Naked Science Forum

General Science => General Science => Topic started by: thedoc on 19/09/2011 13:27:28

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: thedoc on 19/09/2011 13:27:28

Supporting a minimum price per unit of alcohol...

Read the whole story on our  website by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news-archive/news/2379/)

  

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: MikeS on 19/09/2011 17:47:37

In answer to the question, NO but there should certainly be a maximum.
People should have the choice to buy cheap alcohol if they want but through education they should be made aware of the risks involved.  Big brother should have no power to control what people do or consume through something as immoral as price fixing.  Let's face it, alcohol is the panacea of the masses and if you live in Britain then you probably need (but can't afford) it.

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: techmind on 19/09/2011 23:26:05

Quote

it is one hundred and sixty times more expensive to buy 1g of cocaine (about £40) than 1g of alcohol (about 25p)

That may be, but I'm guessing that 1g of cocaine has a much bigger physical/psycological 'hit' than 1g of alcohol too...
Therefore the comparison is somewhat meaningless.

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2011 06:56:24

MikeS,
Does your idea of a "maximum" price mean that my old single malt scotch will be subsidised or that I won't be able to buy it. Or does it mean that you didn't think it  through?

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: MikeS on 20/09/2011 07:44:13

BC
You'r right, I was thinking of 'run of the mill cooking sherry' not speciality spirits. 
As my excuse I had consumed a few beers when I wrote that.   [;)] [;D]

Nevertheless, virtually all spirits in the UK are grossly overpriced because of tax.  There is no reason why your single malt would have to be subsidised, just reduce the tax.

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: peppercorn on 20/09/2011 09:34:55

Alcohol represents the cause of one of the biggest costs to the NHS one way or another.

It is a bit of a misconception that only the cheapest booze is solely to blame w.r.t. alcohol's influence on societies woes.  There are plenty of less visible costs to our society than just rowdy youth on a Saturday night. How about all the longer-term diseases that come from continued over-drinking? These are as much a middle-class problem as a blue-collar issue these days.

I'm a member of CAMRA and I am always exalting the benefits of the real -living- product that is proper 'Real Ale', but lowering Tax across the board on beers, wines and spirits is going to do nothing for the health of the nation, and that includes the more affluent buyers.

Personally I think any beverage that involves a brewing process that is closer to an industrial chemical works (your fizz largers and pretend ciders, etc) should pay a tax premium over traditional brews (I mean those that are served 'live' or are in bottled condition) - afterall the cost of manufacture and cellarmanship will offset these savings.    Conversely, if you think about how a pint of cheap fizz at the bar costs the same for the drinker as a pint of real ale or real cider (products that take far more work to make and keep) it's a real moneymaker for the landlord to sell SH.. mass-produced rubbish.

Title: Should there be a minimum price per unit alcohol?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2011 18:52:05

Since I quite like the idea of the government having money to pay public employees (like me), I think they need to get that money from somewhere.
So they have to tax something.
From my personal point of view, I'd sooner they taxed luxuries like alcohol than things like food and clothing.
If there's a knock-on effect where that price rise also reduces the harm done by drinking, then I don't see that as a bad thing.
Mind you I agree that taxing the hell out of fizzy lager would be a good place to start.