PM backing alcohol minimum pricing..

[Rincewind]

Still waiting for this to be put in the Leicester Drinker. They have been promising for the past three issues.

http://www.citizenseye.org/2011/08/25/community-pubs-and-their-role-in-society/.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Where has it been stated that this "will" happen? As far as I know, it's just got the PM's backing. Plenty of PMs have wanted policies to go through that haven't, and that's in majority governments too.

To be fair, the really cheap alcohol tastes rank and the sensible drinker avoids it like the plague. An across the board "solution" is not the solution. I think kids drinking cider is less to do with it being cheap and more to do with it being sweet. The original alcopop.

I can see home-brew kits making a comeback if this goes through - then you'll see some seriously drunk people!

[Finnegan]

Where has it been stated that this "will" happen? As far as I know, it's just got the PM's backing. Plenty of PMs have wanted policies to go through that haven't, and that's in majority governments too.

To be fair, the really cheap alcohol tastes rank and the sensible drinker avoids it like the plague. An across the board "solution" is not the solution. I think kids drinking cider is less to do with it being cheap and more to do with it being sweet. The original alcopop.

I can see home-brew kits making a comeback if this goes through - then you'll see some seriously drunk people!

Sweet? Alcopop? Have you ever had strong white cider!? Like drinking paint stripper.

[I am Rod Hull]

Sweet? Alcopop? Have you ever had strong white cider!? Like drinking paint stripper.

They`ll be hiking the tax on that too.. :xmasunsure:

[Daggers]

Erm - Bankers, anyone?

The only cvnts causing the deficit who aren't being taxed to the bollocks?

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[Rincewind]

According to the CAMRA paper this has already happened in Scotland. It seems the residents in Beaumont Leys have been splashing out on the cheap booze if taken from what I found on my rounds today litter picking. Every grass verge had empty cans of Heinikin, miniature bottles of gin, rum bacadi etc. Beautiful mowed greens in front of flats had the remains of late night socializing and partying. They must have had a good time because they were unable to walk the 10 yards to put the empty bottles/cans in a bin.

Still their uncouthness keeps me in a job.

[davieG]

Ministers are proposing a minimum price of 45p a unit for the sale of alcohol in England and Wales as part of a drive to tackle problem drinking.

The Home Office has launched a 10-week consultation on the plan, arguing it will help reduce the levels of ill-health and crime related to alcohol.

It is also considering banning multi-buy promotions, such as two-for-the-price-of-one.

The 45p proposal is 5p higher than the figure suggested by ministers in March.

It comes after pressure has been mounting on the government to follow Scotland's lead, where 50p has been proposed.

The aim of a minimum price would be to alter the cost of heavily-discounted drinks sold in shops and supermarkets. It is not expected to affect the price of drinks in many pubs.

The Home Office said the consultation was targeted at "harmful drinkers and irresponsible shops".

A spokesman added: "Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear from our proposals."

The 45p minimum would mean a can of strong lager could not be sold for less than £1.56 and a bottle of wine below £4.22.

Research carried out by Sheffield University for the government shows 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.

The number of crimes would drop by 24,000 a year as well, researchers suggested.

There has been evidence of some outlets selling alcohol at a loss to encourage customers through the doors, with cans of lager going for 20p and two-litre bottles of cider available for under £2.

'Pre-loading'

Ministers have been particularly critical of such practices, blaming them for what has been dubbed "pre-loading", where people binge-drink before going out.

They have linked this phenomenon to the rising levels of alcohol-related violence and hospital admissions, of which there are more than a million a year.

But the idea of introducing a minimum price - first proposed at 40p in the government's alcohol strategy published in March - has been met with opposition by the industry.

The Scottish government plan, which is not due to start until April 2013, was challenged on legal grounds by the Scotch Whisky Association and the European Spirits Organisation.

They claimed it was up to Westminster, rather than Holyrood, to decide such an issue and they said it was also incompatible with the EU's "general principles of free trade and undistorted competition".

The legal challenges were heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh last month and a judgement is expected before the end of the year.

Separately the European Commission is looking into the legality of the Scottish government's actions.

In Northern Ireland, consideration is also being given to minimum pricing, although no final decision has been taken yet.

Andrew Opie, of the British Retail Consortium, said: "Most major retailers believe minimum pricing and controls on promotions are unfair to most customers. They simply penalise the vast majority, who are perfectly responsible drinkers, while doing nothing to reduce irresponsible drinking.

"The government should recognise the role of personal responsibility. It should not allow interfering in the market to regulate prices and promotions to become the default approach for public health policy."

Miles Beale, chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, agreed, saying there was "no evidence" minimum alcohol pricing would be effective in tackling alcohol misuse.

But health campaigners believe a minimum price is an important step in tackling problem drinking.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, from the British Medical Association, said the changes in pricing could help to stop young people binge drinking.

She told the BBC: "Alcohol is a dose-related poison, in other words the more you drink the more harm it causes, so by reducing the amount they are drinking over the safe limit you are helping to save them.

"It isn't a small minority of the population who are drinking excessively, it's nearly a quarter. That's a huge number of people who are drinking at levels that are hazardous to their health and we really have to throw everything we can (at it) to save lives."

Eric Appleby, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "We're paying a heavy price for alcohol misuse and setting a minimum unit price will help us on the road to changing this.

"But we cannot cut the misery caused by excessive drinking, whether it's crime or hospitalisation, through price alone.

"We need tighter controls around licensing, giving local authorities and police forces all the tools they need to get a firm grip on the way alcohol is being sold in their area. We have an opportunity to make an enormous difference to the lives of thousands of people - we must seize it."

[absolutelegend]

Seems sensible to me if it targets the cheap strong stuff that the majority of 'problem drinkers' would target.

I can't see this impacting the 'regular drinker' much at all, so I don't buy this "why are we punished for the actions of a few" arguement.

It would impact the sort of rubbish I used to drink down the park when I was underage, but not the stuff I drink nowadays.

[James.]

Really not sure about this. Will people really stop spending as much or will they now actually spend a greater percentage of their income on booze? It's actually quite regressive in its impact.

[Haydos]

Really not sure about this. Will people really stop spending as much or will they now actually spend a greater percentage of their income on booze? It's actually quite regressive in its impact.

Agreed, it's not going to stop a large amount of people from drinking, merely spending more on alcohol. Not entirely sure this is about 'cutting binge drinking', more likely it seems that it's to increase government income.

[James.]

Agreed, it's not going to stop a large amount of people from drinking, merely spending more on alcohol. Not entirely sure this is about 'cutting binge drinking', more likely it seems that it's to increase government income.

... income that will primarily come from the poor.

[definitely not finners]

The convenience of super strength lagers and ciders makes them a massively addictive problem for homeless drinkers and most homeless action groups claim they kill far more than illegal substances like heroin.

As I said earlier, the Big Issue has run a few articles from homeless activists and homeless writers encouraging a higher minimum cost of super strength alcohol.

I do accept the argument that low income earners with dependants or overheads may suffer but a huge volume of problem drinkers have limited income and, living rough or in shelters, little to spend it on other than alcohol. You cut out that option and you start to curb the problem.

I suppose you then escalate the risk of crimes of desperation from those already hooked but I assume the logic is that if super ciders cost a bit more than a quid to buy then we'll create less addicts to begin with.

[Jon the Hat]

Good comments are ever from Vojinners there. I am torn on this. I dont agree with telling people how to live their lives, but on the other hand it is clear that binge drinking is a huge problem to society and a huge cost to the NHS. I can see that if you have drinks you are more likely to drink it, and if there are 2 for £15 etc offers you are more likely to buy in bulk. Generally I recall the days when you bought a 4 pack of beers because there wasn't an offer convincing you to buy more, you drank your four beers, and a trip to the offy was required to get more. That barrier probably stopped a lot of booze being drunk, and the walk to the offy had a big of a sobering effect.

[ADK]

How do the homeless get money for alcohol anyway? If it's welfare then why not issue them with food stamps instead?

[Reynard Bleu]

I just don't see this really making that much difference. The people who buy cheap booze just to get blasted will stil buy slightly more expnsive booze and still get blasted? Its the blasted bit they care about, the money is secondary, they will find it from somewhere, something else will suffer to make upthe difference.

I may be wrong, and perhaps it may change the buyin habist of a few, but you don't see much reason in the eyes of a drunk.

[Reynard Bleu]

I just don't see this really making that much difference. The people who buy cheap booze just to get blasted will stil buy slightly more expnsive booze and still get blasted? Its the blasted bit they care about, the money is secondary, they will find it from somewhere, something else will suffer to make upthe difference.

I may be wrong, and perhaps it may change the buyin habist of a few, but you don't see much reason in the eyes of a drunk.

I wud like to apolojise for may apawlling spellling in thispost. I have forgotten my glasses today.

[ADK]

I am also torn on the issue. Binge drinking certainly is a problem but i don't think this would stop it. It's a cultural issue. I thought we already had minimum pricing in the form of alcohol duty.

I have concerns though:

a) There's an assumption that problem drinkers are poor and that they drink cheap alcohol yet the people i know who i think drink too much have decent jobs.

b) If the government says this will raise £750 million a year then that dosn't add up with them claiming it will reduce drinks consumption.

I would much rather see a ban on alcohol advertising as a first step.

[davieG]

I wud like to apolojise for may apawlling spellling in thispost. I have forgotten my glasses today.

Don't worry I've found them.

[James.]

The convenience of super strength lagers and ciders makes them a massively addictive problem for homeless drinkers and most homeless action groups claim they kill far more than illegal substances like heroin.

As I said earlier, the Big Issue has run a few articles from homeless activists and homeless writers encouraging a higher minimum cost of super strength alcohol.

I do accept the argument that low income earners with dependants or overheads may suffer but a huge volume of problem drinkers have limited income and, living rough or in shelters, little to spend it on other than alcohol. You cut out that option and you start to curb the problem.

I suppose you then escalate the risk of crimes of desperation from those already hooked but I assume the logic is that if super ciders cost a bit more than a quid to buy then we'll create less addicts to begin with.

In the same way that I wouldn't argue with drugs charities that back decriminalisation of drugs I'm loathe to disagree with homeless charities who support this policy. They know far more about this than I do. I'm just not convinced that it will make any difference. I don't think raising the price does "cut out that option", I just think it makes it a slightly more expensive option that people with drink problems will, by hell or high water, simply adapt to and in the process have less money for food, shelter, etc. To really cut it out surely the minimum price would have to be set far higher, but that'd obviously be ridiculous.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Agree with James. Really don't see how adding a few extra pence to the unit price is going to deter a homeless person from drinking. They'll just have to beg a bit longer before they can afford to.

Also don't agree with the the bulk of the reporting which states that late night city centre problems are largely due to super strength lagers and cheap cider. I don't know many people who drink special brew on a night out or who nip out of the bar or club they are in to pop into the offy and refuel.

The timing seems a bit strange too with the drinks industry reporting declining sales over the last couple of years

[Jon the Hat]

Agree with James. Really don't see how adding a few extra pence to the unit price is going to deter a homeless person from drinking. They'll just have to beg a bit longer before they can afford to.

Also don't agree with the the bulk of the reporting which states that late night city centre problems are largely due to super strength lagers and cheap cider. I don't know many people who drink special brew on a night out or who nip out of the bar or club they are in to pop into the offy and refuel.

The timing seems a bit strange too with the drinks industry reporting declining sales over the last couple of years

They are also talking about the fact that this stops the loss leading promotions which make a beer about 40p a can. If that beer is 2+ units you are doubling the price. 2 for £30 doesn't sounds quite so appealing does it? Changing the habit from "I'l buy a mountain of beer becuase its on offer" to "I'll get a few beers for tonight" might make a big difference. We dont know, but it might.

[absolutelegend]

This is a great idea in terms of tackling under age drinking.

Ask any under age drinker; they'll go for as cheap / strong as they can get. If they don't have the money, most will simply not drink as much.

[davieG]

Well I tend to buy the offers and they last me a good 2 to 3 months with the occasional beer with my evening meal i guess I'll have to settle for Adam's Ale.

[BunkMoreland]

Another mummy state policy.

[ADK]

I don't get the under age drinker bit, surely if you are under age you cannot buy alcohol?

Either somewhere is selling you alcohol illegally or someone is buying it for you.