Minimum alcohol pricing bill defeated!

Good news for people who take responsibility for their own actions, bad news for health fascists who want to tell people how to live their lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11381608

Let's hope that the English parliament is watching and finally accepts that price-fixing for alcohol is a stupid idea that penalises responsible drinkers.

Agreed. It won't reduce alcohol consumption, just make people poorer.

Hooray! A victory for common sense. Might get some Tesco value scotch tonight to celebrate!

This was clearly a racist Bill, as it was aimed at majority groups who choose to consume alcohol.

Is there really an argument to allow the sale of 5% cider in 2 litre bottles for less than £2?

Yep - there's a responsible market for it.

Yep - there's a responsible market for it.

It's the cheapest possible way to oblivion. This isn't social drinking, it's for people who use city centres as their own personal beer garden so they can shout swear words at buses and unrinate in their pants.

I use it for cooking/cocktails. If someone chooses to abuse alcohol I don't see why I should pay more for something I use responsibly. And why the retailers should be gifted a massive profits hike.

People can abuse anything. Setting minimum prices does nothing to tackle the root of the problem, punishes those who are responsible and fills Tesco's coffers. It's not the right approach - glad the Scots have seen so.

To get an idea of the damage that boozing is causing, consider just one indicator: liver disease. Alcoholism and heavy drinking cause liver disease. Deaths from cirrhosis and other liver disorders have risen five-fold in the past 30 years and our cirrhosis levels have now overtaken the wine-drinking Mediterranean countries – Spain, Italy, France. Women, more and more of whom like to binge drink, are getting liver problems in their thirties.

The only good reason to object to minimum pricing is that it’s unfair on the majority of drinkers, some of them poor, who enjoy the occasional drink to relax but who don’t end up vomiting in the street outside Yates’s Wine Lodge. But Mr Lansley is surely wrong if he thinks, as the booze industry also likes to argue, that price has no effect on demand. After all, he presumably accepts the principle of pricing to deter usage when it comes to tobacco: why not alcohol?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100050443/with-three-litres-of-cider-costing-1-18-why-does-the-government-not-support-minimum-pricing/

Cheap pricing doesn't help the situation. But neither will hiking the price deter it. The problem of alcohol abuse can't be tackled from the wrong end - especially when doing harms the majority of sensible drinkers. The cause of the problem needs looking at, not the supply.

Where would the line stop? How much protecting from ourselves do we need? It's getting ridiculous in this country now.

Couldn't agree more HotPhil

I could say more but you've already said it

You've got a skewed idea of what constitutes harm Phil.

Higher prices would reduce consumption and save lives, but you're worried about the "harm" caused to you because you have to pay more for your cocktails!