Is it right to impose a minimum price for alcohol?

[Bob Bacon]

Is it right to impose a minimum price for alcohol?

David Cameron is planning to impose a minimum price for alcohol – likely to be around 40p per unit – according to reports. Is he right to do so?

[Gwyn Nicholas]

Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. Most people want binge drinking and the meyhem it is causing (depending on your postcode) sorted. The only fair way of course is to punish the guilty but they cant do that because of the under age numbers involved. They do not have the courts, the magistrates or the prison places (for serious offences) to deal with the problem. This way, the Government is seen to be doing something under the cloak of the cost to the NHS through drink related illness and loss of working hours due to the same. This they say will save the country Billions of pounds but hey if it doesn't, this extra revenue (stealth tax.) will come in handy. Will it work.......petrol up - people still drive.......fags ridiculous price - people still smoke...........I think not.

[Ianto 10]

It's taken the heat off the 'Granny Tax' debate for the time being, very crafty.

[Radar]

As a retired cop I can say that the government has not looked at the wider picture. By removing the cheap booze from the shelves all they will be doing is encouraging the criminal element to revert to smuggling large amounts of the stuff into the U.K. As they did in the past. An awful lot of the money raised by the crims goes to organised crime and some (it has been proved) goes on to fund terrorism. The statement made by Mr Osborne that in the long run money will be saved by the N.H.S. may be correct in the short term but I foresee the money saved will be used to fight crime.

[sean a coy]

Generally, the very people who consume cheap alcohol are not the wealthy ''shocker''.
They tend to be either A) under age or B) addicted OR homeless.
Obviously, keeping in mind you don't have to be homeless to be an alcoholic or addicted!

Now, looking at the target group of the government, pretty much gaurentees them that two of the three effected groups are either A) too young to vote or B)very unlikely to vote due to being transient/homeless. This comes in very handy when your trying to look as though you are doing the ''right and propper thing'' as well as keep the potential turbulance to a minimum.

If the Government increased the price of a bottle of ''white lightening cider,'' for instance, which is often the offending beverage, by 75%. It would still place this product well within the price range of the average teens pocket money... Fact. By the the very virtue of an alcoholic or Homeless person being ''addicted'' would normally dictate that this group will find their fix regardless.. Heroin addicts do, and that stuff is a damn site more expensive.
whether it be by begging or turning to crime if needs be. when your premiums on your insurance go up, Its because of increased crime levels nationally.
Again, we pick up the bill, not the people drinking cheap alcohol

I hope you've not got enough time on your hands, but if you have, sit and estimate how much a homeless person gets donated to them per hour, more than the national minimum wage I would guess, of which they won't pay the tax on, the donator already has! YOU.
So, guess who's bridged the extra cost of the now, not so cheap, alcohol within the governments target groups.

YES, ME AND YOU OF COURSE!

[Bricoates]

If the problem is alcopops and cider then tax them at a higher rate but to penalize people, especially the elderly who drink bitter or dark beer is just an excuse to tax everything, the reason that people drink at home is because its not safe to go out at week-ends, as for pre-loading, can you imagine some of the so called binge drinkers going to the off license and buying a 12 pack of John Smiths best Bitter? yes bitter is probably more expensive than cheap lager but the extra duty will make it even dearer for the Innocent, unashamed, looking back, drinking bottles of Amstel in the blanco room until three to four hours before room inspection and muster at eight and having a good "Binge" (name uninvented then) on leave, never in trouble with the law, its not the alcohol that should be tackled but the offenders who abuse it and they can start in the House of Commons bars who's drinks are probably around a Shilling a pint.

[Paul Hinge]

I vote yes. 2 of my children work in A&E and they see the catastrophic consequences drinking can cause.....They should also ban cigarettes in my opinion as they are a disaster to everyone’s health.....I went to have an angiogram last December to fix a valve that was genetically not sitting correctly in position and I was 1 of 11 people having the angiogram all the other 10 were former or existing smokers everyone of them required at the least a stent and sadly in 2 cases (as we all talked to each other) there was nothing that could be done.... So sad as one of them was a year younger than me!

The cost to families and the wider society of drinking, smoking and taking drugs is huge.......if we can curtail it in any small way then we should in my opinion...

Hingey

[bennyball2]

Paul as long as we can have some of the home made wine you had in Boscombe Down, they should have put a forty% increase on that?? I was blind for two days after drinking it??

[ivor43]

hi all.
no it is not right to impose a minimum price for alcohol. this is just another government ''cop out'' it does not tackle the underlying cause of the problem. this is,at the moment, a social problem, the medical issues occur after prolonged alcohol misuse. i mostly agree with the comments on this thread, i am not sure that it will lead to a massive increase of cheap booze from the continent.
as some of you may be aware i spend most of my time in Malta where i can buy a can of european beer for 50c and a fairly decent bottle of red or white wine for less than 3Euros. yet despite the very liberal opening hours i have very rarely seen anyone rearly drunk.O.K. at weekends the kids visit the night clubs and have a few beers but any trouble is usualy amongst themselves they dont go off on drunken rampages. it is probably true to say that in Most places if is safe to walk about at anytime day or night.so no i do not think a minimum price is the answer. a less tolerant attitude by the law would be a start.when i was a cop in the late 60's any drunk who was behaving themselves and not causing a neusance was left alone, but if any got stroppy they sobered up in a cold cell, and ended up being charged with Drunk & Disorderly or Drunk & Incapable.We did not mess around.

[steve carey]

Increasing booze fags etc is nothing to do with any moral issues its all to do with money (tax) All the things they put up every year hit the poor working classes ( used to be salt of the earth now looked upon as scum of the earth) All these items will be on the black market, Fags from China, Booze made in some industrial unit by eastern europeans. Instead of putting prices up why dont they change the licence laws. Do we need pubs open all day and night (who has got the money) Put pub times back to what they used to be (save on paying staff all day) night clubs should close at 2am no drunks roaming town/city centres all hrs of the night, No corner shops selling to kids (no sitting in parks or streets with carrier bags of ale) just a few ideas, if i dont throw them in you cant throw them out.

These are a few observations from when i was a taxi driver.