HAVE YOUR SAY: Should there be a minimum price per unit on alcohol? (From Bournemouth Echo)

Alcohol, cigarettes and sugar should be banned.
Neither have any benefit to our health, they exist for profit and taxes purposes only.

The choice to consume this rubbish only exists because it was produced by some "Entrepreneur".

Most definately not.

The Black Market for Alcohol is already on the increase, pushing the price up will only make the illegal (often dangerous) stuff more attractive.

No it should not why should we all pay for the idiots who can't stop when they know they have had enough.
I think if drunks are carted off to hospital they should be made to pay.im not unreasonable, one chance given after that they pay.........an example of stupidity was George Best, great footballer had a drink problem had many many chances I think even kidney transplant, still he couldn't give it up , sorry but what a fool, now increasing the price would not have helped him...... I rest my case.

Tripod wrote:
The Black Market for Alcohol is already on the increase, pushing the price up will only make the illegal (often dangerous) stuff more attractive.

The black market as you call it does not always involve dangerous stuff, as the tax is so high in this country fags and booze are often bought back by those returning from holiday within Europe who don't smoke or drink, not a hell of a lot of price difference but every pound saved is less for the chancellor.

Don't think it should be dearer but definitely think there should be more limitations to it, and more warnings about it, and stricter laws for it, as it is highly addictive and impairs you insanely it sends you daft,
Its a killer to some families and people who cant stop, But i don't know what can be done to help them , put them into something medical and help them i am not sure its something to be looked at.

Minimum unit pricing is not going to solve 'problem drinking'.

We are a nation that has evolved around alcohol, pubs, bars, as a way of socializing. There are plenty of nations in Europe, US, where alcohol is cheaper but they do not have large scale problems of drunkenness etc. Because their society and culture is different.

We also consume less alcohol as a nation now than 10 and 20 years ago. If you add all the volume of 'on-trade' (pubs, bars, hotels, restaurants) to 'off-trade' (retail/ supermarket) you see a reduction in alcohol sold.

The focus should be on:
(1) enforcing existing licensing laws
(2) education in schools, colleges, prisons, to the dangers of excess alcohol
(3) toughen up TV regulation to remove TV programs which glamourise alcohol fueled morons ( The Valleys, Geordie Shore etc.).

A minimum alcohol price will not help those that need it, it will just penalise everyone.

45p per unit is pointless and irrelevant anyway. That makes a can of beer 90p. I don't pay less than that now?
.
Same old story though from our useless government. Let's use the problem to make money not actually address any problems.
.
Same old extortion tactics with global warming, cigarettes, obesity......

Looks as if home brew kits will soon be back in vogue!

How about a minimum unit price and then the extra tax made can be taken off the current tax bill for petrol/diesel? I'm sick of paying 30% of my wages in tax and NI and then paying ridiculous tax on my fuel and the occasional bottle of wine I treat myself to. Every year the tax on them goes up but I'm not seeing any more value for my money. If I have to pay a minimum unit price on alcohol, no doubt some of which will end up as tax, I want to see a tax reduction somewhere else. I don't earn a huge wage and the fact I pay away about a third to the government is really a joke!

rozmister wrote:
How about a minimum unit price and then the extra tax made can be taken off the current tax bill for petrol/diesel? I'm sick of paying 30% of my wages in tax and NI and then paying ridiculous tax on my fuel and the occasional bottle of wine I treat myself to. Every year the tax on them goes up but I'm not seeing any more value for my money. If I have to pay a minimum unit price on alcohol, no doubt some of which will end up as tax, I want to see a tax reduction somewhere else. I don't earn a huge wage and the fact I pay away about a third to the government is really a joke!

Paying tax is an individuals contribution to society.

It's not a question of value for money for yourself, it's what society gets out of the priorities laid out by Elected Government and Councils.

If you don't like the system, revolt.

l'anglais wrote:
Alcohol, cigarettes and sugar should be banned.
Neither have any benefit to our health, they exist for profit and taxes purposes only.

The choice to consume this rubbish only exists because it was produced by some "Entrepreneur".

And why should it be banned. And if you ban sugar how are you going to make things without it. What a silly comment.

We should all have a gauge on our head that tells how much we have drunk, the more you drink the higher the rate would go lol.
The drink drive limit should be any alcohol and your car won't start. Any alcohol is dangerous when you drive.
First time caught 2 year ban, the next time you never drive again. You want to drive you don't drink.

l'anglais wrote:
Alcohol, cigarettes and sugar should be banned.
Neither have any benefit to our health, they exist for profit and taxes purposes only.

The choice to consume this rubbish only exists because it was produced by some "Entrepreneur".

Most Alcohol Since They Used Real Bottles Arguably Taints Overweight Remedies

We All Now Know Everything Required

To Waste Away To

A nobody..

Net Turner wrote:

l'anglais wrote:
Alcohol, cigarettes and sugar should be banned.
Neither have any benefit to our health, they exist for profit and taxes purposes only.

The choice to consume this rubbish only exists because it was produced by some "Entrepreneur".

And why should it be banned. And if you ban sugar how are you going to make things without it. What a silly comment.

Coochie coochie . Coo coo
no more cake for you naughty boy
get back in your play pen.

aerolover wrote:
We should all have a gauge on our head that tells how much we have drunk, the more you drink the higher the rate would go lol. The drink drive limit should be any alcohol and your car won't start. Any alcohol is dangerous when you drive. First time caught 2 year ban, the next time you never drive again. You want to drive you don't drink.

Have you read the story? It's not about drink driving!

Introducing a minimum 50p per unit of alcohol will not stop drinkers from drinking and is just another tax. Moderate drinkers will usually be buying products that the minimum pricing won't affect, so the impact will be on the drunks who buy the cheapest rubbish they can to satisfy their craving. If they find they can no longer afford their usual brand of booze they will either steal it or turn to crime to pay for their fix instead.
Forget the minimum unit price it's a stupid idea.

It will have to be meths and Brasso if they do. my Red Biddy will cost more.

Reduce duty for alcohol sold at pubs and get people drinking socially in an environment where they can be told no, you have had enough already, then enforce laws about serving alcohol to people who are clearly intoxicated. Putting the price up wont stop the problem drinkers. we are talking about binge drinkers who think nothing of dropping £100 or £150 on drink for a weekend. The only people that will get hit by a minimum unit price is the already cash starved parents and adults who decide to have a quiet drink at home because they already cannot afford to go out.

In answer to the headline: "No."

It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

These are health organisations, not economists. Presumably the assumption is that demand is directly linked to price, but the reality is that making alcohol more expensive doesn't make it any safer.
A minimum price on alcohol is more likely to encourage the drinking of home brew, which nobody knows how much alcohol is in.

Again and again all politicians use higher taxes to cure a problem. Again that will impact the poor hardest. Ther has to be a better way of controlling issues such as drink driving and violence etc. Better policing and control of night clubs and pubs. Better control of selling drink to under age people. Tax tax tax is all they bloody think about!

Drivers are bearing enormous tax burdens so why not drinkers?
To further help the economy those needing medical care as a result of drunkeness should be paying some of the cost involved.

Net Turner wrote:

l'anglais wrote:
Alcohol, cigarettes and sugar should be banned.
Neither have any benefit to our health, they exist for profit and taxes purposes only.

The choice to consume this rubbish only exists because it was produced by some "Entrepreneur".

And why should it be banned. And if you ban sugar how are you going to make things without it. What a silly comment.

So what useful things do you make with sugar?

Houses and Hospital beds?

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Actually, healthy people cost the NHS more than fatties and smokers.

Fatties and smokers die young and often die quickly and don't cost tens of thousands in care costs as those who live to 80 plus tend to do.

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

scrumpyjack wrote:

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

Of course, as a filthy capitalist, the tax profit made from shortening peoples lives takes precedent.

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

Of course, as a filthy capitalist, the tax profit made from shortening peoples lives takes precedent.

Strange comment. Again.

scrumpyjack wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

Of course, as a filthy capitalist, the tax profit made from shortening peoples lives takes precedent.

Strange comment. Again.

Strange in that you disagree, or just that you have the inability to comprehend?

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

Of course, as a filthy capitalist, the tax profit made from shortening peoples lives takes precedent.

Strange comment. Again.

Strange in that you disagree, or just that you have the inability to comprehend?

Me failed to comphrend?

Well let's assume that the 'filthy capitalist' comment was aimed at me.

My listing the cost to the NHS against the tax revenue generated was simply for the benefit of the poster who wrongly assumed that she was being hard done by and who wrote 'I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure'.

I hoped by pointing out that the tax generated more than pays for the resultant care costs.

This has nothing to do with capitalism so who I wonder has tried to look the smart arse but failed?

By the way do take time to consider my post at 1.46 and you may see what I really think of you.......

scrumpyjack wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

Kiki1973 wrote:
It should be taxed enough to cover the cost it incurs to society, as should smoking. I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure, street cleaning and extra policing caused by these substances? It's a privilege, not a right to drink and to smoke, that privilege has side effects so if we're going to allow it, it should wash its own face, economically speaking.

Oh and tax revenue from smoking alone raises £12 billion a year.

Smokers cost the NHS an estimated £5 billion.

As the americans would say 'you do the math'.

Of course, as a filthy capitalist, the tax profit made from shortening peoples lives takes precedent.

Strange comment. Again.

Strange in that you disagree, or just that you have the inability to comprehend?

Me failed to comphrend?

Well let's assume that the 'filthy capitalist' comment was aimed at me.

My listing the cost to the NHS against the tax revenue generated was simply for the benefit of the poster who wrongly assumed that she was being hard done by and who wrote 'I don't drink or smoke, why should I cover the costs of the cancers, lung failure, heart failure, liver failure'.

I hoped by pointing out that the tax generated more than pays for the resultant care costs.

This has nothing to do with capitalism so who I wonder has tried to look the smart arse but failed?

By the way do take time to consider my post at 1.46 and you may see what I really think of you.......

What you think of me is irrelevant as its your irrational thought pattern on this subject that needs attention.
Smoking, alcohol and sugar consumption is a burden on society.
This burden is a result of some Capitalist wishing to make profit.
So the tax revenue attained by society from these disgusting products, is far outweighed by the loss in productivity from ill people being treated, due to there harmful effects.