Minimum Unit Price

[sheffield hatter]

I think you are on the wrong forum sheffield hatter,

This site is pro beer and pubs,and to say that we are all ill informed is wrong, we are not that thick that we dont know the slight risks of drinking beer but this is something that most people on this site do and enjoy doing.

I think if you read my post carefully you will find that I said that the use of the phrase "health fascists" suggests that some of the contributors to this thread are not really making much of an informed choice about their own consumption. I certainly did not say that everyone on Pubs Galore is ill informed - that would indeed have been wrong.

I am as pro-beer and pro-pubs as anyone you could find on this site. I think my track record speaks for itself.

[Millay]

I think if you read my post carefully you will find that I said that the use of the phrase "health fascists" suggests that some of the contributors to this thread are not really making much of an informed choice about their own consumption. I certainly did not say that everyone on Pubs Galore is ill informed - that would indeed have been wrong.

Agreed. We dont have many of these types of debate on the forums and it would be nice if people thought they could offer a contrary opinion without being vilified for it.

[Quinno]

My point is that alcohol, nicotine and sugar are addictive.

So was Championship Manager, back in the day.

NURSE!

[Rex_Rattus]

What is your opinion of this?

I see it as yet another government interference in the things that people enjoy doing.

I reckon that this is a matter of perspective. You (and I guess some other contributors) might regard the introduction of minimum pricing as "Government interference", but someone else could reasonably argue that the Government are doing their job in trying to tackle a social problem. The link with smoking is valid. When people are doing something that they enjoy doing - smoking where passive smoking is forced on others - that causes discomfort and misery to others then the Government has every right to do something about it. I know all the conflicting arguments, including those in favour of smoking - loss of tax revenue, effect on pub viability, nanny state, etc - but at the end of the day I reckon that the Government has behaved responsibly in this.

I am not saying that a minimum price per unit of alcohol will work in mitigating the negative social effects of alcohol. Frankly I don't know what overall effect it will have. No doubt there will be responsible drinkers who will struggle to afford a drink at home if the price increases dramatically. But on the other hand might it not also affect the drinking habits of those who make city centres such dreadfull places on Friday and Saturday nights? I have to say that I don't think that there will be much affect on those of us who drink in pubs. Unless the rate is set inordinately high then I would guess that only the Wetherspoons Ruddles Best promotions would be caught, although it would probably mark the end of the CAMRA vouchers.

In short, I reckon that it's the Government's job to interfere in the things people enjoy doing where they believe it's in the general good.

[ETA]

When people are doing something that they enjoy doing - smoking where passive smoking is forced on others - that causes discomfort and misery to others then the Government has every right to do something about it.

Hence "John Stuart Mill of his own free will on a half a pint of shandy..." (quite an apt reference, I thought).

But here's where the arguments relating to smoking and drinking differ, and so must be treated differently. Smoking has no positive health benefits, and second-hand has been proven to cause health problems in others. Responsibly consumed, alcohol CAN have positive health benefits, and has no DIRECT effect on others (changes in behaviour caused by alcohol are again a different issue as there are always aggravating factors). Reducing the availability of alcohol to violently inclined teenagers in a city centre hotspot may or may not reduce their inclination to misbehave - or it may induce them to higher levels of crime to pay for their current levels of consumption. Increasing the cost of vodka to the committed alky is most likely going to make him buy meths or distil his own instead. Whatever social issue it is that the Government wants to tackle by setting a minimum unit price i s doomed to failure unless it is put in context and supported by other appropriate measures.

[Rex_Rattus]

Reducing the availability of alcohol to violently inclined teenagers in a city centre hotspot may or may not reduce their inclination to misbehave - or it may induce them to higher levels of crime to pay for their current levels of consumption. Increasing the cost of vodka to the committed alky is most likely going to make him buy meths or distil his own instead.

I would have thought that reducing the availability would reduce their likelihood to misbehave, rather than induce higher theft rates to pay for the booze. But I don't know that of course. You're right about the committed alcoholic of course - they need some more drastic assistance than just having to pay more for their booze.

[Al 10000]

In short, I reckon that it's the Government's job to interfere in the things people enjoy doing where they believe it's in the general good.

If thats the case they will start banning everything because most things the we do are not that good for us,i think they should start by banning driving all those cars bombing around knocking people over and killing them, it must be good for the country if they ban this.

[Spinko]

I reckon that this is a matter of perspective. You (and I guess some other contributors) might regard the introduction of minimum pricing as "Government interference", but someone else could reasonably argue that the Government are doing their job in trying to tackle a social problem. The link with smoking is valid. When people are doing something that they enjoy doing - smoking where passive smoking is forced on others - that causes discomfort and misery to others then the Government has every right to do something about it. I know all the conflicting arguments, including those in favour of smoking - loss of tax revenue, effect on pub viability, nanny state, etc - but at the end of the day I reckon that the Government has behaved responsibly in this.

I am not saying that a minimum price per unit of alcohol will work in mitigating the negative social effects of alcohol. Frankly I don't know what overall effect it will have. No doubt there will be responsible drinkers who will struggle to afford a drink at home if the price increases dramatically. But on the other hand might it not also affect the drinking habits of those who make city centres such dreadfull places on Friday and Saturday nights? I have to say that I don't think that there will be much affect on those of us who drink in pubs. Unless the rate is set inordinately high then I would guess that only the Wetherspoons Ruddles Best promotions would be caught, although it would probably mark the end of the CAMRA vouchers.

In short, I reckon that it's the Government's job to interfere in the things people enjoy doing where they believe it's in the general good.

Can we really trust a government when they say they believe something is in the general good? They all act out of self-interest rather than public interest. The less government the better. Higher tax rates on alcohol will just make more people brew home-brew anyway (with all the dangers that involves?). If I didn't have a pokey flat I'd have probably started brewing for personal consumption some time ago.

[Spinko]

Hence "John Stuart Mill of his own free will on a half a pint of shandy..." (quite an apt reference, I thought).

But here's where the arguments relating to smoking and drinking differ, and so must be treated differently. Smoking has no positive health benefits, and second-hand has been proven to cause health problems in others. Responsibly consumed, alcohol CAN have positive health benefits, and has no DIRECT effect on others (changes in behaviour caused by alcohol are again a different issue as there are always aggravating factors). Reducing the availability of alcohol to violently inclined teenagers in a city centre hotspot may or may not reduce their inclination to misbehave - or it may induce them to higher levels of crime to pay for their current levels of consumption. Increasing the cost of vodka to the committed alky is most likely going to make him buy meths or distil his own instead. Whatever social issue it is that the Government wants to tackle by setting a minimum unit price i s doomed to failure unless it is put in context and supported by other appropriate measures.

I agree with most of this except I don't believe alcohol has any health benefits - the people who abstain are likely to be uptight in other areas of their life or have existing health problems which they need not to aggravate - this would tend to distort any large scale study on mortality rates of tee-totallers versus moderate drinkers.

However I would argue alcohol has huge social and spiritual benefits.

[Rex_Rattus]

Can we really trust a government when they say they believe something is in the general good? They all act out of self-interest rather than public interest. The less government the better.

Aye, that's the rub! The more government the better - as long as it's responsible government! More central control would be hugely beneficial - things like mandatory DNA registration at birth or on entry to the country; more CCTV monitoring, etc - but who could we trust with all that information and responsibility? No-one springs to mind. If only Big Brother could be trusted to do the best for us, and not misuse his powers.