Sign in / up

back to article Health pros: Alcohol is EVIL – raise its price, ban its ads

A broad coalition of UK health organizations has released a report detailing the evils of demon rum (and whisky, vodka, brandy, gin, lager, ale, wine, et al.), and calling for a series of government actions to suppress its use, including sharply increased pricing and a ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorships. "In …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

            1. beep54
              Reply Icon
              Meh

              Re: Absolutely

              "There is no reason why a good wine should ever be more than 12%"

              I take it that you are just not really all that familiar with 'good' wine.

              2 1
              1. Ken 16 Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: Absolutely

                It is harder to get flavour at lower alcohol levels, which is why a lot of wines have been creeping up in strength but a nice red should be able to cope at 12% and a nice white at 10%, otherwise you may as well sling oak chips in the barrel and top it up to 15% to impress the critics whose tongues have been pickled.

                0 1

            2. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Absolutely

                Can't tell the difference between wine and fortified wine? Anyway, there is a reason why alcohol abuse is widespread in the UK, and that is that the country is sinking so fast that it's not even funny. So people turn to drinking.

                And there is nothing that can be done. The upper classes are simply not qualified to lead: too many generations of privilege and in-breeding.

                0 0
        2. veti Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Headmaster

          Re: @John Smith 19

          @Tom Welsh: I love it when people say "do the maths..."

          A bottle of wine contains 750 ml of liquid. A unit of alcohol is defined as 10 ml of alcohol. So to get 11 units in a bottle, you're talking about wine that's 14.5% ABV. I submit that if you're drinking "the cheapest wine you can get in a supermarket" and it's 14.5% ABV, your liver and stomach are in a world of trouble.

          A more typical strength, particularly for cheap plonk, would be 11%, making for 8 units per bottle. Some wines are significantly lower (and none the worse for that - part of our current problem is that there's a tendency towards making beer and wine stronger - but that's basically for fashion's sake, there's no taste-based reason for it).

          2 1
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @John Smith 19

            Actually, I said "Do the math" because it's an American expression. "Do the maths" just sounds silly.

            As for the percentages, it's a fair cop. I exaggerated the strength of typical wines, not because I wanted to distort the facts, but because I usually assume a bottle of wine is 10-11 units when calculating how much I and others can safely drink per week. I suppose I have built in a small safety factor.

            In fact, most of the wine we drink is 11-12.5% alcohol by volume. 11% would give each bottle 8.25 units (not 8 as you said - see how slippery a slope this is?) while 12.5% is equivalent to 9.375 units per bottle. So £4.15 and and £4.69 respectively, rather than the £5.50 I stated.

            However, this downward revision of the minimum prices makes virtually no difference at all to the strength of my argument, as you can buy perfectly drinkable wine for £4.50 a bottle today.

            And, of course, my liver and stomach are a matter for me (and possibly my doctor). You don't need to worry about them, although of course I appreciate your solicitous concern.

            1 0
          2. Charles 9
            Reply Icon

            Re: @John Smith 19

            "A bottle of wine contains 750 ml of liquid. A unit of alcohol is defined as 10 ml of alcohol. So to get 11 units in a bottle, you're talking about wine that's 14.5% ABV. I submit that if you're drinking "the cheapest wine you can get in a supermarket" and it's 14.5% ABV, your liver and stomach are in a world of trouble.

            A more typical strength, particularly for cheap plonk, would be 11%, making for 8 units per bottle. Some wines are significantly lower (and none the worse for that - part of our current problem is that there's a tendency towards making beer and wine stronger - but that's basically for fashion's sake, there's no taste-based reason for it)."

            Based on my experiences, I don't think most winos go for honest wine. They go for what might best be called "bum wine," which is in fact cheap fortified wine. They pack a stronger buzz than honest wines (since they climb up into the 18-20% ABV range) and usually cost less. The winos don't care much for the taste; they just want to get drunk as often as possible. As for their livers and stomachs, they're usually beyond caring at this point and are just picking their poison.

            0 0
        3. Tom 38
          Reply Icon

          Re: @John Smith 19

          The problem is that this doesn't happen. If you increase the cost of alcohol so that certain sections of society do not spend 50% of their income on booze, then they will either buy illegal or bootleg alcohol (which already happens), or they will forego other things, like food, clothes for their kids, and so on. They don't start drinking less.

          @Tom Welsh:

          The additional duty should be applied at point of manufacture or import. This simply makes it more expensive for merchants to sell, the only people seeing anything from an increase should be the government. If anything, merchants would actually be taking smaller margins on alcohol.

          1 0
      2. Michael Habel
        Reply Icon
        Big Brother

        First they came for the Pricing 'cause it was soo affordable to drink. I didn't speak out.

        Then they came after the Adds 'Cause joe Camel makes Children want to Smoke Cigarettes, and again I said nothing.

        Then they decided on some sunny Day that they should go after the Alcohol 'cause its SOOO EVIL!!! But, by then it was already too late...

        6 3
  2. Charles Manning

    Nanny can't fix it

    It is the way of the nanny state to try to legislate against stupidity. Regardless of the outcome, it feels good to do something... anything... even if it has no effect.

    I guess it is only natural: parliamentarians play with law making and so see that to be the solution to all societies ills. IT geeks think handing out computers (OLPC etc) will fix the world. It is just the old saying that a man with a hammer thinks everything looks like a nail.

    It is the unfortunate reality that these programs seldom have any useful outcome amongst the people they are targeted to help. Instead they just impinge on the freedoms of responsible users.

    38 5
    1. Ole Juul
      Reply Icon

      Re: Nanny can't fix it

      Instead they just impinge on the freedoms of responsible users.

      And non-users as well. Here in Canada we have draconian alcohol laws and you can't easily buy clean ethyl alcohol for other purposes since it is assumed that you will drink it all on the way home. In any case, these kinds of laws always infringe on freedoms in general. They do, however, make an excellent excuse for collecting more taxes to fund programs such as this which will create a lot of jobs which otherwise wouldn't have a reason to exist.

      18 2
      1. Elmer Phud
        Reply Icon
        Pint

        Re: Nanny can't fix it

        No cigar -- since when did governments use named taxes to directly fund anything.

        Even the darling of the right - Winston Churchill - stopped Road Tax being spent on roads

        Governments know that those who term themselves as 'moderate drinkers' are likely to be at least psychologically addicted to the stuff as a societal prop-- it's just a guaranteed income from junkies.

        ( not a troll -- boozers only have 'habits' )

        4 1
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nanny can't fix it

          Indeed and you would not believe the scope of the blatant pushing of alcohol by the big brewing companies at UK Universities. Trying VERY hard to turn the next generation of Pols and everyone else into addicts.

          2 1
      2. Cipher
        Reply Icon
        Alert

        Re: Nanny can't fix it

        Ole Juul:

        And raise money, at least that what they hope it will do. Nanny State Elitists never run out of ideas to raise more cash to fund the projects to help the Great Unwashed...

        3 0
    2. Eddy Ito
      Reply Icon

      "...even if it has no effect."

      The problem is that it's never been seen to have no effect. It has always has, in the past, had a hugely detrimental effect on the intended targets and innocent bystanders. Unfortunately far too many people are so myopic that they can't see past the mostly harmless scourge they seek to rout.

      12 1
    3. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      DING DING DING!

      You used the expression "nanny state"

      The new Godwin's Law.

      6 11
      1. Eddy Ito
        Reply Icon

        Re: DING DING DING!

        I say we make the expression "Godwin's Law" the new Godwin's Law.

        3 1
    4. Naughtyhorse
      Reply Icon

      Re: Nanny can't fix it

      except seat belts and drink driving that is.

      2 1
      1. Eddy Ito
        Reply Icon

        Re: Nanny can't fix it

        "except seat belts and drink driving that is."

        I didn't know that seat belts and drink driving were broken. Passing laws by itself does nothing. Education does far more and I would wager that the PSAs put on TV and the improved communication in schools has done far more to combat drink driving that simply passing a bunch of laws and putting up excuses to search your car for contraband on the roadway.

        As for seat belts, there isn't much proof that laws actually do anything either other than generate revenue for the state. I know, it's about saving lives not raising money, so let's look at the data, shall we. The NHTSA has seat belt use data (PDF) for the 50 States, Wikipedia and the GHSA have data on seat belt laws and the Census Bureau have the data on traffic accident fatalities and fatalities by state (PDF).

        Now the state with the lowest seat belt use, New Hampshire 68.9% in 2009 and 72.2% in 2010, also has neither a primary1 nor secondary seat belt law for adults and the state with the highest use, Hawaii 97.9 - 2009 and 97.6 - 2010, has a primary seat belt law. Naturally if this was about saving lives it should follow that NH with its low use rate would have a higher fatality rate than HI, except it doesn't. In fact for the last year shown on the Census data 2009, the fatality rate per 100 million road miles traveled is 22% higher in HI than NH.

        Ok, the two states are a world away so let's look somewhere closer to the "worst" seat belt use like New York which also has a primary seat belt law. We find that the use rate was 88% in '09 and 89.8% in '10 so it is still considerably higher than NH. Oddly the traffic fatality rate for those two states is the same. How can that be? The climates and driving conditions are going to be very similar given the proximity so how can the seat belt use and laws be so different with the same result?

        1. A primary seat belt law means that a driver can be stopped and ticketed only for non-use of a seat belt. A secondary seat belt law does not allow for stopping a driver solely for non-use of a seat belt but if stopped for another reason it becomes a second offense.

        0 5
        1. Naughtyhorse
          Reply Icon

          Re: Nanny can't fix it

          The article is about the uk. (the US people have so many, frankly bonkers ideas about what freedom is, their views can't really contribute much to this debate) - although it strikes me that maybe the population density of NH being around 1/3 of new york might have some influence on traffic levels & conditions :-)

          The primary legislation relating to the compulsory use of seatbelts was passed in the uk, after many attempts in 1983.

          It is currently estimated that in the uk, over the last 25 years 60,000 lives have been saved by the use of seatbelts.

          now i'm sure we could argue the numbers on that, until even the gun lobby gives up and opens it's mind to reason (did you see what i did there!)

          2400 lives a year is currently 125% of UK road deaths, even if the figure is mostly bollocks, whatever the actual figure is, sounds like there would be a significant jump in the figures if the law was repealed, and people stopped wearing them.

          I was a teenager at the time the legislation was going through and i remember the stiff opposition to it by pretty much everyone, and while jimmy saville's (where have i heard that name recently?) 'clunk-click' campaign in the late 70's had some traction, not a lot changed till there was a fine attached to their non use.

          Nowadays it's unthinkable not to wear them (irritating 'bongs' from the dashboard notwithstanding) it feels wrong not to be strapped in. It was a the action of the 'nanny state' that introduced the law, but in retrospect it was a pretty good idea.

          Sometimes we need to be protected from our own stupidity (oh no! we are back on guns!)

          3 3
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Nanny can't fix it

            Secondary safety (things that count when you crash) items like seat belts, air bags, crash intrusion protection, crumple zones, deforming steering columns and a gazillion other items introduce over the past 25 years screw up the comparability of numbers.

            Primary safety (things that help you avoid a crash) items like better braking, better handling, ABS, electronic handling software etc. have also had a massive effect.

            Car safety has never been higher in the developed world (I suggest a trip to India sometime and a road trip. If you survive to tell the tale, let me know), and that is an admirable thing. However, there becomes a point beyond which it becomes pointless or economically non-viable to push the number further down.

            Setting the speed limit to zero would eliminate 100% of road fatalities.

            I am not sure why we are talking about seat belts. O right, the nanny state.

            Question: Do I have the right to decide my own fate?

            Answer: in a "nanny state" the answer is a definitive no.

            Compulsory seat belt laws, compulsory helmet laws, anti-drinking and anti-evereything-pretty-much-that-is-fun legislation are the characteristics of a nanny state protecting the 2% of the populace who need protecting at the expense of everyone else's freedom.

            4 2
          2. Super Fast Jellyfish
            Reply Icon

            Re: Nanny can't fix it

            Yes but strangely the author of the article is based in San Francisco - I only realised when I noticed the US spelling being used.

            0 0
          3. Eddy Ito
            Reply Icon

            Re: Nanny can't fix it

            "although it strikes me that maybe the population density of NH being around 1/3 of new york might have some influence on traffic levels & conditions :-)"

            You could always make the comparison to Vermont (85.3% belt usage, secondary law) with slightly less than half the NH population density or Maine (82.6% belt usage, primary law) at about 1/3 that of NH and you would also find that their fatality rate is higher even though the seat belt usage is greater but I'm sure you're not interested in actual data.

            You seem to think that current usage and safety has to do with laws and fines but, in a similar vein, I know lots of younger people who would never consider riding a motor bike without a helmet regardless of whether a law exists or not and I also know lots of older riders who hate wearing one and won't ride to states where they have to put a lid on. Certainly it must be because of the laws, it isn't about educating people to the benefits of wearing helmets or seat belts and people independently choosing to do so because it is just the smart thing to do.

            In the long run education will win every time in spite of the fact the "nanny state's" insistence on penalizing people to conform. Reminds me quite a lot of the nuns back in school who couldn't answer the questions but insisted that you have faith because they're always right. Oh, of course I saw what you did there and the nuns would be proud of you for having such an open mind enlightened point of view.

            0 1
          4. Dan Paul
            Reply Icon
            Devil

            Re: Nanny can't fix it ( Neither can you!)

            Please stop trying to juxtapose seatbelts against drinking. I can provide plenty of statistics saying the same thing about guns and come to the conclusion that we should ban automobiles or use medical negligence claims and say we should ban hospitals.

            What this is about, now and forever is about personal responsibility and personal freedom.

            TAKE Personal Responsibility for your own actions Government should take responsibility for theirs and just leave us all the fuck alone.

            0 0
  3. Tom Maddox Silver badge
    Mushroom

    ODFO

    That's it, really.

    6 0
    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Re: ODFO

      Or FOAD.

      50p a unit minimum price does nothing to a pint of beer around here and not much for anything else bought in a pub. It hits wine and whisky drinkers at home though. So yobs can keep chugging in public but more refined drinkers get stung. Or maybe that's the plan - drive us out onto the streets to drink.

      12 1
  4. John Savard

    New Health Problem

    Raising alcohol taxes will just lead to more poor people being poisoned by drinking denatured alcohol products, and to other poor people being drawn into deeper poverty. Some lives are more valuable than others to those who blithely speak of using money, which some people have more of than other people, as the means to limit access to things like alcohol and tobacco.

    13 3
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lee Macks take on binge drinking: :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KroDpCBcxU

    6 0
    1. Shades
      Reply Icon

      Genius! I do love a bit of Lee.

      1 0
  6. Denarius
    Trollface

    booze is good for the elderly

    or so displayed ElReg articles not so long ago. One just has to make it past 35 to enjoy and benefit. Pity so much booze is dreadful acidic steel cleaning liquid, promoted by twats that think cheap frog derived gunks are quality.

    3 1
  7. Rol

    It's enough to drive you drink

    Make all alcohol sales via debit/credit card and flag the cards of those who have been proven to have no will power on enough occasions to suggest they need nannying.

    It's got it's faults, but far better than the punitive method being discussed, that will only serve to make everyone’s life a little less worth living and still not address the "at any price" lunatics that will carry on regardless.

    1 19
    1. Velv
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: It's enough to drive you drink

      So I get flagged as an alchie because I buy my 85 yr old aunts shopping every week which includes a couple of bottles of gin?

      And who's going to collate the card data? You really want the government, or worse, a QUANGO to be storing your personal spending habits?

      Why not just introduce a National Identity card and flag all alcohol sales via that?

      FAIL!

      11 0
    2. PhilBuk
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Re: It's enough to drive you drink

      Please, stay away from society and don't get a job which involves other people relying on your good judgement.

      Phil.

      2 0
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's enough to drive you drink

      But what of the (now sadly deceased) Queen Mum?

      How would she have fared in such a system. Let me see, 1 bottle of gin a day for, let's be a bit compassionate and say what, 80 years?

      2 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Alcohol doesn't kill people

    People does!

    1 1
    1. MrT
      Reply Icon

      Soylent Green...

      ...but fermented.

      2 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Soylent Green...

        SOYa / LENTils, yeah? The original book "Make Room, Make Room!" by Harry Harrison apparently didn't have any "human products", that was just added as schlock to spice up the film without his say-so.

        1 1
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    How much...

    How much (taxpayers) money did those "health guru's" manage to gross in for their wisdom ?

    I just had a few myself and honestly; this is uberly stupid. Sure; there are plenty of people who can't handle alcohol; but I'm pretty sure there are a lot more who can. Don't take the cheap way out of this; if people misbehave then hold them responsible instead of trying to take it out on the whole population who likes to drink alcohol every now and then.

    And if we're talking about health problems here (I hjave to admit; read briefly; I refreshed El Reg before bedtime, guess that makes me an El Reg junkie ;-)).. What ever happened to people's own responsibility ?

    Hold people accountable for that they did, not for what they might going to do.

    And yeah; I had a few beers myself. Amazing; even managing to wrie up an comment; guess the alcohol isn't that bad at all :-)

    10 1
    1. Magani
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: How much...

      "Hold people accountable for that they did, not for what they might going to do."

      That makes far too much sense. It refers to personal responsibility and in today's nanny state this just will not get a look in. AFAICT, alchoholism is a disease and those with this disease should be treated for it. Painting all of society as alcoholics isn't a solution.

      SWMBO and I enjoy a (small) tipple before dinner, and a glass of grape-related liquid with dinner. I'd say that on average, we get through a bottle of spirits a month, and maybe a couple of bottles of red or white a week. There's no way the local bottle shop/off-licence is going to get rich with our drinking habits, yet this bunch of do-gooders seem hell bent on proving that I'm going to hell in a handcart because of my lascivious ways. What's stage 2? Plain bottles behind blank panels at the pub?

      Yes there are people in the community that need help, but the proposed solution in the article doesn't seem to answer their problems. Yet another 'one-size-fits-all' solution that fails to find its target.

      16 1
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        Re: How much...

        Let's have recreational drugs legalized. End the failing drugs prohibition.

        21 1
        1. Domino
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: How much...

          There seems to be a move the other direction. They are probably tired of hearing how cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tabacco and how unjust it is that it's treated differently. So ban tabacco smoking indoors & alcohol drinking outdoors in public (divide and conquer), ban advertising, make it expensive to reduce number of users, brand users as social outcasts.. Early steps towards making them illegal just like cannabis so no one can complain. That'll work right?

          7 0
    2. Philip Lewis
      Reply Icon
      Pint

      Re: How much...

      This is riveting stuff.

      Half way through the comments and half a pint down. I need to lift my game!

      0 0
  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Advertising

    Banning advertising could be a good idea. Not because it'll reduce consumption, just because people might choose drinks for flavor instead of drinking the piss with the best adverts.

    17 0
    1. Stacy
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Re: Advertising

      Hear, hear!

      Living in Holland it's easy to get hold of really nice Trappist or micro brewery beers that are sold on word of mouth not advertising. I offered to bring some back to the UK for a relative and was told, "Don't bother, the in drink here is Bud at the moment, so I wouldn't drink anything other than that. I know it's crap - but it's trendy, ain't it!"

      Unreal to choose that over something that tastes wonderful!

      5 0
    2. pixl97
      Reply Icon

      Re: Advertising - Internet age

      How are they going to 'ban' internet advertizing? None on sites with a .co.uk? What counts as an ad? My blog where I talk about the newest swill released on the market? If they can't stop the ads or 'false' ads on the internet expect the billion dollar ad industry to go on the internet in one way or the other.

      0 0
      1. Philip Lewis
        Reply Icon
        Big Brother

        Re: Advertising - Internet age

        Let the "Ministry of Truth" be the final arbiter

        1 1
  11. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
    FAIL

    The 1920's called

    They want their temperance movements back.

    The trouble with all this nanny state stuff is: The people who are easily dissuaded from abusing alcohol (or whatever) by high prices, taxes and regulation aren't the ones who suffer the worst consequences. The people who are really hooked will ruin their lives regardless of the costs.

    17 1
    1. MrT
      Reply Icon

      Time to head off to the Speakeasy...

      The only fun one was in Bugsy Malone. A different kind of messy though.

      1 0
    2. Lars Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Pint

      Re: The 1920's called

      Yes, I sometimes wonder if anybody is honestly interested in figuring out the reality. There is a limit to how much alcohol a person can consume per day (speaking of those who have no other goals). Why do we assume his and his family's life is better if he destroys his economy too. Why not rather a happy drinker, alcoholic, than a suicidal person well knowing (I have never met anyone who is unaware) that he is ruining everything around him much due to destroying him self economically. There is something in this lack of logic which reminds me of the RIAA where you are accused of downloading 1000Gb of music per day but nobody asks the question if it is possible to listen to that amount of music per day.

      Quit frankly I do not think making drinking more expensive is any solution to anything.

      8 1
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "easily dissuaded" vs "really hooked"

      But the people for whom this might make a difference aren't in either camp - they're in the middle, on the borderline between cutting back and ending up hooked. Will this price change maybe get them to cut back at least a little, and so be less likely to end up ruined? Whether you agree or not, setting up two opposing straw men isn't likely to result in a useful conclusion.

      1 9

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like