Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Casual Orpington 16 Nov 17 6.52am
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio i love to drink. yet i think minimum pricing is a good thing. Good for society, road safety, NHS bills, health, crime statistics. teenagers, the homeless, if nothing else, it may postpone wino's getting smashed for a few hours every day. I think it will have the opposite effect on crime. Skint alcoholics will still drink regardless. Would expect an increase in mugging, burglaries, stealing charity boxes etc. The homeless will just eat less as a result of this, might also get more of them hooked on cheap drugs. Also dangerous snide alcohol will become more used/ supplied. I can see why they want to cut down on unsociable behaviour, but I’d rather have a pissed bloke asleep on a bench in the middle of the day , than robbing women’s handbags so that he can get pissed and fall asleep on a bench. Needs addressing , I don’t know how it should be, but can’t see that this is the answer.
Alert a moderator to this post

Casual

Orpington 16 Nov 17 6.52am

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

i love to drink. yet i think minimum pricing is a good thing. Good for society, road safety, NHS bills, health, crime statistics. teenagers, the homeless,

if nothing else, it may postpone wino's getting smashed for a few hours every day.

I think it will have the opposite effect on crime. Skint alcoholics will still drink regardless. Would expect an increase in mugging, burglaries, stealing charity boxes etc.
The homeless will just eat less as a result of this, might also get more of them hooked on cheap drugs.
Also dangerous snide alcohol will become more used/ supplied. I can see why they want to cut down on unsociable behaviour, but I’d rather have a pissed bloke asleep on a bench in the middle of the day , than robbing women’s handbags so that he can get pissed and fall asleep on a bench.
Needs addressing , I don’t know how it should be, but can’t see that this is the answer.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 16 Nov 17 7.53am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Surely if the law has the desired effect it would cut the amount of money being made not increase it But that's the point, I think it will have little effect at all. People who drink in moderation are now punished for a minority with a problem that doesn't take finance into consideration. As I think Stirling mentioned; a wealthy alcoholic carries on buying alcohol, a non wealthy alcoholic starts spending his dinner money on alcohol. Rightly or wrongly, it's just what an addict does, so the results will just completely go against the purpose the Scottish government suggest the law is intended to serve. As for the detterant side of things, a lot of research into drug use in particular to show that these type of deterrents simply don't work, and as I said in the OP, alcohol is a drug, no matter how much we like to morally seperate it from the illegal kind. We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

16 Nov 17 7.53am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Surely if the law has the desired effect it would cut the amount of money being made not increase it

But that's the point, I think it will have little effect at all. People who drink in moderation are now punished for a minority with a problem that doesn't take finance into consideration. As I think Stirling mentioned; a wealthy alcoholic carries on buying alcohol, a non wealthy alcoholic starts spending his dinner money on alcohol. Rightly or wrongly, it's just what an addict does, so the results will just completely go against the purpose the Scottish government suggest the law is intended to serve.

As for the detterant side of things, a lot of research into drug use in particular to show that these type of deterrents simply don't work, and as I said in the OP, alcohol is a drug, no matter how much we like to morally seperate it from the illegal kind.

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 16 Nov 17 8.02am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I believe that's wrong. It's artificially restricting the choice of the individual because they have less money. This this taking yet another thing away from them and patting them on the head telling them how they should live their lives. Perhaps a huge sector of society need to be artificially restricted as they cannot restrict themselves. I doubt whether penal pricing will deter alcoholics but it may slow down or stop others from becoming dependant on alcohol. I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

16 Nov 17 8.02am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I believe that's wrong. It's artificially restricting the choice of the individual because they have less money.

This this taking yet another thing away from them and patting them on the head telling them how they should live their lives.

Perhaps a huge sector of society need to be artificially restricted as they cannot restrict themselves. I doubt whether penal pricing will deter alcoholics but it may slow down or stop others from becoming dependant on alcohol.

I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 16 Nov 17 8.08am
Originally posted by Casual I think it will have the opposite effect on crime. Skint alcoholics will still drink regardless. Would expect an increase in mugging, burglaries, stealing charity boxes etc. The homeless will just eat less as a result of this, might also get more of them hooked on cheap drugs. Also dangerous snide alcohol will become more used/ supplied. I can see why they want to cut down on unsociable behaviour, but I’d rather have a pissed bloke asleep on a bench in the middle of the day , than robbing women’s handbags so that he can get pissed and fall asleep on a bench. Needs addressing , I don’t know how it should be, but can’t see that this is the answer. Many turn to drink/drugs as a coping mechanism. So pretty much the usual - serious reforms and funding to social care, mental health services and the NHS. We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

16 Nov 17 8.08am

Originally posted by Casual

Many turn to drink/drugs as a coping mechanism.

So pretty much the usual - serious reforms and funding to social care, mental health services and the NHS.

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 Nov 17 8.23am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Perhaps a huge sector of society need to be artificially restricted as they cannot restrict themselves. I doubt whether penal pricing will deter alcoholics but it may slow down or stop others from becoming dependant on alcohol. I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake That's selective collectivism based upon financial class ahead of individualism. A minority will always find a way of abusing the system. They won't be stopped by this and all that will happen is the majority are punished. This might even increase crime levels. The majority of the funding of the NHS is provided by the working class's national insurance. This is middle class hubris. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Nov 17 8.23am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake

That's selective collectivism based upon financial class ahead of individualism.

A minority will always find a way of abusing the system. They won't be stopped by this and all that will happen is the majority are punished. This might even increase crime levels.

The majority of the funding of the NHS is provided by the working class's national insurance. This is middle class hubris.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Nov 17 8.52am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Perhaps a huge sector of society need to be artificially restricted as they cannot restrict themselves. I doubt whether penal pricing will deter alcoholics but it may slow down or stop others from becoming dependant on alcohol. I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake So fatties are a burden. What exactly is the NHS for If the money wasn't spent on 'fatties' what would it be spent on. I reckon 90% of NHS use is for self inflicted issues. Road accidents for example as there is no such thing as an 'accident' if you check the terminology.its in the wording. Most people with an illness have self inflicted it in one way or another through their life. But that isn't mentioned. The biggest burden on the NHS is people using it who don't need it at that time, they are the burden. It's there for a reason, when is the last time you needed it midland or how frequently do you. I would guess very infrequently the same as myself and yes you guessed I'm not a model size bloke. On the other hand I could easily say I pay 10% of my wages in so why can't I have a bit back as and if I need it.! Fat or not !!!
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Nov 17 8.52am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake

So fatties are a burden.
What exactly is the NHS for
If the money wasn't spent on 'fatties' what would it be spent on.
I reckon 90% of NHS use is for self inflicted issues.
Road accidents for example as there is no such thing as an 'accident' if you check the terminology.its in the wording.
Most people with an illness have self inflicted it in one way or another through their life. But that isn't mentioned.
The biggest burden on the NHS is people using it who don't need it at that time, they are the burden.
It's there for a reason, when is the last time you needed it midland or how frequently do you.
I would guess very infrequently the same as myself and yes you guessed I'm not a model size bloke. On the other hand I could easily say I pay 10% of my wages in so why can't I have a bit back as and if I need it.! Fat or not !!!

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Nov 17 9.50am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I believe that's wrong. It's artificially restricting the choice of the individual because they have less money. This is taking yet another thing away from them and patting them on the head telling them how they should live their lives. While those with more money aren't seriously affected. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Nov 2017 7.58am) Plus it fundamentally misunderstands the problem of alcoholism. It might have an impact on younger drinkers, but I doubt it. It will certainly increase the problems for alcoholics and their families. I don't disagree with the idea that the UK may have a problematic relationship with alcohol, but in an era where its almost impossible to get an affordable rehab place (privately or for the NHS) this seems to be counter-intuitive to the problem drinking in the UK. My father is a recovered alcoholic, 42 years and change. When he went into rehab there was virtually no waiting for a place. These days, he reckons, from talking with new AA members that you can be waiting for months to get a place on the NHS, if you can't afford to go private (which is a booming industry in the UK now). The key with addiction is often getting people into rehab when they've hit rock bottom, and experienced the 'moment of clarity'. If they're having to keep drinking for a month or two after that, well recovery seems less likely; its led to more people going through detox at home, without proper medical supervision which is dangerous. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 16 Nov 17 9.50am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I believe that's wrong. It's artificially restricting the choice of the individual because they have less money.

This is taking yet another thing away from them and patting them on the head telling them how they should live their lives.

While those with more money aren't seriously affected.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Nov 2017 7.58am)

Plus it fundamentally misunderstands the problem of alcoholism. It might have an impact on younger drinkers, but I doubt it. It will certainly increase the problems for alcoholics and their families.

I don't disagree with the idea that the UK may have a problematic relationship with alcohol, but in an era where its almost impossible to get an affordable rehab place (privately or for the NHS) this seems to be counter-intuitive to the problem drinking in the UK.

My father is a recovered alcoholic, 42 years and change. When he went into rehab there was virtually no waiting for a place. These days, he reckons, from talking with new AA members that you can be waiting for months to get a place on the NHS, if you can't afford to go private (which is a booming industry in the UK now).

The key with addiction is often getting people into rehab when they've hit rock bottom, and experienced the 'moment of clarity'. If they're having to keep drinking for a month or two after that, well recovery seems less likely; its led to more people going through detox at home, without proper medical supervision which is dangerous.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Nov 17 9.53am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Perhaps a huge sector of society need to be artificially restricted as they cannot restrict themselves. I doubt whether penal pricing will deter alcoholics but it may slow down or stop others from becoming dependant on alcohol. I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake Cost of insulin, vs the cost of long term elderly care? Healthy people, living longer lives are the burden on the NHS. Plus those fatties, paying for the NHS as well with their NI. Addiction doesn't work like that. Addiction really lies in the person, not the substance. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 16 Nov 17 9.53am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I'd still rather see penal pricing on sugar in products though before the NHS is brought to it's knees by fatties who can't or won't control their sugar intake

Cost of insulin, vs the cost of long term elderly care? Healthy people, living longer lives are the burden on the NHS. Plus those fatties, paying for the NHS as well with their NI.

Addiction doesn't work like that. Addiction really lies in the person, not the substance.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 16 Nov 17 10.28am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Cost of insulin, vs the cost of long term elderly care? Healthy people, living longer lives are the burden on the NHS. Plus those fatties, paying for the NHS as well with their NI. Addiction doesn't work like that. Addiction really lies in the person, not the substance. Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough. Many fatties don't give a stuff, or work an hour a year. Some have psychological issues, fair enough. Most just don't give a sh1t or cannot be bothered to be precise. Another barrel of Pringles is easier. People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 16 Nov 17 10.28am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Cost of insulin, vs the cost of long term elderly care? Healthy people, living longer lives are the burden on the NHS. Plus those fatties, paying for the NHS as well with their NI.

Addiction doesn't work like that. Addiction really lies in the person, not the substance.

Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough.

Many fatties don't give a stuff, or work an hour a year. Some have psychological issues, fair enough. Most just don't give a sh1t or cannot be bothered to be precise. Another barrel of Pringles is easier.

People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Nov 17 10.34am
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough. Many fatties don't give a stuff, or work an hour a year. Some have psychological issues, fair enough. Most just don't give a sh1t or cannot be bothered to be precise. Another barrel of Pringles is easier. People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public. Seems like batter a fatty day on here. But alas I'm not allowed to feel like I would if someone had a go at my colour or my race or a disability still never mind. At least we're jolly eh!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Nov 17 10.34am

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough.

People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public.

Seems like batter a fatty day on here.
But alas I'm not allowed to feel like I would if someone had a go at my colour or my race or a disability still never mind.
At least we're jolly eh!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 16 Nov 17 10.44am
Fat problems are a whole seperate issue but there's stark evidence that obesity problems stem from childhood. We should adopt the French model at school meals. Massive focus on the kids learning the importance of healthy meal and appreciating good food. The canteens are set up like restaurants. We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

16 Nov 17 10.44am

Fat problems are a whole seperate issue but there's stark evidence that obesity problems stem from childhood. We should adopt the French model at school meals. Massive focus on the kids learning the importance of healthy meal and appreciating good food. The canteens are set up like restaurants.

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Nov 17 10.53am
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough. Many fatties don't give a stuff, or work an hour a year. Some have psychological issues, fair enough. Most just don't give a sh1t or cannot be bothered to be precise. Another barrel of Pringles is easier. People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public. What a load of bollocks. I'm looking around me at work now, and there are people who are overweight. As for not liking wiping bottoms - I pay NI and tax because I want people cared for by professionals, who are trained and have experience - Not amateurs. Plus those people who are now 'carers' have to give up work in order to provide care. Meanwhile, carehomes costing 600 a week per patient, staffed by minimum wage staff are the norm, not the exception. Its an affront to the concept of provision for a countries citizens. Rather we should pay NI and tax sufficient to provide care for everyone, whatever their needs, or we don't. Along with education, the NHS remains the biggest return that tax payers will see for their NI and taxation - and possibly the most important. When we have money to pay for a new Nuclear submarine program or corporation tax cuts and incentives etc, we have money to pay for the health care of our citizens - and the failure to do so adequately represents a monumental failure of democratic governments to deliver for their people. And yes, I believe the country should have a military and a nuclear deterent - but not if it means we cannot deliver decent educational standards and healthcare to the people. I look at the US and how much it spends on its military, and how poor its health care provision is for its people, and its disgusting - There is money to provide massive defence expansion to 'protect the lives of citizens', but not to protect their lives from genuine common place threats to life, and quality of life. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 16 Nov 17 10.53am

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Tax both. If you need care, you have money and the stay at home Middle Ages or even retired daughter or daughter in law doesn't like wiping bottoms then tough.

People these days don't take responsibility for themselves and there have been no consequences for too long, at home, and out in public.

What a load of bollocks. I'm looking around me at work now, and there are people who are overweight. As for not liking wiping bottoms - I pay NI and tax because I want people cared for by professionals, who are trained and have experience - Not amateurs. Plus those people who are now 'carers' have to give up work in order to provide care.

Meanwhile, carehomes costing 600 a week per patient, staffed by minimum wage staff are the norm, not the exception. Its an affront to the concept of provision for a countries citizens.

Rather we should pay NI and tax sufficient to provide care for everyone, whatever their needs, or we don't. Along with education, the NHS remains the biggest return that tax payers will see for their NI and taxation - and possibly the most important.

When we have money to pay for a new Nuclear submarine program or corporation tax cuts and incentives etc, we have money to pay for the health care of our citizens - and the failure to do so adequately represents a monumental failure of democratic governments to deliver for their people.

And yes, I believe the country should have a military and a nuclear deterent - but not if it means we cannot deliver decent educational standards and healthcare to the people.

I look at the US and how much it spends on its military, and how poor its health care provision is for its people, and its disgusting - There is money to provide massive defence expansion to 'protect the lives of citizens', but not to protect their lives from genuine common place threats to life, and quality of life.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors