why no min price Cam ?
 

why no min price CAM ? 14.03.13

the destruction is crystal,
even if conservatives refuse,
drink and drugs are destroying,
the "objection" to minimal "price" does confuse.
vodka as cheap as £6,
would have double,
i predict that would lower,
allot of liver trouble.
"larger" and "cider",
super strength wont alter,
but for god's sake,
its ludicrousness to be cheaper the water.
none of the conservatives no,
because "estates" and "town centers" you don't score,
this liquid poison is doing harm,
its a different world to your nightly vintage poor.
its all about money,
and how much you can scrape,
because once you get us tempted,
every night and day us you can rape.
i am calling on you "David",
stop the real cheap poison sewing,
i will send this to the conservative party,
but on internet forums the reply's i hope are clearly showing.



( i see from the news that David C is not willing to set a minimum price on alcohol which in-turn means we will get vodka sold at £6 which is very cheap and super strength larger and cider cheaper then water, which i feel is disgusting as this is what brings havoc k to my town center every night. i just wondered how you on this forum feel ? or is this a good move from David C as he is keeping these drinks affordable which is very honorable of him ? or maybe he gets off on seeing the mess he is causing ? omg - this writing is doing my nut in - i need a drink and a large one. )

I'll be pleased if they do ditch it, I don't like blanket legislation like this which hits the vast majority of sensible drinkers just as much as it does binge drinkers

i think hes wrong.....booze prices are insanely low in supermarkets, allowing druns to drink themselves to death unsupervised for less that £20.

Meh. Putting the price up would just have hardcore alchies turning to crime to fund their habits, while hitting 'normal' people who just want a quiet drink in the house every once in a while.

Mind I am surprised he hasnt jumped att the chance of drawing a bit more money in.

What do you mean if?...

wrong vicky. hes gone against it because supermarkets know they will make less money. simple. ca,meron is purely about corporate profit. he couldnt give a stuff about a drunk drinking himself to death on whisky in a broken down estate. i think it should go up and people should pay the extra and realise there is a price to be paid for drink copious amounts of booze at home, unsupervised unregulated. very dangerous

are Arista and waterhog related in some way?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgrjtgpPGG1qfabmx.gif

There is no evidence that a minimum price would reduce the number of problem drinkers, if people really have an alcohol addiction then a modest price rise won't make much difference, and in general people are actually drinking a lot less than they were a few years ago. If you're looking to protect people's health then why stop at alcohol as well, might as well put a minimum price on really unhealthy foods too.

it's a tax on poor people, not a tax on alcohol. let's be real.

Rich alcoholics have private health insurance anyway, and they don't give a crap how much they pay for their booze. so they arn't as much of a burden on the NHS anyway.

This is a tax on all the (let's just call a chav a chav)... CHAVS.

i was gonna say spade, but that would be racist.

its a multi pronged attack on booze....tv ads...better education....more jobs etc etc

however minimum price is also an essential part of the strategy....50p is a tiny price anyways. its reduced smoking and smoke related deaths....alcohol is an even bigger killer.

there is no evidence that cig taxes reduced smoking. stop spreading your propaganda. People smoke less for CULTURAL reasons, not financial reasons.

theres loads of evidence...try using your common sense and actually look at facts that dont fully comply with your own narrow agenda

They should stop selling beer at pocket money prices, and these supermarket deals are a big lure for people to buy much more than they need to feel they are getting a bargain, all they are getting is addicted, win win for the supermarkets and the drinks companies.
They spend millions on advertising, marketting and promotions to get us and keep us hooked.
The government have again been pressured to put big business before the public.
Can you prove the bolded bit? As the last stats I saw last week said a 40% increase, I could dig it out if you want?

finally common sense, bravo

50 p a pint for booze is killing people by their thousands

as for the lie that increasing price didnt affect smoking, heres yet more proof it reduced it across the world and lost alex is yet again way wrong




"Higher cigarette prices reduce cigarette smoking by decreasing smoking prevalence and reducing the number of cigarettes smoked by continuing smokers.


Well over 100 studies from high-income countries have confirmed the inverse relationship between cigarette prices and cigarette smoking. The consensus among researchers working in this area is that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes in developed countries will result in a 3 to 5% reduction in overall cigarette consumption. Studies that investigate the impact of cigarette prices on smoking prevalence and average smoking intensity among smokers separately generally find that approximately half of the impact of price on overall cigarette demand results from reducing the number of smokers.

Many studies conclude that youth and young adults as well as people from lower economic strata are more responsive to price than the general population.

Smokers living in areas with higher cigarette prices are significantly more motivated to quit. In high income countries, cigarette price promotions and/or access to cheaper cigarette sources do not impede the motivation to quit, but the impact of higher prices is more pronounced if sources of cheaper cigarettes are not available. The access to low-taxed cigarettes may deter smoking cessation attempts. Smokers who bought cigarettes from American Indian reservations were half as likely to make a quit attempt compared with those who bought full-priced cigarettes.

To have a positive impact on public health, cigarette prices need to keep up with the general level of inflation as well as rising incomes to keep cigarette affordability constant, and preferably decreasing.

well please educate me, oh wise one. links plzzz. (and i'm actually going to read them, so no BS, kthx)

None of that study takes into account the fact that it's SOCIALLY less desirable to smoke. there is nothing in that study that takes into account cultural influences, so you lose. sorry.

It is CULTURALLY less desirable, that has nothing to do with prices. Nothing in that study says anything about how the culture of smoking has changed over that same period of time.

http://guardian.co.uk/society/2013/m...nal-statistics

Again, there is no real evidence that this will stop alcohol problems, its blanket legislation that unfairly hits the vast majority who are capable of drinking sensibly, and would rather do so at affordable prices, just as hard as it does problem drinkers

Waddyamean finally?...That's as far as I got then my eyes started bleeding...

They're just slowly doing what they've done with cigarettes really. Dressing it up as some health issue when really they don't give a **** and want to make it as expensive as possible.

I heard a wild theory that they put the prices of drinks in pubs up all the time because they want to stop people talking about the government. Basically have us all sitting at home lapping up everything that's being fed to us by the media.

I think it's hilarious that the same people on the left that want to put more restrictions on alcohol and tobacco are the same people that think that other drugs should be legal.

They are trying to take freedoms away from the already legal drugs and out of the other corner of their mouthes saying they support legalizing pot!

such hypocrites.

LEGALIZE POT!!!!, BUT BAN SMOKING and Make DRINKING more EXPENSIVE!!!! lol wtf.

That is just unfortunate MTVN, look back a few years at the pricing of alcohol in supermarkets compared with foodstuffs, wine and beer are actually cheaper than they were 15-20yrs ago...
Pubs are closing so social drinking is now changing to antisocial drinking, there is no landlord in your living room to send you out the door at last orders.
24hr drinking is the norm, it puts mucho green in the pockets of the alcohol companies but the liver of the NHS has cirrhosis due to the strain.
This is the article I was thinking of earlier...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ol-consumption

''If the other 40% – what the academics call "missing" alcohol – is included, the number of people consuming more than the government-backed safe drinking limits rises significantly.

If under-reporting of alcohol is taken into account, then average consumption turns out to be 20.5 units a week for over-16s across the UK rather than the 12.3 units depicted by existing surveys.

Therefore as many as 75% of men and 80% of women sometimes exceed the daily limit of three to four units of alcohol for men and two to three units for women – many more than the 56% and 54% reported in the Health Survey for England 2008, according to Sadie Boniface, the lead author, who works in UCL's department of epidemiology and public health''

That is a wild theory, that's like saying you are only capable of making an informed decision when you are pissed :joker:... It wasn't your local landlord told you that rubbish was it? :laugh:

Not really about people getting pissed, more of a collection of people getting together and talking in a public house.

Not sure that 24 hours is the norm, although I do think it's a shame that so many pubs are closing and that there is so much discrepancy between pub prices and shop prices, still wouldn't say a minimum price is the answer though

I tend to take these government recommended amount of units with a pinch of salt as well

There are bars in towns and cities that don't close till 6am and some that open at 9am, but if you can't go 3 hrs without a beer asda is open 24hrs....
Drinking has never been less regulated, so if you don't like unit pricing and you don't feel the advice of the GMC is right what would you suggest as an alternative, or would you leave it as is?

http://www.m-c-a.org.uk/Home/home
''alcohol related health problems. Alcohol related harm causes incalculable misery to individuals and their families and costs the NHS £2.7 billion each year''