'Should Cheap Booze Be Banned?' poll discussion

Idiophreak

Ego_Shredder wrote: »

You cannot stop idiots from over drinking and ruining the lives of others, but if good people stand and do nothing because it seems pointless to them, well the problem will get worse and worse. Doing something is better than doing nothing surely?

Well that rather depends what you do, doesn't it...

"teens drink too much". Now, if you go round all the teens you can find and give them a big bottle of White Lightning, is that considered better than nothing? You actually have to do something that *helps* before it's better than nothing.

Nobody's disputing whether something needs doing, they're disputing whether slapping more tax on booze is the thing that needs doing.

Ego_Shredder

I'm_With_Stupid wrote: »

And people take to drinking a half bottle of vodka before they get to the pubs because it's so expensive to drink in pubs.

No, those types do this because they are obsessed with getting drunk. A normal person would not do such a thing prior to going for an enjoyable and respectable night out.

BurningSnowman

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Instead of licensing sellers, how about licensing the buyers? I could see a form of barcoded plastic card which would have to be scanned for every alcohol purchase (supermarkets/off-licences/pubs/hotels). The card would have to be applied for with proof of age (NI number or something).

This would mean that underage people would not be able to buy alcohol, and it might have other benefits, perhaps of alcohol limits per person.

Well, I'll ignore the alarming implications for personal liberty in terms of tracking every purchase and limiting quantity purchased. Let's focus on:

• The cost of implementing connection to a central database for every supermarket and presumably every pub and club.
• The fact that we already have strict ID regulations with significantly better ID involved than a card with 'a barcode' (i.e. some reasonably hard to fake photo ID is a necessity most places).
• Related to above, the fact that lending/sharing cards would remove the point of limits.
• OR alternatively, if we do make these high-grade photo cards to prevent this, the massive cost of manufacturing them for everyone.
• The fact that limits on quantity would do nothing to prevent stashing booze over time for one-off binging.
• The fact that this would promote a move to new illicit channels which nobody currently finds necessary, and would probably make alcohol much more dangerous because people would buy incredibly low-grade illegal and unregulated stuff... much like with everything else we prohibit.

I'm not a fan.

Booze is heavily taxed as it is and our prices compared to other countries are high because of it. This is effectively a minimum cap. Don't get me wrong, it's a luxury item and we need tax from somewhere, but I think the balance is about right as it is.

The fact that some of our good citizens are irresponsible doesn't really justify sweeping and proven ineffective restrictions of everyone's liberties, like an increase in the minimum age.

kaya wrote: »

All booze should be banned full stop.
How our future families will laugh when they read in the history books how we used to drink poison with our meal and binge on it at weekends, the idea being who can consume the most poison every saturday night and not die.
There is a reason you need a license to sell it, its a class d poison

Everything's poisonous in sufficient quantity. When do you invisage this unheaval of convention? We've had alcohol for a good number of centuries now...
I would put better odds on future civilisations replacing it with some refined currently-illegal drug than ceasing to take anything similar at all.

Idiophreak wrote: »

* Closing down pubs that sell to underage
* Closing down pubs that continue to serve those who're obviously drunk
* Giving those found drunk and disorderly a few nights in the slammer and a criminal record.
* No ID - No booze...however old you are - remove the stigma associated with being ID'd.

In my experience the first and last of those are at least on the way to being commonplace. Maybe not closing down a pub as soon as there's suspicion, but massive fines get dished out.

Hooda_Thunkit wrote: »

Not so long ago, it was "socially acceptable" to drink and drive, until some very clever campaigns changed the public attitude toward that practice. Now drink-drivers are seen a social pariahs who are to be shunned.

The same sort of campaigns and change of attitude is required toward binge drinking; it is the curse of todays society, costs the country millions in the problems it causes, and if not stopped will eventually be the ruin of the great british way of life.

Bring on the folks who did the DD campaigns, and let them loose on this problem.

They're clearly already at least trying this. Have you seen the '...wouldn't start a night like this' TV campaign? (i.e. by puking on your shoes and stuff).
I think there's an issue for effectiveness though, in that the typical consequences are mostly 'self-harming' and most people just find the ad a bit gross. It doesn't quite have the same impact as imaging how you'd feel about killing a child by accident. Mostly because it's just frankly nowhere near as problematic as drink driving.

Ego_Shredder wrote: »

My response to that would be, how can you shame the shameless? Around 90% of our society is rough with bad breeding along with substandard upbringings from their 'parents'. There are solutions to this but they would be very unpopular to those in question!

Sounds like they'd probably be unpopular with anyone not living in the '50s.

Hm. Well that was a long post, but at least I didn't spend the time drinking.

Taffybiker

The same thing was tried with cigarettes. Prices sky-rocketed and the result was more and more "imports".
By leaving well alone the tax is paid fairly in this country and helping the British economy instead of the European economies.
Binge drinkers are just that and despite prices they will ALWAYS find a way to continue. Bullying by price hikes will not help.

A_fiend_for_life

Eliminating cheap beer would penalize the responsible drinkers. Who sells beer at 30p a can? Is this a revenue maker for the exchequer?

That said where I live there are half a dozen off licenses in close proximity along with similar number of betting shops. So if I wanted to I could gamble to me hearts content and get drunk but can I find a greengrocers, butchers or fishmongers? Unfortunately councils charge too much for rates that means certain types of high profit businesses can compete but not the ones we all need. So maybe it is a planning problem rather than a cheap booze problem.

Will_Tingle

Hell no!

Like (i suspect) most here, I like a quite drink at home of an evening.

I Work hard all week, but don't have much money left for luxuries, and I don't think I should be penalised for the idiots who want to get blathered and caused trouble!

From what I've seen, the real drunken morons are all on alcopops and premium larger anyway - not £2.50 a bottle hock and value larger!

Not to mention that alcoholics on benefit currently get an extra £8 PER DAY drinking allowance (which I think is outright wrong, but that's another rant) Imagine what they'd have to put that up to if they banned cheap booze - and what that would cost the rest of us in taxes!

I say come down, and come down HARD on:

• Underage drinkers
• Supplying to underage drinkers.
• Drunk and disorderly.
• Serving people who are already drunk.
• Drink driving (make it attempted murder).
• Double the sentence for any offence (Assault, GBH, disturbing the peace, public nuisance) if committed while drunk

And let the rest of us have our cheap booze!
:beer:

BurningSnowman

Will_Tingle wrote: »

...

• Drink driving (make it attempted murder).

Mis-labelling an offence is hardly necessary or progressive. Just up the punishment !!!!!!.

setmefree

I would rather they banned Cheap M.P's, you know the ones who promise the earth and then lie through their teeth once elected , now that would save the country thousands:D

nosha

HelzBelz wrote: »

It's the same as everything else the government legislates against, they penalize the majority because of the actions of the minority

, :T In a nutshell

nosha

:rolleyes: How can you say booze banned full stop? maybe not your tipple, but what about others who ENJOY a glass now &
then or whatever, again minority get wacked

kaya wrote: »

All booze should be banned full stop.
How our future families will laugh when they read in the history books how we used to drink poison with our meal and binge on it at weekends, the idea being who can consume the most poison every saturday night and not die.
There is a reason you need a license to sell it, its a class d poison