Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 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,
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.
|
|
 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 |
|
| 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. 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 |
|
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.
|
|
| 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" |
|
| 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" |
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.