Adding up the staggering cost of human misery brought on by drink... (From St Helens Star)
Send us news by text, start your message Star News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Adding up the staggering cost of human misery brought on by drink...
11:25am Thursday 9th August 2012 in News By Reader letter
A RECENT report shows crime, anti-social behaviour and illness caused by drink cost an annual £450 per head of population in St Helens, Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral compared with an England average of £387.
Leaving aside the huge financial cost , the cost in human misery to communities and families is staggering.
The Green Party welcomed the Government's decision to introduce a minimum price of at least 40p per unit of alcohol in England and Wales in order to tackle our harmful drinking culture.
Minimum pricing was one of a number of measures unveiled as part of a new national alcohol strategy, which also proposes greater powers for local authorities to deal with binge drinking.
This will help prevent irresponsible retailers from offering heavy discounts on alcohol and also reduce the pressure on the licensed trade, helping to protect our local pubs from closure.
I’m sure all St Helens residents can reel off a list of local pubs that have closed in recent years. However, we are disappointed the government had not gone with the higher rate of 50p per unit of alcohol recommended by Alcohol Concern - and had failed to propose controls on the advertising of alcohol.
This measure could and should be used to provide more funding to the National Health Service and to stop cuts in police numbers.
Brian Banawich, St Helens Green Party, Springfield , Rainford.
Comments(30)
pitbullboxing
says...
8:43pm Thu 9 Aug 12
jumper
says...
9:13am Fri 10 Aug 12
frankly
says...
10:32am Fri 10 Aug 12
mikeperry109
says...
12:19pm Fri 10 Aug 12
Everard Edbutt
says...
12:42pm Fri 10 Aug 12
That said 40p per unit means a bottle of white wine would have to cost a minimum of £3.60... Well that's definately going to save lives when currently you can't buy a bottle of white wine for that price anyway...
Either way - taxing the responsible for the actions of the few is a poor effort and an ill-conceived kneejerk reaction by those who want to be seen to be doing something even if what they're doing is never going to work.
PM
says...
1:09pm Fri 10 Aug 12
mikeperry109 wrote:I don't think anyone is talking about prohibition , but raising the ludicrously low price of a unit of alcohol must be a good thing when we have embarked on a binge drinking culture in the UK.When you can buy beer for less than bottled water or soft drinks you've got something wrong.
Unfortunately Brian, as the Americans discovered with prohibition, forcing up the price opens the doors for the criminals and smugglers to profit. Cigarette smuggling is apparently rife.
PM
says...
1:14pm Fri 10 Aug 12
Everard Edbutt wrote:According to the figures in the letter you are already paying through the nose for the actions of the minority.As for the cost of alcohol, you can get a bottle of wine for £2.99 and 4 cans of beer for £1.99 in leading supermarkets, that's before you get to the issue of cheap super strength cider. The only reason the government havent acted is pressure from the supermarkets and drinks companies- the pubs want minimum pricing, the NHS want it. Seems sensible to me.
Ah yes putting additional tax on the amber nectar - nothing like punishing the majority of drinkers who drink responsibly because of the actions of a minority. Excellent politics.
That said 40p per unit means a bottle of white wine would have to cost a minimum of £3.60... Well that's definately going to save lives when currently you can't buy a bottle of white wine for that price anyway...
Either way - taxing the responsible for the actions of the few is a poor effort and an ill-conceived kneejerk reaction by those who want to be seen to be doing something even if what they're doing is never going to work.
pitbullboxing
says...
1:14pm Fri 10 Aug 12
PM
says...
1:20pm Fri 10 Aug 12
jumper wrote:To be fair I think all authorities and governments have ignored the problem for too long.I was in Leeds a few weeks ago and the city centre was a sight to behold on Friday night, people were lying on the pavements, young girls vomiting in shop doorways , small scuffles all over the place and the police and paramedics were out in force trying to ensure these idiots were safe. You go to europe and you just don't see these scenes, or at least I havent. I don't know if minimum pricing is the answer but it must be worth a try .
The authorities of this borough have chosen to ignore the problems for a very long time.
jumper
says...
2:09pm Fri 10 Aug 12
Davos99
says...
4:13pm Fri 10 Aug 12
Sankey
says...
5:56pm Fri 10 Aug 12
rosered1
says...
6:57pm Fri 10 Aug 12
mikeperry109
says...
7:59pm Fri 10 Aug 12
PM wrote:The point I was making, PM, is that when you force up the price you force in the illegal trade.
mikeperry109 wrote:I don't think anyone is talking about prohibition , but raising the ludicrously low price of a unit of alcohol must be a good thing when we have embarked on a binge drinking culture in the UK.When you can buy beer for less than bottled water or soft drinks you've got something wrong.
Unfortunately Brian, as the Americans discovered with prohibition, forcing up the price opens the doors for the criminals and smugglers to profit. Cigarette smuggling is apparently rife.
jumper
says...
8:16pm Fri 10 Aug 12
Everard Edbutt
says...
7:32am Sat 11 Aug 12
Added to the fact that a large percentage of this countries drink problem is caused by the middle classes (like me) who rarlet spend less than £8 a bottle on wine and won't be affected in any way by a negligble rise in alcohol price increases.
It's like with the fatty boom booms walking around and talk of a tax on fat food. If folk want it they'll find the money to pay for it, regardless of the cost.
If folk want to get drunk, eat burgers or drive their cars increasing tax wont make much difference. Those so poor to be affected will just not buy their kids that new pair of shoes or re-prioritise their spend in such a way to ensure their vices are not affected.
As I said before it's ill conceived and knee jerk and the NHS et al will be happy with any proposal that might have any positive impact no matter how tiny especially if a bit of this extra revenue generated by this tax may come their way...
Tackling the culture is the way forward and how to do that is a bigger, lengthier and more thought provoking project than simply whacking 71p of a extra tax on a bottle of rubbish wine....
PM
says...
9:04am Sat 11 Aug 12
Everard Edbutt wrote:Actually the knee jerk reaction is to go way over the top in the reaction to a minimum price per unit for alcohol without researching who is campaigning for an increase and who isn't. Canada introduced a minimum price for alcohol over twenty years ago and it has led to a reduction in consumption among the young. The police- those on the front line dealing with the problems caused by irresponsible drinking are also in favour of an increase in the unit price of alcohol . You want to 'tackle the culture' but offer nothing as a way of doing that. The NHS, Alcohol related charities and the police want to do that and believe an increase in the price of a unit of alcohol is one measure that would help. It is, as the saying goes, a 'no-brainer' which side of the argument has more merit.
Crikey! A bottle of wine for £2.99 PM? Wow - what grapes are going in that bottle - the ones Stu Francis has crushed I guess! Anyway adding 71pence to the cost of a bottle isn't going to deter folk from getting smashes out of their faces. Added to the fact that a large percentage of this countries drink problem is caused by the middle classes (like me) who rarlet spend less than £8 a bottle on wine and won't be affected in any way by a negligble rise in alcohol price increases. It's like with the fatty boom booms walking around and talk of a tax on fat food. If folk want it they'll find the money to pay for it, regardless of the cost. If folk want to get drunk, eat burgers or drive their cars increasing tax wont make much difference. Those so poor to be affected will just not buy their kids that new pair of shoes or re-prioritise their spend in such a way to ensure their vices are not affected. As I said before it's ill conceived and knee jerk and the NHS et al will be happy with any proposal that might have any positive impact no matter how tiny especially if a bit of this extra revenue generated by this tax may come their way... Tackling the culture is the way forward and how to do that is a bigger, lengthier and more thought provoking project than simply whacking 71p of a extra tax on a bottle of rubbish wine....
Sankey
says...
10:42am Sat 11 Aug 12
jumper
says...
11:44am Sat 11 Aug 12
frankly
says...
7:28pm Sat 11 Aug 12
jumper
says...
8:30pm Sat 11 Aug 12
BillMitch
says...
1:17pm Mon 13 Aug 12
BillMitch
says...
1:21pm Mon 13 Aug 12
Sankey wrote:But tax on cigarettes has reduced smoking, the cost of alcohol has an effect on consumption.If you go into a supermarket and see a bottle of cola for the same price as a a four pack of beer the tax system obviously needs tweaking to ensure the alcohol costs more.I'd be surprised if any logical person could disagree with that premise.
What’s knee jerk PM is thinking there is a social engineering big brother answer to everything. Either Alcohol is safe or it is not, if it’s not safe it should be banned altogether. As others have said putting a tax rise here or there is for political headlines only or to keep quangocrats in jobs it will achieve nothing. People have to take responsibility for their behaviour and their health and move away from the current notion the state has responsibility for everything and the individual has responsibility for nothing. If I go into Warrington town centre at 4am drunk smashing windows that is not the fault of the state or alcohol or the retailer who sold it to me, it’s my fault.
papyt
says...
5:54pm Mon 13 Aug 12
jumper
says...
9:08pm Mon 13 Aug 12
Sankey
says...
10:55am Tue 14 Aug 12
PM
says...
11:31am Tue 14 Aug 12
Sankey wrote:Money and cost are prime motivations for human beings.Hence congestion charging to reduce gridlock, tobacco taxes to reduce smoking, taxes on waste to reduce pollution.And the minimum price per unit of alcohol has been brought in by a Tory led government, not a socialist one. Why? because it's the right thing to do, and in the long run totally cost effective. It is totally ludicrous to expect everyone to just be responsible because some people are as thick as planks and some people are vulnerable and not everyone has the same moral compass. I take it your libertarian stance stretches to the total legalisation of drugs on the basis everyone is responsible enough to make their own decsions then?
Following that logic Bill Mitch then why not put a 1000% tax on drink that would reduce consumption no doubt. Typical socialist comment the state controls everything and people cannot or should not be expected to take responsibility for themselves. Any other rules / controls you would like to dream up?
PM
says...
11:37am Tue 14 Aug 12
kjd161
says...
11:38am Tue 14 Aug 12
papyt wrote:27 comments on this subject, and I have to say some good ones. But this one is far and away the best and most sensible proposal yet. Nice one papyt.
firstly i would have a borough wide ban on consuming alcohol in public places ( streets,parks etc etc) then i would tax the supermarkets to pay for the extra police needed,have strict licencing laws prohibiting the sale off alcohol,lets face it who needs to buy 6 bottles of strong cider at 8 in the morning,and lets get back to the closing times like before,let the cities have 24 hour drinking a small town like ours doesn't need it.
mikeperry109 says...
12:43pm Thu 9 Aug 12