or abused figures of authority, you got punished. You didn't have some leftie social worker type writing up a report saying that it was OK that you kicked the A & E nurse because you had a deprived childhood.
> A late neighbour of mine, a good old boy, told me he once punched a local Copper in the 1960's during an argument whilst drunk. There were no witnesses and he made off from the scene. The next day, he received a "visit" from the local plod, who bundled him into the back of a meatwagon, drove down the road to somewhere quiet, and gave him a right good hiding to teach him a lesson. Then he was kicked out back on the street. There was no court time, no lawyers and no extra public cost involved. Justice was done and from the Coppers perspective it was seen to be done. There was no malice afterwards and the assailant even used to say Good Morning to the PC's if he met them. He never got into any further bother with the Law.



Most of the ones I know are further to the right than Genghis Khan, a lot like the 'Elf and Safety' bunch and Traffic Wardens, there are a few in the job that are genuine caring people (I know a few of those too)


----------



## TheDoctor (18 Nov 2017)

As the thread has gone far off-topic, it has been closed.


----------

