PM backing alcohol minimum pricing..

[Trav Le Bleu]

So will we now see minimum prices on multi offerings/cheap promotions of junk food like crisps, chocolate/sweets, large servings of Mcdonalds anything with excessive amounts of salt, fat or sugar in them.

I'll be affected because I usually buy when these special offers are on, I don't make a point of it but if I'm in a supermarket and there's a good deal on and I need some beer then I'll buy it, in fact it's the only way I do buy it.

Part one - no, because though these things are bad for you in bulk, it's more of a slow burner, whereas alcohol can have an instant affect and it doesn't affect 3rd parties in the same way through anti-social behaviour. (No one ever started a fight cos they ate too many Wotsits.)

Part two - same as you Davie, I only buy in bulk when these special offers are on and a pack of 16 cans will last me for about 2 months.

[Captain...]

So will we now see minimum prices on multi offerings/cheap promotions of junk food like crisps, chocolate/sweets, large servings of Mcdonalds anything with excessive amounts of salt, fat or sugar in them.

I'll be affected because I usually buy when these special offers are on, I don't make a point of it but if I'm in a supermarket and there's a good deal on and I need some beer then I'll buy it, in fact it's the only way I do buy it.

What are these special offers? How much do you pay for what size can of what strength alcohol?

Most special offers aren't that special but can work out at around 50p for 330ml of 4% lager which is about 65p on the new scale

[BunkMoreland]

I would rather have the state trying to regulate what we consume than the markets given free reign to push as much food and drink down our throats as possible.

Seriously? You think the state is entitled to make decisions like what kind of food and drink we consume on our behalf? You don't believe in freedom of choice at all? Or is it that you think everybody (except you of course) is just too dumb to make responsible decisions?

Personally I detest the mummy state and find the idea of the state making these decisions absolutely horrendous. I really can't express through the written word how much i disagree with it.

[FoxyPV]

Hope so.

If you want a state healthcare system you can't blame the state for trying to protect it and lower its costs by forcing us to take better care of our bodies.

It would be much better if the govt stepped in and made healthy food much more affordable and gave free cookery classes as at the moment it is cheaper for some families to eat takeaways every night.

Drinking may be a problem but minimum pricing isn't going to change that.

Obesity is a massive problem and one the govt seem quite willing to do fvck about which is actually useful.

[Guest BlueBrett]

It is not just about state control it also about market regulation, I would rather have the state trying to regulate what we consume than the markets given free reign to push as much food and drink down our throats as possible.

Are you and yours so stupid that if you see a big red 'special offer' sign you are physically compelled to buy it consume it and come back for more? You must be the size of a house, constantly pissed and own an incredible amount of shower gel.

[davieG]

Part one - no, because though these things are bad for you in bulk, it's more of a slow burner, whereas alcohol can have an instant affect and it doesn't affect 3rd parties in the same way through anti-social behaviour. (No one ever started a fight cos they ate too many Wotsits.)

Part two - same as you Davie, I only buy in bulk when these special offers are on and a pack of 16 cans will last me for about 2 months.

The prime reason for this is a health one not anti-social behaviour and in that respect it's exactly the same a slow burner in many ways it's worse because you don't get drunk from eating excessively and it can be carried out on a much more casual basis through out the entire day and even night. You don't even have to eat a lot just too much of the wrong kind of food.

[Webbo]

It would be much better if the govt stepped in and made healthy food much more affordable and gave free cookery classes as at the moment it is cheaper for some families to eat takeaways every night.

a) Takeaways are not cheaper than home cooking.

b) You can give away as many cookery classes as you want, you can't force people to go to them.

[davieG]

What are these special offers? How much do you pay for what size can of what strength alcohol?

Most special offers aren't that special but can work out at around 50p for 330ml of 4% lager which is about 65p on the new scale

It's usually two or three cartons of 12 or 15 bottles depending on the nature of the offer and they last me two or three months unless I have someone staying.

I tend to drink bottled lager at home and beer in the pub as I don't especially like bottled beer.

Bottom line I think this will have a minimal affect on those that it's aimed at, young people will still go out and get blotto because it's a cultural thing and I haven't noticed that they're particularly short of money to do and those that are at the other end killing themselves by drinking excessive amounts of cheap booze will continue to do so because in the main they are alcoholics.

[Captain...]

Seriously? You think the state is entitled to make decisions like what kind of food and drink we consume on our behalf? You don't believe in freedom of choice at all? Or is it that you think everybody (except you of course) is just too dumb to make responsible decisions?

Personally I detest the mummy state and find the idea of the state making these decisions absolutely horrendous. I really can't express through the written word how much i disagree with it.

I'm a socialist it's what we believe.

It is not about stupidity it is about market regulation, and not allowing supermarkets to use addictive intoxicants (alcohol is a poison) to make more money.

It is not going to stop the majority of people drinking as much as they want, the majority of people have self control, and drink to moderation, some people don't and it is immoral to let supermarkets and brewers exploit these people for financial gain.

[Captain...]

It would be much better if the govt stepped in and made healthy food much more affordable and gave free cookery classes as at the moment it is cheaper for some families to eat takeaways every night.

Drinking may be a problem but minimum pricing isn't going to change that.

Obesity is a massive problem and one the govt seem quite willing to do fvck about which is actually useful.

Agree but then they get accused of being a mummy state.

[Jon the Hat]

Great to see all the statists weighing in.

[Captain...]

Are you and yours so stupid that if you see a big red 'special offer' sign you are physically compelled to buy it consume it and come back for more? You must be the size of a house, constantly pissed and own an incredible amount of shower gel.

You do make me laugh, I have bunky accusing me of thinking everyone else except me is too stupid to make up their own mind and you accusing me of the opposite, both of you failing to grasp the core of the issue.

This is not going to affect you or me unless you do buy these bulk offers you are accusing me of being too stupid to resist.

I shop smart, I will buy things on offer if I need them, but not if I will waste it or be forced to consume more than I want but I am a sucker for a bargain, as is Davieg.

But some people don't have self control and suffer from addictions, this is aimed at helping them and not us. Or do you think the free market should be able to exploit sick people for financial gain?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Great to see all the statists weighing in.

*goes back to sipping his Dom Pérignon*

[Captain...]

It's usually two or three cartons of 12 or 15 bottles depending on the nature of the offer and they last me two or three months unless I have someone staying.

I tend to drink bottled lager at home and beer in the pub as I don't especially like bottled beer.

Bottom line I think this will have a minimal affect on those that it's aimed at, young people will still go out and get blotto because it's a cultural thing and I haven't noticed that they're particularly short of money to do and those that are at the other end killing themselves by drinking excessive amounts of cheap booze will continue to do so because in the main they are alcoholics.

It is going to affect solely those that make their choices based purely on alcohol per pound, that is students, poor people and addicts, it takes away that option of getting pissed dirt cheap.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It is going to affect solely those that make their choices based purely on alcohol per pound, that is students, poor people and addicts, it takes away that option of getting pissed dirt cheap.

I disagree and plus oned you because I am a div. You won't get offers like 3 for £10 on bottles of wine that might have cost £6-7 individually, which is the only time I buy £6-7 bottles of wine. Won't affect my whisky drinking as I only drink the better varieties, usually single malts, and in fact it might ruin Bells. (I refer to this catspiss as whisky only in the losest sense.)

Wonder if it might see a resurge in homebrewing though? Which won't help A&E.

[Webbo]

Will this lead to untold misery as some seem to be suggesting? Will it stop all problems associated with binge drinking? Probably not.

Will it make a bad situation a little better? Possibly, we won't know unless we try but I think it's worth giving it a go.

[Dr The Singh]

I feel sorry for the poor people who can't afford better quality alcohol and believe me there are a few!! In all theses schemes, the heavily poor lose out.

Most people agree, this will have little effect on binge drinking etc, and the working class, mid and upper would not drink the cheap stuff, so it's the poor that suffers

[Parafox]

But some people don't have self control and suffer from addictions, this is aimed at helping them and not us. Or do you think the free market should be able to exploit sick people for financial gain?

Eh?

How exactly will raising the cost per unit of alcohol "help" addicts? If they're addicts they will go to any lengths to feed their addiction. Hence the strong links between crime and drug use. Making drugs illegal hasn't "helped" the drug addict, just made him a criminal.

This is NOT about helping people, it's purely about reducing the cost of alcohol abuse to the NHS.

[act smiley]

Personally, I'd have just banned any volume-based drinks offers as that would be one of the few things that would actually impact buying behaviour, by itself, without causing irritation to everyone.

Simply increasing the price doesn't necessarily unless there's a cheaper alternative - people who want to drink will still drink so if its just a case of being a bit pricier it won't make a difference. If you go into a shop and see "6x330ml, 4% - £4" or "6x330ml, 5%, £5" then its such a narrow price gap that for most people it will come down to brand preference. Its only when you start getting to absurd levels that it becomes a difference - if that was £4 vs. £8 then you'd start to see heavier sales of brand A.

If they were serious about altering people's habits rather than simply getting more cash out of people who drink at home, they'd be banning special offers.

[Webbo]

This is NOT about helping people, it's purely about reducing the cost of alcohol abuse to the NHS.

Surely you can't do one without the other?

[Parafox]

Surely you can't do one without the other?

There's no direct link to pricing alcohol and getting help to the addicts that need helping.

Reducing costs to the NHS will not have any effect on helping addicts.

Maybe if the extra income were to go direct to alcohol addiction programmes then there would obviously be a beneficial correlation.

[BunkMoreland]

But some people don't have self control and suffer from addictions, this is aimed at helping them and not us. Or do you think the free market should be able to exploit sick people for financial gain?

Following through with that logic then, should we impose food rations on everyone because a few people don't have the necessary self control to avoid becoming obese? We could really help fat people slim down simply by ensuring that absolutely no-one is ever allowed more than four slices of bread, three pieces of fruit and two fish each day.

How far are you willing to restrict the freedoms of the many to protect the few from themselves?

[Captain...]

I disagree and plus oned you because I am a div. You won't get offers like 3 for £10 on bottles of wine that might have cost £6-7 individually, which is the only time I buy £6-7 bottles of wine. Won't affect my whisky drinking as I only drink the better varieties, usually single malts, and in fact it might ruin Bells. (I refer to this catspiss as whisky only in the losest sense.)

Wonder if it might see a resurge in homebrewing though? Which won't help A&E.

So you are another one of these morons Blue Brett was referring to, too stupid to resist offers, welcome to the club Trav, so far it's you me and DavieG stupid enough to buy products cheaper..

But fear not, maybe this will have another effect, the £7-£8 bottles of wine, may become £5-£6 bottles of wine, without being able to make such offers they will only be able to maintain the same level of sales by reducing the price to be more competitive.

And seeing the end of Bells, Cutty Sark, Napoleon rum, and all the other cheap disgusting crap that is only sold to alkies and students may not be a bad thing.

[Captain...]

There's no direct link to pricing alcohol and getting help to the addicts that need helping.

Reducing costs to the NHS will not have any effect on helping addicts.

Maybe if the extra income were to go direct to alcohol addiction programmes then there would obviously be a beneficial correlation.

Most alcohol addicts will spend everything they can on alcohol, and will buy the cheapest shittiest strongest drink they can afford. Reduce the amount they can buy you reduce the amount they can drink.

There is the danger that it will cause more crime, but I think the alcoholic binge drinkers don't need to drink x amount of units, they start drinking to numb the pain, and end up drinking everything they have in the house, reduce the amount they have in the house (or reduce the strength of it if not the volume in ml) you reduce the amount they can drink when they are binging.

It is the same with bulk offers, you encourage people who do like to binge drink to buy 8 cans when maybe they only want 4 when they are sober in the shop, they end up drinking 8 when they otherwise wouldn't do.

[Captain...]

Personally, I'd have just banned any volume-based drinks offers as that would be one of the few things that would actually impact buying behaviour, by itself, without causing irritation to everyone.

Simply increasing the price doesn't necessarily unless there's a cheaper alternative - people who want to drink will still drink so if its just a case of being a bit pricier it won't make a difference. If you go into a shop and see "6x330ml, 4% - £4" or "6x330ml, 5%, £5" then its such a narrow price gap that for most people it will come down to brand preference. Its only when you start getting to absurd levels that it becomes a difference - if that was £4 vs. £8 then you'd start to see heavier sales of brand A.

If they were serious about altering people's habits rather than simply getting more cash out of people who drink at home, they'd be banning special offers.

That is effectively what they want to do, along with removing really cheap really strong shit that tastes of crap. Basically they want to stop supermarkets and brewers using the price of alcohol as a marketing tool.