No More Cheap Alcohol

The government has today outlined plans to set a minimum price for alcohol, 45p per unit. That's approximately a minimum of £1.56 for a can of lager and £4.22 for a bottle of wine.

Now, as most of you know, I only drink warm Vimto and Pepsi but it doesn't mean I can't be outraged by this proposal. It's just another example of the majority having to suffer because a few dickheads can't handle their drink.

"Research" shows that a 45p minimum would reduce the consumption of alcohol by 4.3%, leading to 2,000 fewer deaths and 66,000 hospital admissions after 10 years. Absolute bollocks.

If you're an alcoholic you're not going to stop just because the price goes up...you're going to find the money one way or another.

I firmly believe people should be able to buy/consume whatever they want as long as there are no risks to others. So if someone wants to kill themselves with alcohol then let them go right ahead.

I can't imagine anyone agrees with this minimum charge.

Are you not seething ? More interfering from the Government. Alcohol is pretty cheap here in Germany but you don't get the same level of binge drinking as the UK. It#s the mindset of the individuals, not the price of the booze that dictates how drunk you want to get.

Dunkels King wrote:Are you not seething ? More interfering from the Government. Alcohol is pretty cheap here in Germany but you don't get the same level of binge drinking as the UK. It#s the mindset of the individuals, not the price of the booze that dictates how drunk you want to get.

I totally agree. It's a free country and if people want to drink then they will. It's just a cynical attempt to add more tax to the coffers.

Alcohol should be banned really. It's the cause of more health problems, deaths and crimes than anything else. More than all the illegal drugs put together. If it was invented today it would be banned within weeks. It makes the government too much money though so they don't really give a fuck about all that.

Bernard if we banned everything that could harm us we would be sitting on bean bags, wrapped in bubble wrap eating tofu all day.

I'd legalise everything tbh. The war on drugs has been lost.

Lofty_Love wrote:Bernard if we banned everything that could harm us we would be sitting on bean bags, wrapped in bubble wrap eating tofu all day.

I once fell off a bean bag and broke my arm. True story.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:I'd legalise everything tbh. The war on drugs has been lost.

Agree with this statement.

this is just another attempt at our government to tax us more...

nothing else.

There will always be cheap deal regardless of what the government says. My corner offie sells 4 cans of Fosters for £1.60 and nothing will change that.

It's all about the tax revenue.

The collateral damage to the population and the resultant cost to the NHS - and ultimately the taxpayer - caused by booze and fags runs into billions, but it's the tax revenue ensures that the nation makes a marginal net profit.

Weed and heroin for example cause relatively no damage apart from the occasional schizo and the cost of junkie scripts but because they are not controlled by the state - and therefore not taxed - they are banned.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Government to control drug use by legalising their own manufacturing system, thereby ensuring quality, gaining a sizeable tax and sales revenue, reducing crime/criminality and the associated court and prison costs to the taxpayer and ultimately making it less attractive to impressionable kids?

Damaging drugs like alcohol and fags would become marginalised if heavily taxed, but people would still have a relaxant of their choice and there could well be a net gain for the nation.

wanderlust wrote:It's all about the tax revenue.

The collateral damage to the population and the resultant cost to the NHS - and ultimately the taxpayer - caused by booze and fags runs into billions, but it's the tax revenue ensures that the nation makes a marginal net profit.

Weed and heroin for example cause relatively no damage apart from the occasional schizo and the cost of junkie scripts but because they are not controlled by the state - and therefore not taxed - they are banned.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Government to control drug use by legalising their own manufacturing system, thereby ensuring quality, gaining a sizeable tax and sales revenue, reducing crime/criminality and the associated court and prison costs to the taxpayer and ultimately making it less attractive to impressionable kids?

Damaging drugs like alcohol and fags would become marginalised if heavily taxed, but people would still have a relaxant of their choice and there could well be a net gain for the nation.

You would make a shit politician! what the fuck are you doing applying logic and common sense to a problem...

The tax and duty from alcohol products is already over 12 billion to teh government. Thsi increase will just raise it. To be fair I honestly think that alcohol should be more expensive in supermarkets but cheaper in pubs and bars as it is the supermarkets cheap selling gimmicks anc cheap prices that have murdered the pub industry, as well as sky high prices from the breweries, more than anything else - cue people with regards to the smonking ban, but I will argue the fact that that law has been about for a few years now and cannot be continually to blame for the continual closures of pubs and bars.

My idea would be:-
1. Ban the sale of alcohol in ALL supermarkets - no matter size or style of supermarket.

2. Promote the idea of "Off-Licences" or as they have in Australia - Bottle Shops. Basically a Bottle Shop can be attached to a Supermarket, but still separate (no direct connection between the 2 stores except for ownership)i.e. separate entrance and separate counter, and no direct access from the supermarket. Also limit the opening hours of Off-licences and Bottle Shops to between 11am and 11pm 7 days a week.

3. Basic alcohol unit price should be 1.50/unit and not 0.45/unit in Bottle Shops and Off-licences ONLY.

4. The alcohol unit price should not be used in bars, pubs, restaurants and clubs - instead there should be a 20% reduction in duty and a ceiling cap for the wholesale price from Breweies to the landlords which would be regulated by the rate of inflation each year.

5. If someone wanted to buy to take-away from a bar, or pub, then the price would have to constitue the full duty and the minimum alcohol unit price.

Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

As a side note, I would also allow the sale of tobacco products from the Off-licence/Bottle Shops but not in pubs, bars, restaurant and clubs.

My apologies. Much as I like drinking and smoking, I just don't like paying silly amounts of tax for services that I don't need right now.

bwfc71 wrote:
Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

When pubs were the place to go for a bevvy, they were less like a "family pub" than they are now for the most part. In promoting pubs as drinking places (that's novel in this day and age) I think they'd be less family friendly.

Most burglaries are done by junkies, not smokers or drinkers.

wanderlust wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:
Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

When pubs were the place to go for a bevvy, they were less like a "family pub" than they are now for the most part. In promoting pubs as drinking places (that's novel in this day and age) I think they'd be less family friendly.

To be fair the "family" pubs are normally gastro-pubs and most have a time limit of when there has to be no children - most places is about 9pm.

At least with bars and pubs there are landlords, in general, who will look after their place and will want the place to survive and be profitable and will actually watch his patrons and remove troublemakers.

I know a few landlords like that anyway - such as Farmers Arms, Darcy Lever, The Queens in Bradley Fold, The Sparkling Clog, Bradley Fold, , The Pineapple in Astley Bridge etc


Which loandlord actually wants tpo have his pub/bar with a bad reputation, especially when it comes close to licence renewal!

wanderlust wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:
Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

When pubs were the place to go for a bevvy, they were less like a "family pub" than they are now for the most part. In promoting pubs as drinking places (that's novel in this day and age) I think they'd be less family friendly.

im all for that.

pubs are for men (and women) over the age of 18 to gather, have a few drinks and a good laugh...

bwfc71 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:
Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

When pubs were the place to go for a bevvy, they were less like a "family pub" than they are now for the most part. In promoting pubs as drinking places (that's novel in this day and age) I think they'd be less family friendly.

To be fair the "family" pubs are normally gastro-pubs and most have a time limit of when there has to be no children - most places is about 9pm.

At least with bars and pubs there are landlords, in general, who will look after their place and will want the place to survive and be profitable and will actually watch his patrons and remove troublemakers.

I know a few landlords like that anyway - such as Farmers Arms, Darcy Lever, The Queens in Bradley Fold, The Sparkling Clog, Bradley Fold, , The Pineapple in Astley Bridge etc


Which loandlord actually wants tpo have his pub/bar with a bad reputation, especially when it comes close to licence renewal!

sparking clog - at radcliffe?

I drink in there a lot, its a 'managed' pub - brewers fayre I thnik, so does not have a 'landlord' ...more a manager.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:
Basically this would reduce the number of outlets and would promote the family pub, once again.

When pubs were the place to go for a bevvy, they were less like a "family pub" than they are now for the most part. In promoting pubs as drinking places (that's novel in this day and age) I think they'd be less family friendly.

To be fair the "family" pubs are normally gastro-pubs and most have a time limit of when there has to be no children - most places is about 9pm.

At least with bars and pubs there are landlords, in general, who will look after their place and will want the place to survive and be profitable and will actually watch his patrons and remove troublemakers.

I know a few landlords like that anyway - such as Farmers Arms, Darcy Lever, The Queens in Bradley Fold, The Sparkling Clog, Bradley Fold, , The Pineapple in Astley Bridge etc


Which loandlord actually wants tpo have his pub/bar with a bad reputation, especially when it comes close to licence renewal!

sparking clog - at radcliffe?

I drink in there a lot, its a 'managed' pub - brewers fayre I thnik, so does not have a 'landlord' ...more a manager.

Aye, thats the one - the pub which became The Sparking Plug in an episode of Max & Paddy - Road To Nowhere. Used to go in there quite often about a decade ago!

I just use the term "landlord" as its easier than saying "landlord or manageed-pub manager", plus when it comes to patrons they have the same abilities to chuck out!