If it clobbers the Supermarkets I have no problem with this, I work for a Brewery and numerous Pubs close by the day, many tenants living on the brink or work for no money at all. Supermarkets should be banned from selling alcohol full stop, but that is someone speaking from a purely selfish point of view.
yes cant wait for the Comrades to get back in---13 years of bliss no increases on tax on booze, fags, no tax increases on petrol, or raids on pention sheer f**Kin bliss it was -------anyone who thinks otherwise is just a reader of The Daily Mail.
people falling over and getting a spud stuck up their arse? enough people of here have the Gauirdian stuck up theirs.
Its a tax, nothing else. If the goverment was that concerned about the health of the masses I'm sure they could think up some plan that would actaully cost money not make it. It might be in their interests to have half the country smashed at anyone time.
Its a tax, nothing else. If the goverment was that concerned about the health of the masses I'm sure they could think up some plan that would actaully cost money not make it. It might be in their interests to have half the country smashed at anyone time.
Rose Gibb got rewarded for presiding over the deaths of 90 plus people.
I think that demonstrates the reality of how much they actually care about the well being of the masses.
The latest crap about plain wrappings for fags and keeping them under the counter etc. Do they honestly think that this will stop people smoking?
Overnight? No Over time? Yes
As for the alcohol pricing issue, I disagree in principle - I think it's a bit of a blunt instrument and is being brought in to bow to pressure from various medical groups. However, the level being proposed (40p per unit) does not overly concern me. This might affect people buying White Lightning and Special Brew from supermarkets, but is not going to affect the price of drinking in pubs, or buying the more commonly consumed alcoholic drinks such as branded lagers, ciders and wines.
The question is though, once the legal structure is in place, can we look forward to increases to this minimum price in future budgets?
My alchohol content is around 3 pints a week unless I have a very rare night out. Why should I have to pay extra just because some idiots can't drink sensibly?
The fun police are taking us all down..............................
The latest crap about plain wrappings for fags and keeping them under the counter etc. Do they honestly think that this will stop people smoking?
Overnight? No Over time? Yes
I'll reiterate my previous question. Do you really think that people start smoking because of the pretty packets or the charming displays in the supermarkets/newsagents?
Putting a high price on alcohol will only encourage more counterfeiting and more 'Latvian Vodka Garagebrew'. It is up to parents and educationalists to deter (especially) young people from excessive drinking. Unfortunately, in a culture which too often takes pride in imbibing large quantities of beer, wine and spirits at all levels of society, there is little sign that such education will be forthcoming or that the lessons will be taken too seriously. To my mind it is not the alcohol consumption that is the main problem, but the mayhem caused by drunks and the puny measures takes to control the often idiotic behaviour which becomes endemic amongst them. Anyway, I suspect that any government of any particular colour or persuasion, pays lip service to controlling and clamping down on boozing when to their minds, having drunken youth falling over in the streets is preferable to having them demonstrating against political evils in those same streets.
Putting a high price on alcohol will only encourage more counterfeiting and more 'Latvian Vodka Garagebrew'. It is up to parents and educationalists to deter (especially) young people from excessive drinking. Unfortunately, in a culture which too often takes pride in imbibing large quantities of beer, wine and spirits at all levels of society, there is little sign that such education will be forthcoming or that the lessons will be taken too seriously. To my mind it is not the alcohol consumption that is the main problem, but the mayhem caused by drunks and the puny measures taken to control the often idiotic behaviour which becomes endemic amongst them. Anyway, I suspect that any government of any particular colour or persuasion, pays lip service to controlling and clamping down on boozing when to their minds, having drunken youth falling over in the streets is preferable to having them demonstrating against political evils in those same streets.
If the issue is the drain on the nhs , then charge people for booze related injuries and illness , if its to much for the ob, build booze prisons and repeat offenders of anti social spend time in the clink
Do you really think that people start smoking because of the pretty packets or the charming displays in the supermarkets/newsagents?
Ever heard the phrase, "out of sight out of mind" ?
Yes but I don't know anyone who has started smoking because they saw the fag packets on display in shops and I very much doubt that you do either. People start smoking for various reasons and this ain't one of them!
If the issue is the drain on the nhs , then charge people for booze related injuries and illness , if its to much for the ob, build booze prisons and repeat offenders of anti social spend time in the clink
We don't charge for other lifestyle related injuries / illnesses. Some people would be unable to pay. And in my opinion, it (payment) goes against the very principles the NHS was started for.
Regarding "booze prisons", (on the assumption you mean extra people being imprisoned in extra prisons due to drink related offences) can't see this as a starter given the tightening of the public purse.
The latest crap about plain wrappings for fags and keeping them under the counter etc. Do they honestly think that this will stop people smoking?
Overnight? No Over time? Yes
I'll reiterate my previous question. Do you really think that people start smoking because of the pretty packets or the charming displays in the supermarkets/newsagents?
To an extent, yes. Why do you think tobacco companies have historically spent so much on marketing? If it genuinely made no difference, fags would already be in plain packets.
Why do you think tobacco companies have historically spent so much on marketing? If it genuinely made no difference, fags would already be in plain packets.
Of course marketing makes a difference to sales but the reason they have different packets is to differentiate between brands. Again, I know of not one person who has become a smoker because of the packet. Do you?
there is obviously a link between cheap booze and binge drinking ...so if the booze was dearer it wouldnt be as accessible to those most vulnerable .i object to any government selling this as a moral issue as opposed to a revenue collecting exercise .Perhaps only allow supermarkets to sell high value brands ,,ban alcopops(they are designed to hook in (and snare the young drinker ,other than being intoxicated quickly whats the point of diamond white,carlsberg special ,tennents extra etc ? (only sell in units of 2 to overs 25s)
Why do you think tobacco companies have historically spent so much on marketing? If it genuinely made no difference, fags would already be in plain packets.
Of course marketing makes a difference to sales but the reason they have different packets is to differentiate between brands. Again, I know of not one person who has become a smoker because of the packet. Do you?
Correction, you know not one person who is aware or will admit that they became a smoker because of the packet. The fact is, by having cigarettes out on display in sweet shops behind the Mars bars, children become used to seeing them. They become a part of their sub-conscious from a very early age. This must influence the likelihood of said child taking up smoking at a later date.
Why do you think tobacco companies have historically spent so much on marketing? If it genuinely made no difference, fags would already be in plain packets.
Of course marketing makes a difference to sales but the reason they have different packets is to differentiate between brands. Again, I know of not one person who has become a smoker because of the packet. Do you?
Correction, you know not one person who is aware or will admit that they became a smoker because of the packet. The fact is, by having cigarettes out on display in sweet shops behind the Mars bars, children become used to seeing them. They become a part of their sub-conscious from a very early age. This must influence the likelihood of said child taking up smoking at a later date.
Maybe I'm not being very clear - I'm not saying that people will think, "Ooh, that looks like a nice packet, I'll try those." What I'm saying is that by having them out on display everywhere they become part of everyday life, whilst hiding them away reduces this effect to some extent.
Why do you think tobacco companies have historically spent so much on marketing? If it genuinely made no difference, fags would already be in plain packets.
Of course marketing makes a difference to sales but the reason they have different packets is to differentiate between brands. Again, I know of not one person who has become a smoker because of the packet. Do you?
Correction, you know not one person who is aware or will admit that they became a smoker because of the packet. The fact is, by having cigarettes out on display in sweet shops behind the Mars bars, children become used to seeing them. They become a part of their sub-conscious from a very early age. This must influence the likelihood of said child taking up smoking at a later date.
I think I'll stick with my own version, rather than your 'correction', as it bears more resemblance to reality. Children do not become smokers because they've seen the packets in shops. They become smokers because their parents are smokers or because their friends are smokers or they are frequently exposed to environments in which smoking is the norm (or at least tolerated) or they have a role model who smokes and they want to emulate them.
Comments
people falling over and getting a spud stuck up their arse? enough people of here have the Gauirdian stuck up theirs.
If the goverment was that concerned about the health of the masses I'm sure they could think up some plan that would actaully cost money not make it.
It might be in their interests to have half the country smashed at anyone time.
I think that demonstrates the reality of how much they actually care about the well being of the masses.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289205/Hospital-boss-Rose-Gibb-UKs-worst-infection-outbreak-awarded-190k-payoff.html
Sorry it's the Daily Mail but even the Charlton Life organ of choice, The Guardian, reported this one. I just found this link first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/24/ex-hosptial-chief-rose-gibb-wins-damages-payout
Here is The Guardian link so it really did happen and is not Daily Mail rabble rousing!!!!!!!!!!
Over time? Yes
As for the alcohol pricing issue, I disagree in principle - I think it's a bit of a blunt instrument and is being brought in to bow to pressure from various medical groups. However, the level being proposed (40p per unit) does not overly concern me. This might affect people buying White Lightning and Special Brew from supermarkets, but is not going to affect the price of drinking in pubs, or buying the more commonly consumed alcoholic drinks such as branded lagers, ciders and wines.
The question is though, once the legal structure is in place, can we look forward to increases to this minimum price in future budgets?
My alchohol content is around 3 pints a week unless I have a very rare night out. Why should I have to pay extra just because some idiots can't drink sensibly?
The fun police are taking us all down..............................
Does something need to be done about binge drinking, yes. Is this the solution, well no, but it may be step in the correct direction.
Most people who drink will be unaffected by this. However, deliberately or accidentally, this has the effect of penalising the poor.
It is up to parents and educationalists to deter (especially) young people from excessive drinking. Unfortunately, in a culture which too often takes pride in imbibing large quantities of beer, wine and spirits at all levels of society, there is little sign that such education will be forthcoming or that the lessons will be taken too seriously.
To my mind it is not the alcohol consumption that is the main problem, but the mayhem caused by drunks and the puny measures takes to control the often idiotic behaviour which becomes endemic amongst them.
Anyway, I suspect that any government of any particular colour or persuasion, pays lip service to controlling and clamping down on boozing when to their minds, having drunken youth falling over in the streets is preferable to having them demonstrating against political evils in those same streets.
Regarding "booze prisons", (on the assumption you mean extra people being imprisoned in extra prisons due to drink related offences) can't see this as a starter given the tightening of the public purse.