Cheaper for us all, REALLY?

[smart1]

Having watched the programme on ITV tonight regarding alcohol consumption in Britain, I cannot rid myself of this feeling that the only way to solve it is by pushing up prices is bureaucratic brainwashing. I believe in 'moderation in all things'. My view is this, for what it is worth. People really do not set out to become alcoholic. Sadly, when & if they do, it is not down to the fact that booze is cheap. There are usually far more deep-seated reasons for it. Depression, low self-esteem, joblessness - as has been the case for scores of years. All the government would do by increasing the price of drink is make it just one more elitist 'product' - another 'punishment' for the working classes, such as premier leaugue football on TV( we have to subscribe to such as Sky, then pay for Sky+ etc to watch our national team), smoking, theatre, even cinema. My solution (if there is one) would be to stop glamourising alcohol in adverts, and actually to stop TV advertising of alcohol. I know people who are alcoholic, and they have all said they were doing OK at quitting until they saw the studio light enhancing the glow of the brandy or whatever, then they wanted a drink. After the drink, what next for the taxman? Fresh air? Ski slopes? Gyms? Really, the working classes are being unashamedly squeezed, and it will continue, under the guise of cutting costs to the NHS.

[cazzz1975]

it is working with the cigarettes though, I know loads of people who have given up because of the cost, these were people that a few years ago had not inclination to quit. the health scares didnt work but the cost did.

[cazzz1975]

no rather than not*

[smart1]

That is my point though - the richer classes can continue with any bad habits they have regardless of cost - it's only Joe Soap who has to give up stuff 'cos it's too expensive. And I don't just mean health-related stuff. Just hobbies and interests. One man/womans hobby is a cost to the NHS. Cost to NHS was the point of the programme. After alcohol, it will be something else that is costing the NHS/Nation too much. The postman that likes to go ski-ing and breaks his leg - the fireperson that likes to go sunbathing and gets skin cancer - the 'wealthy' will not stop until they have their metaphorical boot on the poorer mans neck. And that is why the idea that it is just cheap booze that is the problem, is fiction..

[Everhelpful]

You are spot-on,smart1

[andy-hughes]

My answer is the same here as it is on the 'Drunken Violence' thread -

excess drinking will only be curbed when it ceases to be the cultural norm.

It is accepted - and expected - that the definition of a good night out is to be as srunk as possible as quickly as possible - with attendent violence and health problems tied in as a consequence.

Until we can educate an entire generation that alcohol poisoning is not the definition of a good time, we will continue with these issues - feeble prcie curbs or not.

This is about proper education and example - so let's stop bleating on about 'responsible drinkers' - the logic of that argument could be applied to heroin addicts if you wish - and open our eyes to the fact that as a nation, our alcohol problem is out of control, and we need to address it like adults.

Some chance!

[sandyRoe]

It's not likely that rich people, merry on wine, would end their nights out glassing each other.
We need to put intoxication out of the reach of the chavs.

[johntywino]

I didn't really buy this "cheap booze" lark,then I suddenly realized that you can get three bottles of wine for a tenner (£6.66 for two) and that 20 Embassy also cost £6.66 ! When I was a younger man there was NO WAY you could get two bottles of wine for a packet of fags.(or even ONE come to think of it!) OK so the fags have gone up a lot, but so they should...They should be banned totally ! (but NOT the booze).