h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Scottish Executive have announced plans to introduce minimum prices for alcohol in an attempt to deal with a shocking alcohol problem in Scotland. Booze has become so cheap that it's possible for a man to exceed the recommended maximum weekly alcohol intake for as little as £3.50.

More here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7917824.stm

Some say this does not go far enough. Others see more evidence of a "Nanny State" culture.

What say ye?

Its all balls.
Alcohol is far more expensive than it was previously, I don't know what bit of peculiar math they've decided to use to prove otherwise, but a simple look at a beer now costing 100% more than it did ten years ago, and I can't see a 100% rise in my income, or any average income.
The price of alochol is laready fixed by the government; isn't that what duty on alcohol is?
They could alter their stats to say that someone could excede tehir weekly allowance for half that statee value; All they'd need to do is yet again reduce the 'recommended' amount of alcohol.
We have comparative examples, E.G., increasing price of cigarettes, doesn't give hardly any reduction in numbers smoking.
Also they might want to look at some of teh countrys with the most prohibitive pricing structures, in Europe, which have some of the highest rates of alcoholism.
Of course 'they' might not want to; It seems increasingly to be a desirable thing to undo any gains lower social classes, namely the working class have been able to make in the past few decades, just as plain travel becomes avilible to the majority, lets price the poor back out of the equasion, and no doubt hte same for alcohol, smoking, whatever.
Also, has no one mentioned to the goverment we're in a ressesion/credit crumch at the moment.
Mind, if they had a brain cell they'd be dangerous.

You're looking at pub prices though 2legs and that's not the issue. A few months ago, supermarkets were running promotions where beer cost less than water. Bringing in minimum prices won't affect pub prices in the slightest.

:- is it really that* cheap at the supermarkets?; the only things I ever see ain't particualrly cheap but I'm probably not looking on the 'superstrength awful larger shelf' so I'm not best placed to know

I was most impressed by the Scottish bloke they interviewed on telly who claimed to regularly drink 14 bottles of wine a day. It certainly put my 'problem' into perspective

Well I think your problem there SWL is the fancy overpriced water.

I don't really know what to make of this. I feel so obviously biased (because I like getting drunk) that I'm not even sure I should be allowed an opinion. Maybe the Muslims have it right?

Anyway, when I was a teenager drinking on park walls it were £3 for a bottle of White Lightning (I think? Or was it £2?) which I'm pretty sure is well over the government's suggested limits.

Baaa, 14 bottles a day?; Thats what we call preparing for an evenin out where I come from...

This relaly is one of those issues though, on which the government just seem to be utterly unable to comprehend how, and hwy someone will choose to do something if/when they're told its 'bad' for them... They really don't seem capible of understanding that sometimes, even with all* the information, even when people know all the delaterious affects, they might still choose to do the 'bad' thing...

Just thinking about my alcohol consumption gets me worried, so i have to go and have a cigarette and glass of brandy to calm down

I thought the idea of pricing according to strength of alcohol was worth trying. Would people pay more to get the extra kick, or look for the best bargain?
I wouldn't be averse to pricing alcohol higher if the extra revenue raised went directly to the police & health services who have to deal with the adverse effects of over consumption. Otherwise it's rather hypocritical to let people do something that's bad for them provided they pay enough for the privilege.

Out here in the Colonies we had the reverse trend some years ago (as some of you may remember I mentioned elsewhere). The Wild West, drink 'til you drop, we only have this weekend before we have to go back to work type of drinking was common. Then pub-style, social drinking became the norm- with Britain being held up as the example!

Now large areas of downtown have been declared *world class* (I suspect in preparation for the Olympics in 2010) and great car loads of yobs arrive from the far suburbs to drink until 4 or 5 AM on weekends. Pubs and clubs in those suburbs close at 11 in general and it seems all that has been created are opportunities for people who drink and drive (oddly the transit shuts down at 2).

Its still absolute bollocks.
They were happing on about this yet again on the radio last night.
Apparently no one on the bluddy media can even remember the 1990's, let alone the 1980's or 1970's.
Its all media generated nothing.
Kids do not, do not drink more now than they did.
Alcohol is not cheaper than it was; we're in general richer, that isn't the same bluddy thing.
Strength of alcohol has not gone up.
And in case anyone hasn't noticed we are already taxzed on alcohol by its strength.
When I was 14 years old I went out drinking. My Dad ages 70 now wen out drinkign when he was 14.
But the media do like to get themseves in a twist about nothing, and apparently now its alcohol they've turned on to. As with their entirely faulse reporting of the harmful effects of secon hand tobaco smoke (all eroniously based on a single report into the affects of second hand smoke, a study which hadn't found any measuriible delaterious effects of it). its just another excuess for the rich middle class twats who make up the UK broadcast media to have a cheap pot at teh working classes. They don't like it that for once the lower classes are now able to do some of the things once reserved for the upper classes.

I think you're quite a bit off with the smoking thing. Smoking, also second hand, is just one of the more dangerous things you can do to yourself.

As just one things, several countries that have banned smoking in bars have reported significantly better health for the people working in the bars.

I wish I could find the origional sources for it, as well as the couple of well written articles tht managed to appear amongst all the poorly researched articles that merely copied over the origional bad representation of the origional primary research, sadly I can't find them now
I'm more intersted at the moment however in finding out where all this cheap alcohol is, as I've never lived anywhere which has it.

The simple way to solve it is to stop supermarkets selling alcohol, and revert to licensing hours.

Hmmm.....

Do oyu know, possibly for the firt time in years I am with our Prime Minister on this. I don't think the sensible ordinary majority should be punished by the actions of a few.

Being able to have a decent bottle of wine for a few quid, and get that when I do my weekly shop after a late shift, simply isn't the problem.

FB

The link between second-hand tobacco smoke and cancer is actually rather tenuous, but there's no denying that smoke causes very many other problems.

TRiG.

I have from armchair been suggesting - shouting at the tele - similar policies to those that Scots are bringing in. Raising the age to 21 for off-licence sales.
Changes to law to get rid of loss leaders and BOGOFs. BOGOFs lead to increase in the prices anyway as supermarkets ratchet up the price of the items, or bully the producer into accepting less. Taxing by the actual alcohol content also makes some sense.

I don't see why people should have to pay for clearing up the mess made by those that abuse alcohol - and call me snob - drink the kinda pish I wouldn't touch with yours.

While a ban on under-21 off-sales on Friday/Saturday (as has been trialled in parts of Scotland) might well have a short-term effect by reducing spontaneous purchases of alcohol, once a permanent ban was in place, I wonder how much people would learn to be *less* spontaneous?

Presumably 18-20 year olds would have to plan their alcohol purchases more, as they would have to get older people to [legally] buy it for them.
If some of those 18-20s were disposed to sell it on to younger people, they could do so, just as they may currently buy it directly, in order to pass on to younger people.