I think the 50p proposal has some legs. It just needs an extra coefficient in the formula. We’ll call it the Stoner Pikey Number.

Instead of :

Min Price = £0.05 x Alchol/ml

it should be

Min Price = £0.05 x Alchol/ml x Pikey Number

where Pikey number is a figure between 0 and 2 allocated to each drink according to it’s social classification. So…

Buckie = 2
Stella = 1.75
Fosters = 1
Banrock Station Middle-class approximation of red wine = 0.75
Advocaat = 0

At the very least it would provide hours of entertainment watching winos trying to get blasted on pints of cheap Advocaat and Snowballs 🙂

Unless supermarkets buy into this idea you won’t stop the binge drinking culture. As they’ll carry on with the loss-leading exercise it’s a waste of time

Not so.
The proposal is that its a retail price law not a wholesale cost/duty tarrif adjustment. The obligation will be to NOT sell at a price below the threshold. It would be illegal for supermarkets to discount below it.

Unless supermarkets buy into this idea you won’t stop the binge drinking culture. As they’ll carry on with the loss-leading exercise it’s a waste of time.

Well, I dont see hordes of young folk stocking up on booze at the supermarket, but if I walk past a corner shop circa 8pm on a Saturday evening there’s usually a lot hanging about asking if you’ll buy their “carry out” for them.

In fact I think whenever someone comes up with a proposal like this they should be obliged to calculate the cost to the community as well as the perceived benefits.

Presumably, the extra I have to pay for my responsible drinking* would be less than the tax burden upon me which is used to pay to treat the irresponsible drinkers?

* Just as everyone is a better than average driver, everybody drinks responsibly.

Might see a rise in the cross-channel booze cruises again.

Might see a rise in the cross-channel booze cruises again.

dont forget to tell the government when you’ll be back…

Well, I dont see hordes of young folk stocking up on booze at the supermarket, but if I walk past a corner shop circa 8pm on a Saturday evening there’s usually a lot hanging about asking if you’ll buy their “carry out” for them.

They’re underage drinkers; there are already measures in place which are supposed to deal with those.

Young drinkers do get loaded up on cheap supermarket booze before a night out, or during a night in.

Presumably, the extra I have to pay for my responsible drinking* would be less than the tax burden upon me which is used to pay to treat the irresponsible drinkers?

I think you might be presuming too much 🙂 We dont know what the number is because they haven’t calculated it Im betting.

Min Price = £0.05 x Alchol/ml x Pikey Number

A deliberately regressive tax – I like it 😀

(yes I know it’s not a tax before anybody gets pedantic with me).

…..dont forget to tell the government when you’ll be back……

But I thought we are free to travel throughout the happy Euroland now days?

More importantly, would the Laphroig Quarter Cask I was responsibly drinking last night and the night before have cost more than £21?

More importantly, would the Laphroig Quarter Cask I was responsibly drinking last night and the night before have cost more than £21?

only if the 75cl bottle was more than 56% ABV 🙂

My solution is:

Tax town centre warehouse pubs selling cheap drinks.

Fine people admitted to hospital when drunk. If they can’t pay, 48 hrs drying out in the slammer.

Fine or imprison adults that buy/sell alchohol to minors.

Tackle social attitudes to alchohol consumption and outlaw any promotion of binge drinking culture.

The education of this minority is the key!

How many politicians use a pub on a regular basis? No pub that I have been sell cheap drinks except the warehouse pubs in town centres. I don’t drink a lot these days because it’s an expensive habit. I drink very little at home because, for me, drinking is a social passtime.

I am not convinced setting a minimum price will make any difference to the idiots that feel the need to drink themselves into oblivion. Most of us have tried it once and that should be sufficient warning as to what you are doing to your body.

I don’t see why heavy drinkers shouldn’t pay for the uneccessary burden they present to the Police, the NHS and the rest of society.

I think that some excessive drinkers have mental health issues and should get support, but they should pay for this. Of course many wouldn’t be able to pay.

It’s time we made people aware of the cost they needlessly present to society.

Why should all those who toe the line have to cough up for these idiots?

Isn’t there a risk of a Prohibition style black market like in that Simpsons episode?

As a yoof:

We bought alcohol at the friendly local corner shop who didnt ask for ID. When they got shut down we lost our source and gave up. Other people got their parents to buy it from the shop or on the way home at teh supermarket. If we didnt get enough cash in pocket money we saved lunch money or saved paper-round cash.
50p/unit would in no way affect drinking habits of youths, as they will and do find the cash even if it means starving during the week. The only way this is reduced is if supply is cut off completely – which you cant do.

As an adult:

Alcoholics will buy drink at any cost. Increasing the cost will increase the damage to the family of the alcoholic. Non alcoholics will find increased cost when all they wanted was a bottle of wine to share between two over a meal, at a time when most people are having to cut back on luxuries already due to financial concerns.

Smashing idea, must have taken some real brainboxes to figure this one out.

As an additional observation, obviously such a law would require the policing of the retailer, not the consumer. So you can count on any new law being enforced and offences punished as rigorously as the legal age of buying alchol laws are….

…which means the middle classes who buy from JSainsburys will pay through the nose with that perfect balance of resentment and grudging obeyance that only the middle classes can do, while others continue to but cheap synthetic vodka from the corner shop on the estates….

Alcoholics will buy drink at any cost.

Indeed. One of the problems in hospitals is that chronic alcoholics keep drinking the alcohol-based hand gels.
Such people are unlikely to be put off by paying an extra quid.

How about a wee drop of four star?

But the alcohol hand gel smells so nice….

hic

sootyandjim – Member

I am in good health, some might say better than average.

Better than the average Alkie? 😉

Step 3 – Remove off licences from known problem areas/ estates. Takeaway alcohol licenses from corner shops.

So, this becomes a socio-economically prejudicial policy, then? What about affluent, middle and upper class alcoholics/binge drinkers, then? Bunch of pissed up Ex-Public School Rugger Buggers? Wealthy businessman who drives home pissed? Westminster Council spends a fortune mopping up the effects of excessive drinking. And there’s not many ‘Doley Chavs’ can afford to drink in the West End, I’d reckon.

And as for closing down the offies, well, I live on a ‘problem estate’, and I like to exercise my right to buy alcohol. I’m a reasonably ‘responsible’ drinker. Why should some politician or whoever deprive me of that right? Or the right of the small businesses, to try and earn a living? So only the big supermarkets would have the right to earn from alcohol sales?

Sorry, maybe a good idea to you, in theory, but you’d be proposing measures that penalise the majority of law-abiding, responsible citizens, with such a suggestion. Rubbish idea.

As pointed out above; upping the price won’t wipe out binge-drinking or anti-social behaviour, as those who want to, will get hold of booze.

As for alcoholism; maybe if our wonderful government invested more in Mental Health Care, then there might not be so many Alkies about.

Crap proposals that would have bugger all significant positive effect. Even Gordon don’t seem too keen on the idea….

So, this becomes a socio-economically prejudicial policy, then?

Yes it does. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf

Adults who were classified as unemployed had far higher rates of alcohol-related assault than
those who were in employment/self-employed or economically inactive (Table A3.2). Among the
unemployed, the incident rate of stranger assault was 353 in 1999, while the rate of acquaintance
assault was 349. The respective figures for those in employment were 135 and 94. This pattern
held for both men and women.

Sorry, maybe a good idea to you, in theory, but you’d be proposing measures that penalise the majority of law-abiding, responsible citizens, with such a suggestion. Rubbish idea.

As is the case with a lot of things, the actions of the few spoil it for the rest of us.

And I’m sorry, but drunk “rugger buggers” and wealthy businessmen drink driving are the least of the problems caused by alcohol. Watch any of these fly on the wall police documentaries and it’s Ben Sherman wearing “chavs” causing 99.9% of the alcohol fueled trouble in city centres.

I (used to) drink rather too much. The amount that booze cost was never really an issue, because I am loaded.

Sat in the disabled loo at work looking at a wodge of switch receipts for £100 worth of Merlot from the previous evening’s winebar session was not a pleasant experience particularly, but I have the financial capacity to drink vastly more than is good for me without flinching. 🙂

only if the 75cl bottle was more than 56% ABV

It’s a 70cl bottle, and 48%. Must be close!

Of course, if the drain cleaner brinks are made more expensive, the price of the alcoholic piss will be increased to differentiate it, which will have an upward effect on all prices.

The amount that booze cost was never really an issue, because I am loaded.

If you’re loaded, it’s socially responsible to drink.

Cost isn’t going to solve the problem. Alcoholics will do so at whatever cost – it just means they’ll spend less money on more important things. Like perhaps food for their family.

12 year olds drinking in the park never seem to be at a loss for cash either – they’ll either just buy 1 less tracksuit or maybe even smoke less.

But who’s going to win?

Drug dealers. Drugs are already cheaper than alcohol and if the cost of drinking goes up even more many will be swapping a round of drinks for a bag of pills.