If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The UK's relationship with the bottle
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Hospital admissions have doubled over the last ten years among other grim statistics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7414322.stm
Personally I'd like to see a per unit tax on alcohol, it would be the fairest and simplest way forward.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7414322.stm
Personally I'd like to see a per unit tax on alcohol, it would be the fairest and simplest way forward.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Why not charge for hospital admissions if the injury is purposefully self-inflicted? Much fairer, and it means the responsible amongst us don't foot the bill.
Tax is always the answer - to everything.
And how are we going to make the pay exactly? Nice idea, but it wouldnt work in practice.
I think (no offense to you intended, btw) that's an awful idea.
Healthcare in this country is supposed to free at the point of use and we should not change that all especially so in hospital / A&E wards where people really have no choice.
Oil, food, etc.
There is money to be made from "self-medication"...
Not sure thats the answer Bong.
I t is quite alarming and brings to mind something from the good book. It talks of an attitude where people start to have the aattitude and even voice it and that is ...lets drink eat and merry becuase tommorow we may die.
That attitude seems to have taken over in many young people.
Few people give a monkeys about anything ...themselves other people and even their own families ...sod the consequences.
It's not just the young either ..people my age arre consuming ever larger ammounts of wine at home ...cheap beer and spirits. Evey day drinking is becoming the norm.
the mindless violence and idiocy of some of these bozers speaks volumes.
I agree, it's certainly not just the young. In fact, it's not even young people in the majority. But naturally, that doesn't stop the media from focusing on the young people. That article says that 1 in 10 alcohol-related illnesses is in a person under the age of 18. But that means that 9 out of 10 are among people who are apparently old enough to do it responsibly. And as you would expect, the over 35s absolutely dominate deaths from alcohol-related issues. And if you look at this chart between the dates of 1991 and 2006, you'll notice that it isn't the under 34s who are dieing at an increasing rate.
Now obviously, you'd expect that, because it takes a lot of years of drinking to die from it, but the facts are that the statistics are going up (for all ages except over-75s, but 35-74 deaths are rising at a much faster rate).
But this is some good news:
In terms of deaths, illness and injury from alcohol though, it's obviously a very long-term thing. These over 35s aren't suffering more because they drink any less responsibly, just because they've done it for a longer time. Hopefully the 11-15 year olds in the above survey will be dying at a lower rate by the time they're 35.
Anyone who claimed that was an idiot, if only for the reason that most of continental Europe actually drink more than us on average. The whole continental Europe thing was a myth. But perhaps more importantly, what this data shows that for 10 years, the majority of which opening hours were restricted, alcohol illnesses double. So what does that tell you about the effectiveness of restricting opening hours? And if there's no justification for restricting someone's freedom (as there clearly isn't in the case of opening hours), then the law should be scrapped, which is exactly what happened. The licencing laws clearly never had an effect on alcohol-related illnesses, and 24-hour drinking doesn't either. It'd be rather simplistic to suggest that it does. The problem is far more complex than that. And in response to Buddas point, I think the problem is far more complex than another penny on alcohol tax.
I think if you were going to point to anything in the pub and club trade, you might point to how it's now almost impossible to buy a small glass of win. Or how you will always be asked if you want a house double when ordering a vodka. Or how you'll have to pay extra to get a vodka and coke that's in a glass that's big enough to fit any coke in. Or why a small bottle of beer is more expensive than a pint. They use exactly the same tactics as the likes of McDonalds to get you to buy more, except that with alcohol, you get the problems on the same night, as well as 20 years down the line. I don't know how you solve this in a way that doesn't impose a load of draconian laws on the owners, but there must be a way to allow owners to make the same profits without having to sell ridiculous amounts of alcohol, and that convinces, rather than forces customers not to buy ridiculous amounts of alcohol.
In Germany, it's 16 for beer and 18 for everything else... I wonder if here we should make spirits, wine and alcopops 21 and keep beer/cider under 5% at 18. It's not a perfect solution to "teenage binge drinking" we hear so much about, but I think it's a more effective way forward than simply upping taxes on alcohol.
Although of course plenty of people of all ages drink too much... and it's not a question of cost, it's just what people do. (But interestingly we're not actually the worst in Europe for binge drinking)
Most people like a drink and lots of us drink too much. (Almost everybody who has a drink other than a tipple at Christmas "drinks too much" - the guideline units for 'responsible daily' units of alcohol are not realistic at all...) But TBH I'm fed up of hearing about excessive drinking. Brits drink too much. So what? It's nothing new and we're not going to change.
There is a problem with some drinkers and anti-social behaviour - but most people who "drink excessively" don't start fights, smash bottles and cause trouble. We need more police and tougher penalties for such people - and if the rest of us are going to have a few too many that's our business.
if people are seriously considering the possibility that we ALL should be forced to pay extra to look after people who are too moronic to look after themselves, then it is an idea to be considered.
I don't drink to excess, I've never been in hospital for a self-inflicted illness. Why should I pay extra, on top of my NI taxes to pay for those that have? My taxes should cover their indiscretions. If it isn't enough then those people should pay. It's the fairest way, and when a few people get hit with a bill for paramedic and A&E fees, maybe they'll reconsider their lifestyle.
And people who injure themselves horse riding, or sailing, or riding on a motor bike, all these things increase your risk factors. Why should alcohol be the exception, and if it is how do you enforce it? Blood tests when they are admitted with set limits, one pint and you can injure yourself but if you've had over 5 then you have to pay?
That's very true, measures in pubs are also now routinely 40ml, rather than the standard 25ml.
A ban on advertising might go some way to reducing demand, as well as restrictions on promotions. How supermarkets can say they are selling responsibly and then use alcohol as a loss leader is beyond me.
That's for the brains to figure out, but whatever happens it would be fairer than expecting the rest of us to fork out ON TOP of what we already pay in taxes.
What would happen if the person couldnt pay? Do we then refuse treatment and allow them to just die quietly on the pavement?
I'm not talking about hundreds of pounds, I don't expect people to meet the full cost of the treatment, a token amount, bearing in mind if they can afford to get wasted they can afford some healthcare, either that or arrangements can be made to pay later.
Im not saying it's ideal, but then neither is your idea to tax the rest of us.
Although it sounds attractive to make those who are to blame for their own accident pay, it would cost far to much to administer and would eventually lead to the two tier massively expensive US style system.
I dont want to see large increases in tax, just a more fair way of paying it. At the moment its done per pint or bottle, which penalises those who drink the lower strengths. A per unit tax would mean that the more you drank the more you paid, simple really.
Restrictions on advertising and promotions would do more than just big tax rises.
I also think that even the small size glass of wine should be made smaller in austria its 125ml.
Though i do think that there are some conflicting message - like your told to drink everyday to avoid heat disease and some other medical conditions - and i know its only supposed to be a small ammount but if you have even one small glass of wine a day your up to your 14 units a week if your a girl with no effort at all.....
Or at least tell you how many units they are selling you.
Why should you be able to arrest me and two million other people for having cannabis our pockets cos twenty other people couldn't handle it?
So a pint of 5.7% alcohol is how many units? I'd be surprised if all of us could just do it easily in our heads as we stand at the bar.
Yes - i'd have no idea at all - infact i can't even work out how you work it out and i do all sorts of things with numbers as part of my job.
Plus how often do you go into a pub and look at list - normally you just go up to a bar and ask for what you want. Plus i drink mostly in restaurants and i've not specifically noticed the majic numbers being on the winelist...
If the argument is that some people drink to excess and end up in A and E, so we should tax all drinkers (extra) to fund the drain on the NHS, then i think we're heading down a rather slippery and, quite frankly, ridiculous route.
For the idea to have legs we'd have to accept that it's not only alcohol abuse that consumes NHS resources - i'd imagine injuries from playing sports, overweight people, smokers are all large contributors - and we'd be forced, in the interest of equality, to endorse a 'Pay As You Endanger Yourself' scheme. The tax man would be waiting at the bottom of every cliff, start of every football match, and outside every McDonald's restaurant indiscriminately asking for 'danger tax'. You quickly head towards a society where only well-off people can afford to undertake potentially dangerous - and let's be fair, fun - tasks.
If people are willing to universally apply 'danger tax' i'd listen, but to focus on alcohol because it's this week's/month's/year's vice to vilify, is naughty.
No, niether I or Whowhere were suggesting that.
I suggested that a per unit tax would be fairer and that taxes should rise a little to reduce some of the demand.
Whowhere was suggesting that drunk people who have accidents should be charged for their hospital treatment.
rarely as i and id guess most people don't care but the information is still there if it matters to you...
you "do all sorts of things with numbers" but seriously cannot estimate a percentage?
~3.1 at a guess. if it really matters which it clearly doesnt to most drinkers.
How is alcohol taxed at the moment? How would your way make it fairer?
Per pint (beer and cider are taxed at different rates) and per bottle of wine, then stronger drinks are taxed per bottle. None of it has a direct relation to the alcohol content.
Surely its straight forward, if a bottle contains 12 units, so it should be charged at the same rate as 12 units worth of beer. That way heavy drinkers pay more.
I can roughly estimate a percentage - but - i've no idea how that relates to a unit of alcohol as its pretty meaningless only knowing one side of the equation
It's 125ml in the uk too, but nowhere stocks the glasses. They stock 175ml and 250ml, and naturally the bar staff say "do you want a small or large glass?" Obviously, the correct question is "do you want a medium or large glass?" Incidentally, the whole pressure to go to larger measures comes from the suppliers themselves. We've had it for a few years at work now, trying to get us to switch to 35ml, but we've stuck with 25ml. They're constantly pushing it, because they make more money that way without actually having to increase sales.