13 replies to this topic

[Ash]

So the Government of the UK wants to hammer those who like the occasional drink even more, by planning a minimum price per unit.

The effort to "turn the tide" against so-called 'binge drinking' will not work for a number of reasons. Firstly, those who go out to drink to get drunk will continue to do so. The fact that it'll cost them more won't stop them - they'll continue to do it and the Government will just cream off the rewards.

As a serving frontline Police Constable, I can say this about the so-called binge drinking problem:

1) It isn't as bad as everyone makes out. Yes, a number of the jobs we go to tend to involve drink in some capacity, they tend not to be the result of binge drinking. OK sure on a Friday and Saturday night you might get a few D&D lockups as a result of overindulgence but the vast proportion of drinkers, even those who overindulge, cause absolutely no problems whatsoever. The problem is the aggravated, angry drunk who spoils it for the rest. 1 in 100 or perhaps even less than that. Even those who drink to get drunk mostly just get drunk then go home in a peacable manner. While I wouldn't wish to be in their heads the next day nor nurse their hangover, they cause society no harm, foul or ill. Those that do get an 80 quid ticket or a court day, though I think they should also be charged 100 quid a night for bed and breakfast in a police cell on top of that. Actually I think all criminals who stay the night should be billed in that capacity. I've worked plenty of nights where the most troublesome people of the evening have done nothing more than shake my hand and those of my colleagues, and say "Bless you lads, you do a hard job and have fuck all to show for it. 'Nuff respect and good on you.". On the other end of the scale, some drunken, m-katted wanker has taken six of us to bring him down. But the former is more regular than the latter by far.

2) This so-called effort to tackle binge drinking won't work at all. People will still go wherever it's cheapest (or will continue to pre-drink as it makes the night cheaper if you have a few in the house before you head out), and people will still pay it if they're so inclined. All the Government is doing here is making it more expensive and pricing the sensible-headed people out of the market. Meaning that the nighttime economy will dry up, and that'll hurt the Government's coffers more than the police time taken up with locking up drunkards ever could.

3) The only real losers here are the decent folk. The vast majority of drinkers or pubgoers just want a few quiet drinks before going home in a relatively coherent condition and to go to bed. Let me profile your average drinker of the decent folk: They've had a week of hard work, and want to signify that they're on their day(s) off with a nice cold glass/can of 'you've earned it, mate'. And that's exactly how I personally perceive alcohol. It's part and parcel of my weekly ritual to tell me that I'm not at work tomorrow. And if I choose to have a few ales to unwind of an evening after a tough slog at work, I don't see how that's a bad thing, whether I do it at home or at the pub. The Government count binge drinkers as those who drink more than eight units in one sitting. I do that most times I drink! Do I cause anyone problems? No. Do I feel drunk as a result? No. I have a few cans, or a few bottles of ale or a few pints at the pub and then I go home happy and content (or stay home, happy and content) and then I go to bed. No concerns for my welfare, no police to my door. Please tell me, Mrs May, why this is so wrong. Why is the Government seeking to deny decent folk even a few hours of escapism from how bad life is at the moment? In the name of all that's good why is it right to hammer people for wanting their miserable existences to seem that little bit less miserable?

Our government needs to look at the examples of Sweden, France, Germany et al, where alcohol is an equally big part of culture, but drinking isn't the same problem. Assuming it even actually is a problem, and the Government isn't just scapegoating...

[Pasidon]

I don't drink and even I find this stoopid. Might as well be the prohibition starting all over again.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

It's easy taxing and they can claim to be helping society.
We had a Alcopops tax pass here a while ago.
All that happened was the young set would either go for something even cheaper like cheap wine or just buy more bottles and mix it at home.
As you said they usually just predrink.
I used to work in a Bottleshop it doesn't stop them drinking it just means there's less money for other stuff and in the cases of a lot of the drunks we had come through that meant their children.
If they were to tax or fee why wouldn't they go after places where they actually binge drink like night clubs or maybe go by quantity of alcohol.
The unfortunate thing is the average citizenry have very little choice when it comes to taxing.
No matter how unpopular a tax will always pass.

[duke_Qa]

Not a drinker myself, so I don't really care either way. But I do envy the Brits for their local-pub culture, which is something that is very hard to get with higher costs on alcohol.

Or the culture keeps it afloat in spite of that. Might be the lack of living-space at home that makes people go to their local pubs, I don't know.

...you might get a few D&D lockups...

Have to hide my d20s when I drive home after gaming nights from now on.

People will still go wherever it's cheapest (or will continue to pre-drink as it makes the night cheaper if you have a few in the house before you head out)

Yeah, more vorspiels and drinking at home, cooking your own moonshine and less-than-legal imports from central Europe. Just be careful about who you as a police-officer tell about your merchant hobbies

Why is the Government seeking to deny decent folk even a few hours of escapism from how bad life is at the moment? In the name of all that's good why is it right to hammer people for wanting their miserable existences to seem that little bit less miserable?

Either because the healthcare cost related to alcohol are increasing / the religious have found a way back into the halls of power again / the half-blind idiot-politicians are trying to make people more miserable to get them out in the streets for revolt.

A question: I see those minimum prices are about half the cost (beer is at least 3x as expensive though) as our alcohol prices. Then again minimum tariff on educated work is around £15/h, so I'm wondering what the average brit makes per hour and how much he has to pay for , for example, a bottle of vodka?

[Ash]

Not a drinker myself, so I don't really care either way. But I do envy the Brits for their local-pub culture, which is something that is very hard to get with higher costs on alcohol.

Or the culture keeps it afloat in spite of that. Might be the lack of living-space at home that makes people go to their local pubs, I don't know.

It is dying out. Specifically due to it being cheaper to drink at home and the pubs getting priced out of the market.

...you might get a few D&D lockups...

Have to hide my d20s when I drive home after gaming nights from now on.

LOL.

Why is the Government seeking to deny decent folk even a few hours of escapism from how bad life is at the moment? In the name of all that's good why is it right to hammer people for wanting their miserable existences to seem that little bit less miserable?

Either because the healthcare cost related to alcohol are increasing / the religious have found a way back into the halls of power again / the half-blind idiot-politicians are trying to make people more miserable to get them out in the streets for revolt.

Not generally a higher cost associated. Most people drink responsibly, or else we'd have riots every friday and saturday night.

A question: I see those minimum prices are about half the cost (beer is at least 3x as expensive though) as our alcohol prices. Then again minimum tariff on educated work is around £15/h, so I'm wondering what the average brit makes per hour and how much he has to pay for , for example, a bottle of vodka?

I don't care what the stats say, the average Brit doesn't make £15 per hour. And a 75cl bottle of vodkawould be about £15-20 quid depending on brand.

[Beowulf]

Oh here we go again. Why should the government continually legislate behavior? This is just Big Brother Government trying to restrict behavior with taxes and other associated penalties. This shit does not, has not and will not work. All you do is force people to pay more for what they want, drain their pocketbooks faster and return to the same sorry shape you were in before the fucking tax or law went into effect. They need to get off my back and let me live my life in the best manner I see fit so long as I'm not bringing harm to anyone else that is of course.

@ duke: Fucking lol man. Those D20s are murder, dude. But those D100s... they'll throw the book at you for that one.

[Ash]

They have even got rid of the facade that they're doing it for our health now, Fen. Now they just hike it without even that pretense. They just hike it because fuck the people and because the people are easier and more convenient targets than banks.

[Hostile]

Another case of government control in the guise of betterment for society. The western nations are turning into nanny states before our very eyes and the people are doing nothing about it. What ever happened to revolution in place of complacency?

[duke_Qa]

I prefer a nanny state that goes after the elites than a nanny-state that just goes after the grassroots myself. But it seems that the rich and powerful have ways to ninja out of such obligations.

They have even got rid of the facade that they're doing it for our health now, Fen. Now they just hike it without even that pretense. They just hike it because fuck the people and because the people are easier and more convenient targets than banks.

For now at least. I'd love to see someone come up with "pay as much as the average person does for this item" laws. i think they got it on speeding tickets, so the next step would be putting it on everything else. Need gasoline? Pay 4-7% of your income per year for it, because that's the chunk it takes out of an average guy's yearly pay. billionaires filling up for a few hundred grand every time they need gas on one of their monster-cars sounds fine by me

[Phil]

And where is the incentive to work hard and be successful? Why should I go through years of education and take on a difficult, stressful job with lots of responsibilities if I don't have more left than the average guy in the end? Even worse, why should I aspire to start up a business of my own with all the inherent risk if I already know I'm not rewarded for it financially?

That's the problem with all those left-wing economic policies. They sound fine and dandy in a utopian kind of way and then you realise you don't have any wealth left to (re)distribute.

[duke_Qa]

I don't think either the system would work if rich people had to spend all their cash in the same way normal people do. Most likely because normal people have just enough meat to cover the bone. There are shades of grey out there though, I don't believe in dualities because they are, simple. done in moderation it would work just fine.

Back in the 50s most wealthy persons in the US and the UK payed 50-90% taxes of their income, and they didn't complain about it back then. They worked hard, but following your logic, they should have refused doing shit because they weren't paid well for it.

The ideology we've followed the last 40 years is breathing its dying breaths. I think people prefer stability and high taxes in favor of low taxes and FU support.

Edited by duke_Qa, 03 April 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[Tom]

I prefer a nanny state that goes after the elites than a nanny-state that just goes after the grassroots myself. But it seems that the rich and powerful have ways to ninja out of such obligations.

States do not go after elites when the elites control the state. America and the UK prove that. The only thing that can change this is grassroots. States rarely go after elites anyway without mass outcry. I agree with hostile here - unfortunately complacency seems to be the new norm.

Back in the 50s most wealthy persons in the US and the UK payed 50-90% taxes of their income, and they didn't complain about it back then. They worked hard, but following your logic, they should have refused doing shit because they weren't paid well for it.

This isn't entirely true - there has never been a true tax rate that high. There were many loopholes and no one ever really paid it. The loopholes were the government encouraging the rich to go into industries they deemed useful for national interests - e.g. oil.

Liberals often refer to this 90% tax rate to support this idea that we need to tax the rich more - but the reality was they never actually paid it.

http://almostclassic...-rate-myth.html

Merged post:
The real complaint we have today is the gap between the rich and the poor - if we want to fix that we need to look at the banking system, corporatism and the fiat money scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm7Z3sOqE84

Audit the central banks properly and find out who they are bailing out. The banking system is largely the cause of this gap - not capitalism like Liberals will happily claim. I would also argue that the corporatism that we see today is not capitalism as it is intended to be. In Capitalism the Government is not supposed to give favours or pass legislation to specific industries or companies. Lobbyist also cause this issue and this corporate domination of government.

http://www.dailykos....-Thanks-Bernie-
http://www.forbes.co...under-reported/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78
Another US politician I like a lot: Dennis Kucinch talking about the fed

[Tom]

And in regards to the actual topic: I agree with Ash. This is pathetic although to be expected. They've spoken about doing this for years and thus is pretty standard for the UK government. In my opinion, the government needs to butt out of everyones lives, give us our civil liberties back and let adults make adult decisions. Too much regulation, not enough freedom.

Ironically, governments rarely just give civil liberties back - people often have to fight for them. How many people are going to fight against this? Just alcoholics?

[duke_Qa]

This isn't entirely true - there has never been a true tax rate that high. There were many loopholes and no one ever really paid it. The loopholes were the government encouraging the rich to go into industries they deemed useful for national interests - e.g. oil.

Liberals often refer to this 90% tax rate to support this idea that we need to tax the rich more - but the reality was they never actually paid it.

Sometimes I wonder why they don't just kill off all of these old loopholes and papers and start fresh.

For me, taxes is something that should be avoidable if you are actually spending that money on jobs and "working capital". But once you take out "benefits" and get parachutes and earn money by speculating and earn money by buying out competitors and outsourcing jobs... destructive acts of greed at the cost of the local economic infrastructure, you should get taxed to hell and back. If you are cannibalizing your nation to increase your personal wealth you are fair game. That is not how it is today, but I hope we will move in that direction.

Ironically, governments rarely just give civil liberties back - people often have to fight for them. How many people are going to fight against this? Just alcoholics?

I don't know if I'd join a revolutionary gang of alcoholics. The logistics would be troublesome, the shooting would be terrible(morale might be above average though), and the drama would be palpable. So I think your government has chosen its enemies wisely
Unless: Casuals.