Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Zubeneschamali

Flex wrote: »

The 'cultural' issue of limiting our drinking to a single occasion of the week, and needing to drink until we go to sleep once we start drinking, etc. need to be changed

We are not the only ones in this boat either, and not the worst.

MeatTwoVeg

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We are not the only ones in this boat either, and not the worst.

So what?

Zubeneschamali

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

So what?

So maybe it is not the most urgent thing for us to focus on.

Especially when the measure proposed is more about helping the Vintners and picking on poor people, and less about reducing our binge drinking culture.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

So what?

Ooh I know that one - was that Pink ?

MeatTwoVeg

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So maybe it is not the most urgent thing for us to focus on.

Especially when the measure proposed is more about helping the Vintners and picking on poor people, and less about reducing our binge drinking culture.

Just because the guy next door drinks more than you, doesn't mean you don't have a drinking problem.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Just because the guy next door drinks more than you, doesn't mean you don't have a drinking problem.

And just because you both drink, doesn't mean either of you have a problem.

Snickers Man

Flex wrote: »

Our consumption levels are average. The 'cultural' issue of limiting our drinking to a single occasion of the week, and needing to drink until we go to sleep once we start drinking, etc. need to be changed, but the key to that is not to further denormalise or regulate alcohol and make it seem even more 'special'.

BADABING! Nail on the head. You need to print this out in large point size and then staple it to the heads of various muppet doctors who argue that excessive pricing is the answer to our problems.

It isn't.

How about the novel approach of treating adults like adults? Might be surprised how that works.

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

And just because you both drink, doesn't mean either of you have a problem.

Wow, you must be one of a select minority who believes there's no issue with excess alcohol consumption in this country.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Wow, you must be one of a select minority who believes there's no issue with excess alcohol consumption in this country.

Did I say that ?

You're the one projecting a problem on to others.

Here's a mad idea for your brain cell to try on - there are millions of people in this country who drink. For fun, for pleasure, for relaxation, for celebration - for "thank f**k it's Friday" - whatever reason.

There are many many MANY fewer who have a problem with alcohol.

You seem to believe the proportions are reversed and wish to punish the majority of law abiding, responsible drinkers.

There is a problem with SOME people consuming excess alcohol - but you wish to punish everyone.

That's some misguided quest you're on dude.

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Wow, you must be one of a select minority who believes there's no issue with excess alcohol consumption in this country.

Another really poor strawman from you, seriously you should be getting the hang of this stuff by now

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

You seem to believe the proportions are reversed and wish to punish the majority of law abiding, responsible drinkers.

.

You're not being punished.

The pendulum has swung too far towards cheap alcohol. Even young teenagers with low spending powers have the ability to buy dangerous quantities of alcohol.

As a society, it's important we do something to address this. MUP is one measure and will achieve some good in this area.

Of course you can stamp your feet at the unfairness of not being able to buy your cheap cans anymore, but, and this may be hard for you to grasp, tough ****.

I'd rather see you having to pay a bit extra than continuing on our current trajectory.

Looks like the lawmakers agree with me too.

Zubeneschamali

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

As a society, it's important we do something to address this.

We must do something.

Minimum Pricing is something.

Therefore we must do Minimum Pricing.

Zubeneschamali

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Of course you can stamp your feet at the unfairness of not being able to buy your cheap cans anymore, but, and this may be hard for you to grasp, tough ****.

I'd rather see you having to pay a bit extra than continuing on our current trajectory.

I don't think minimum pricing will affect me at all, and I am in favour of a different measure (+Excise) which would affect me, so you are well off target.

jimgoose

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

...I'd rather see you having to pay a bit extra than continuing on our current trajectory.

Looks like the lawmakers agree with me too.

Won't make a lick of difference to me. Won't make a lick of difference to this "trajectory" we're on either. What would, is banning the sale of alcohol to anyone except property-owning white settled men over the age of 35 with full driver's licenses. Not very politically expedient mind you, so I'd say yes, we must do something - this is something - therefore, we must do this. :pac:

MeatTwoVeg

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think minimum pricing will affect me at all, and I am in favour of a different measure (+Excise) which would affect me, so you are well off target.

How can I be off target given I wasn't responding to you or any point you made?

osarusan

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Wow, you must be one of a select minority who believes there's no issue with excess alcohol consumption in this country.

You can't make a coherent argument to save your life.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

You're not being punished.

The pendulum has swung too far towards cheap alcohol. Even young teenagers with low spending powers have the ability to buy dangerous quantities of alcohol.

As a society, it's important we do something to address this. MUP is one measure and will achieve some good in this area.

Of course you can stamp your feet at the unfairness of not being able to buy your cheap cans anymore, but, and this may be hard for you to grasp, tough ****.

I'd rather see you having to pay a bit extra than continuing on our current trajectory.

Looks like the lawmakers agree with me too.

You really are something. Not a good something mind, but something.

MeatTwoVeg

jimgoose wrote: »

Won't make a lick of difference to me. Won't make a lick of difference to this "trajectory" we're on either. What would, is banning the sale of alcohol to anyone except property-owning white settled men over the age of 35 with full driver's licenses. No very politically expedient mind you, so I'd say yes, we must do something - this is something - therefore, we must do this. :pac:

Well, you think it won't have a positive impact, I do.
Only one way to find out, introduce and study the effects after a number of years.




Oh, but wait, I won't be able to buy my cheap slabs of pissweiser for Chrimbo. Oh the humanity!

jimgoose

osarusan wrote: »

You can't make a coherent argument to save your life.

But there's a trajectory! And a problem!! And an issue!!! Do you want small little children chopped up with chainsaws, you monster? Because that is how you GET small little children chopped up all to flinders with chainsaws!! :pac:

jimgoose

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

...Oh, but wait, I won't be able to buy my cheap slabs of pissweiser for Chrimbo. Oh the humanity!

Pity. I however, will buy my two bottles of Sancerre and a rather decent four-star Tawny Port as usual.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Well, you think it won't have a positive impact, I do.

I've Copernicus on the phone for you squire, he'd like to point out he was correct all along and the world DOESN'T revolve around you.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

..... the ability to buy dangerous quantities of alcohol.

I've just been paid.

I can go to a shop and buy 5 bottles of vodka.

That's buying "dangerous quantities of alcohol"

I drink them - and I'll be dead before I finish the third.

However, I won't. I'll do what I always do, use them to make cocktails at home, mix a few at the weekend with a decent drop of cranberry and one bottle tends to last a while.

Sure I was away in September and the litre of Grey Goose from the airport still has a few nips in it.

Though quite frankly I could wash in it, do the dishes in it or make them into novelty shaped ice cubes and shove them up me hole - IT'S NONE OF YOUR CONCERN, NOR THE GOVERNMENTS!

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

I've Copernicus on the phone for you squire, he'd like to point out he was correct all along and the world DOESN'T revolve around you.

I'm afraid for you, that on this issue, the legislature's and myself, are on the same page.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I'm afraid for you, that on this issue, the legislature's and myself, are on the same page.

Not sure I'd brag about agreeing with FG but whatever floats your deluded boat.

You do understand it doesn't mean that you ARE the lawmaker ???

jimgoose

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I'm afraid for you, that on this issue, the legislature's and myself, are on the same page.

If I were an almost completely self-absorbed person, I would, as well as calling for the measures I set out up-thread, also have off-licenses and supermarket retailing of alcohol banned. If you can't afford to order a pint and a brandy-and-port and prop up the bar with the rest of us pink-shirted, upturned-Maine-New-England-fleece-collared, scarf-wearing-indoors-at-around-6pm types, we're not interested, chief!

Mr.H

Has increasing the price of cigarettes stopped kids from buying them?

Minimum pricing us an idea to stop people from drinking at home and see the pub as a like for like alternative.

Nothing to do with stopping people from drinking

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Though quite frankly I could wash in it, do the dishes in it or make them into novelty shaped ice cubes and shove them up me hole - IT'S NONE OF YOUR CONCERN, NOR THE GOVERNMENTS!

I'm finding the irony delicious, given your previous post, that you'd like the law engineered around your personal circumstances.

Zubeneschamali

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Only one way to find out, introduce and study the effects after a number of years.

In the real world, people try and think through the effects of measures before they are introduced, and pick the one that looks best, not just make random changes to the law and see if they work.

We know exactly why this particular measure is being suggested instead of an excise duty hike: the Vintner's Association. Sheltering publicans is a bad reason to choose between measures to combat public health issues - if that was our goal, we would have banned smoking everywhere except pubs.

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

You do understand it doesn't mean that you ARE the lawmaker ???

No, I didn't understand that at all and it's rather generous of you to clarify it for me.

Many thanks.

MeatTwoVeg

Mr.H wrote: »

Has increasing the price of cigarettes stopped kids from buying them?

Maybe we should give them away free outside schools and see if more kids start smoking?