Your solution to the alcohol binge society

[- English -]

In terms of the cost on the NHS, people requiring health treatment / psych help to come off alcohol etcetc, if you were the pm, how would you do things?

Raise prices on alcohol .. taken from here (BBC News - Ministers propose Scottish minimum drink price of 45p) a 45p rise per unit - If agreed, would see a two-litre bottle of Tesco brand cider go from £1.32 to £3.80, while Asda whisky would rise from £9.20 to £12.60. Although this affects the responsibile drinker.

Charge people for treatment ontop of national insurance for people who need treatment through alcohol related problems .. Although im sure this wouldnt have much affect as people would just owe xxx.xx and have no ways to pay it back.

Carry on as it is and let people drink themselves into an early grave.

There are lots of different possibilities but most just wont work in practise, and things could always be manipulated like a limit to how much 1 person could buy etc.

My suggestion would be to raise the cost of alcopops and such like. But your always gonna get the "i drink sensibily person". I dont think theres 1 possibly way to please all, but a raise in alcohol prices will surely affect alot of business.

Anyone care about this, or will this argunment go on forever and nothing will be done about it because it cant?

 

[Exioce]

Let people do what they want to their own bodies.

 

[Genedril]

Let people do what they want to their own bodies.

I agree with that completely. However, them in power don't and they seem to think they have a right to tell you what to do with your body be it smoking, drinking or even eating.

 

[Gahn]

Drink more is the solution!

Costs of Nhs ... wtf i pay my dues and taxes so stuf tbh.

 

[Everz]

Let people do what they want to their own bodies.

/thread.

 

[Scouse]

Yup

 

[Maeloch]

Be interested to know where all the tax goes I pay on my drink, if not to pay for the transplant.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Make alcohol dirt cheap, available at all hours and in every store, along with drugs, cigs and all kinds of that sorta stuff.

Let nature do the rest

Nothing and i do mean nothing, aside from locking someone up against their own will, will make them stop drinking if they don't want to.

If they do, they will.

 

[Everz]

I actually agree with Toht.. legalize everything .

 

[old.Tohtori]

Problem with humanity; save everyone and complain that there's too many morons around

Wish i was a stand-up comedian, that line would rock.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Idiocracy!

 

[Bugz]

Let people do what they want to their own bodies.

Society doesn't work like that though.

If someone is poor, we don't leave them to it and let them starve to death. Indeed, if someone blows their kidney on alcohol, we don't let them die - we do our best to help. Society works on the foundation of a public system of 'fairness'. So whilst it may be their own bodies, the society we have evolved and developed here in the UK states that their well-being is a concern for us all. Hence we have taxation & we have government expenditure. Alcohol consumption in heavy amounts drains the expenditure.. So encouraging that well-being and also to balance the books, we try our best to stamp out the bad stuff.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And that's bullcrap Bugz.

Hootietootie wellfare "save all monkeys" bullcrap that'll be the end of us all.

FYI; don't use the poor as an example since society pretty much DOES leave them on their own.

Stamp out the bad stuff, like hell, tell everyone how to act/live/walk/talk/look is more like it, the 40s had a guy who also did this and majority of the populus thought he wasn't very nice.

 

[Genedril]

Society doesn't work like that though.

If someone is poor, we don't leave them to it and let them starve to death. Indeed, if someone blows their kidney on alcohol, we don't let them die - we do our best to help. Society works on the foundation of a public system of 'fairness'. So whilst it may be their own bodies, the society we have evolved and developed here in the UK states that their well-being is a concern for us all. Hence we have taxation & we have government expenditure. Alcohol consumption in heavy amounts drains the expenditure.. So encouraging that well-being and also to balance the books, we try our best to stamp out the bad stuff.

People pay tax on alcohol and the more they drink the more tax they pay. The duty that used to be paid on cigarettes far out weighed the cost to the NHS of treating smokers (not sure anymore as I no longer work for a tobacco firm, but this was 5 years ago). Stamping out the bad stuff actually means that there is far less money in the tax 'pot' than the money you save by stamping out the 'bad stuff'.

If tax was weighted on impact your point would be vaild, as taxation doesn't work like that then it's not.

 

[Ch3tan]

There is no binge culture or drinking problem. If anything people are more concious about their health; we eat better; exercise more and more active than they used to be. People have always drunk, it's simply in the spot light more. This is simply another stealth tax from the government, and one that is likely to be replicated the world over if they get away with it. It's the same as "green" taxes, they don't help solve any problems.

Oh and Bugz, go be a politician, you spout crap well enough, just go be one somewhere else and leave people to live their lives.

 

[Bugz]

And that's bullcrap Bugz.

Hootietootie wellfare "save all monkeys" bullcrap that'll be the end of us all.

FYI; don't use the poor as an example since society pretty much DOES leave them on their own.

Stamp out the bad stuff, like hell, tell everyone how to act/live/walk/talk/look is more like it, the 40s had a guy who also did this and majority of the populus thought he wasn't very nice.

So when you was unemployed, you'd be happy if the government didn't help you out and you were forced to starve and be homeless?

People pay tax on alcohol and the more they drink the more tax they pay. The duty that used to be paid on cigarettes far out weighed the cost to the NHS of treating smokers (not sure anymore as I no longer work for a tobacco firm, but this was 5 years ago). Stamping out the bad stuff actually means that there is far less money in the tax 'pot' than the money you save by stamping out the 'bad stuff'.

If tax was weighted on impact your point would be vaild, as taxation doesn't work like that then it's not.

I don't see the point your trying to make here? My point is valid without tax being weighted on impact because I'm talking about the relationship between tax and price elasticity of demand for goods that harm you. Whilst you will eventually reach point x, where income>expenditure, there are still two net benefits: 1. people will stop consuming the harmful thing and 2. more expenditure will be raised, which can be used in other areas of welfare-care, i.e benefits for the disabled.

 

[Raven]

Let people do what they want to their own bodies.

Sure, so long as they are willing and able to repair themselves and cost me nothing in the process.

My solution would be,

If you are found to be drunk and disorderly then you should be fined £100 instantly, get caught a second time £200, a 3rd time £300 and so on. If people can't pay it then they can work it off in community projects/service. They will soon learn then that there is a reaction to their action.

There is absolutely no reason for people to drink more than they can handle, people should learn their limits and not go beyond them. I am sick and tired of going into town to find it jam pack full of dick heads who are too retarded to stop drinking when they are drunk, ruining a night out for other people, costing the tax payer in policing, repairs to property, insurance premiums. The physical harm caused to others because "they looked at my pint funny" or some such shit.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, if alcohol became more expensive, people would find other, less legal ways to consume it, or go elsewhere for it. It will destroy the pub and club industry which are stuggling anyway, and have a massive impact on shops.

 

[Bugz]

Oh and Bugz, go be a politician, you spout crap well enough, just go be one somewhere else and leave people to live their lives.

The point you aren't seeing is: it's all welfare economics.

You want to moan about tax on alcohol and government interrupting your lifes, then I want to moan about disability benefit or unemployment benefit or child tax credits. After all, if you have your child, it's your decision, why should the government help you out?

Granted none of those are my personal views but it all comes under one roof. If your happy to take the cash from the government for the upkeep of your child, then you should be happy to pay the tax elsewhere on harmful goods. In the meantime, we have a social welfare externality being produced in both situations.

edit to the above - there would be lots of external consequences - some good and some bad. Captain obvious could have told you that :d

 

[old.Tohtori]

So when you was unemployed, you'd be happy if the government didn't help you out and you were forced to starve and be homeless?

I've actually talked about this before, the system should be; what you've paid in taxes, you can have as support money.

Fair trade and i have paid more taxes then i've been getting support.

If you've never worked, you should get f*ck all.

 

[Everz]

Society doesn't work like that though.

If someone is poor, we don't leave them to it and let them starve to death. Indeed, if someone blows their kidney on alcohol, we don't let them die - we do our best to help. Society works on the foundation of a public system of 'fairness'. So whilst it may be their own bodies, the society we have evolved and developed here in the UK states that their well-being is a concern for us all. Hence we have taxation & we have government expenditure. Alcohol consumption in heavy amounts drains the expenditure.. So encouraging that well-being and also to balance the books, we try our best to stamp out the bad stuff.

Get to fuck, if someone wants to balls up their own life then let them, like I should give a damn if they do, and vice versa they shouldn't if I do.

 

[Bugz]

I've actually talked about this before, the system should be; what you've paid in taxes, you can have as support money.

Fair trade and i have paid more taxes then i've been getting support.

If you've never worked, you should get f*ck all.

I pretty much agree.

Although we do have something to that extent here but it needs more refining.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, I'm happy to take nothing off the state for the welfare of my offspring, they are my offspring and my responsibility.

You are missing the point that the binge drinking argument is a crock of shit. Drinking patterns have not changed, just the portrayal of them. Money raised by any increase of tax on alcohol is not targeted, the money is not guaranteed for the NHS. It's a just away to increase government coffers, by taxing a product that they know that people will refuse to give up. The same thing has been done with tobacco, and the same thing would happen were any other drug legalised.

 

[Raven]

Edit timer

Edit, this minimum price won't change anything at all, people will still drink the same as they do now. I don't understand why I as a responsible drinker should be punished because some fucktard can't behave properly. Its smacks of a Labour government initiative, punish everyone for the faults of the few.

 

[Genedril]

I don't see the point your trying to make here? My point is valid without tax being weighted on impact because I'm talking about the relationship between tax and price elasticity of demand for goods that harm you. Whilst you will eventually reach point x, where income>expenditure, there are still two net benefits: 1. people will stop consuming the harmful thing and 2. more expenditure will be raised, which can be used in other areas of welfare-care, i.e benefits for the disabled.

No - taking my example of smoking:

More tax was raised on cigarettes, tobacco and smoking paraphernalia than was expended by the NHS on smoking.

Therefore taking that tax away by preventing smoking has a negative impact on the available tax thereby affecting society as a whole.

Your arguement is that they're taking 'resource' for treatment which impacts society as a whole. My arguement is that they've paid for this resource via taxation already and unless less tax is raised than expended then stopping people from putting what they want into themselves is A. An infringement of their liberties and B. Bad for society economically.

An example would be illegal drugs. No taxes raised so obviously a drain on soceity. As the US has already proven prohibition doesn't work then the obvious answer is to legalise them and tax them to pay for treatment (on an economic level).

If you don't believe that to be correct then you must infringe someones liberties by preventing them from doing what they want to themselves for ethical reasons - you believe people to be incapable of making the correct decisions for themselves. You also must believe that people do not have the right to make incorrect decisions for themselves, informed or not.

No, I'm happy to take nothing off the state for the welfare of my offspring, they are my offspring and my responsibility.

You are missing the point that the binge drinking argument is a crock of shit. Drinking patterns have not changed, just the portrayal of them. Money raised by any increase of tax on alcohol is not targeted, the money is not guaranteed for the NHS. It's a just away to increase government coffers, by taxing a product that they know that people will refuse to give up. The same thing has been done with tobacco, and the same thing would happen were any other drug legalised.

Drinking patterns have probably got slightly better as the workforce has moved away from weekly pay and not everyone man goes to the pub on a Friday and Saturday night. You're point with regards to taxation is due to the fact that it's all a central pot from where it's divided and roads (and drivers) suffer from exactly the same issue.

Edit timer

Edit, this minimum price won't change anything at all, people will still drink the same as they do now. I don't understand why I as a responsible drinker should be punished because some fucktard can't behave properly. Its smacks of a Labour government initiative, punish everyone for the faults of the few.

Smacks to me of the Government trying to raise money it'll need a lot as public sector expenditure is cut and job loses hit as you need to pay the dole from somewhere .

 

[megadave]

No, I'm happy to take nothing off the state for the welfare of my offspring, they are my offspring and my responsibility.

You are missing the point that the binge drinking argument is a crock of shit. Drinking patterns have not changed, just the portrayal of them. Money raised by any increase of tax on alcohol is not targeted, the money is not guaranteed for the NHS. It's a just away to increase government coffers, by taxing a product that they know that people will refuse to give up. The same thing has been done with tobacco, and the same thing would happen were any other drug legalised.

But alcohol related crime and health problems are up.

 

[Embattle]

This like most threads about smoking, drugs, etc tends to be full of complete and utter bullshit....as usual.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This like most threads about smoking, drugs, etc tends to be full of complete and utter bullshit....as usual.

If there's bullshit, then do post what is this aformentioned malecowfertiliser and point out how

 

[Bugz]

No - taking my example of smoking:

More tax was raised on cigarettes, tobacco and smoking paraphernalia than was expended by the NHS on smoking.
Therefore taking that tax away by preventing smoking has a negative impact on the available tax thereby affecting society as a whole.

If the rate of tax is x percent and it increases to y percent, then if at point x, income > expenditure, then at point y, unless we're at a crucial income elasticity of demand point where demand suddenly slumps, the small drop in demand should be sustained or near-sustained by the small increase in taxation. Of course, your scenario could be right and equally so could mine; depending on the figures.

Your arguement is that they're taking 'resource' for treatment which impacts society as a whole. My arguement is that they've paid for this resource via taxation already and unless less tax is raised than expended then stopping people from putting what they want into themselves is A. An infringement of their liberties and B. Bad for society economically.

I agree - but on a larger scale. If the budget balances, then of course, no more tax should be raised. In theory that is how politicians hope to work (I hope!). But if we take individual taxation amounts, so "I've been taxed 400 pounds; I've used 400 pounds in welfare economics now leave me the fuck alone," then we're going to need to revamp the public system. But it's not something I want to get into.

An example would be illegal drugs. No taxes raised so obviously a drain on soceity. As the US has already proven prohibition doesn't work then the obvious answer is to legalise them and tax them to pay for treatment (on an economic level).

Yup. One of the better arguments for the legislation of drugs.

If you don't believe that to be correct then you must infringe someones liberties by preventing them from doing what they want to themselves for ethical reasons - you believe people to be incapable of making the correct decisions for themselves. You also must believe that people do not have the right to make incorrect decisions for themselves, informed or not.

If I'm honest, I wouldn't even know where to start on the aspect of liberties. Seems you can't do anything now-a-days without stepping on someones' toes

 

[old.Tohtori]

If I'm honest, I wouldn't even know where to start on the aspect of liberties. Seems you can't do anything now-a-days without stepping on someones' toes

F*ck me, you can't even not do shit and step on toes

"Do more for enviroment!"
"Save the ozone!"
"Donate money for XYZ!"

How about;

"Every hippie and worldsaver shoot yourself to save space, air and litter!".

I'm not actually hoping that people shoot themselves, just that they'd keep the world saving limited to themselves