Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

The UK's relationship with the bottle

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    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.

    I suggest that the doctrine of Strict Liability would be the fairest to all parties, and the simplest to administer. Perhaps not the simplest way forward since one would be starting from a very difficult position.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote: »
    I've said this before; but why bother addressing the problem when the government can put a tax on it and make lots of money out of it

    For example
    problems with global warming/people using the car too much? lets forget about any problems with public transport and we'll stick a tax on fuel
    Smoking? Tax on cigarettes
    Obesity (sp)? Forget addressing why people are eating these foods and educating them to eat healthy... oh no just stick some tax onto that as well!

    Short sighted much?

    Tax is one method of reducing demand, although with many things demand doesnt really respond to the change in price so its ineffective.

    I completely agree that by itself its largely a revenue issue, but when put into place with other measures it can reduce demand for damaging products.

    Having said that though I'd say taxes on both tobacco and fuel are as high as they should be, alcohol is on the other hand now a lot cheaper than it used to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wyetry wrote: »
    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.

    It's P x V / 1000

    where P = percentage alcohol by volume and V = volume in millilitres.

    So pint of 5.7% beer = 5.7 x 568 / 1000 = 3.2376 units

    Nice and simple to work out obviously.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's P x V / 1000

    where P = percentage alcohol by volume and V = volume in millilitres.

    So pint of 5.7% beer = 5.7 x 568 / 1000 = 3.2376 units

    Nice and simple to work out obviously.

    For some reason I thought alcohol percentage wasn't linearly scableable. Lol that makes no sense, sorry.

    What I meant, is the model if we assume 2 units is equivilent to a set amount of alcohol intoxication regardless of what it is you drink, but two pints of 5% beer won't get you as drunk as say one pint of something at 10%, and so on.

    I'm not questioning the formula, it just doesn't seem very accurate. If you drink champagne or something with high alcohol content you're going to get drunk quickly and if you drink mild beer you're going to get drunk slowly even if you drink the same amount in units of each.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    For some reason I thought alcohol percentage wasn't linearly scableable. Lol that makes no sense, sorry.

    What I meant, is the model if we assume 2 units is equivilent to a set amount of alcohol intoxication regardless of what it is you drink, but two pints of 5% beer won't get you as drunk as say one pint of something at 10%, and so on.

    I'm not questioning the formula, it just doesn't seem very accurate. If you drink champagne or something with high alcohol content you're going to get drunk quickly and if you drink mild beer you're going to get drunk slowly even if you drink the same amount in units of each.

    A UK unit is 10ml or 8 grams of pure alcohol, fairly simple really, how does how quickly someone gets drunk affect in anyway the set amount of alcohol in a drink?

    How drunk you get depends on how quickly you drink the alcohol, rate it's absorbed, volume, etc. etc.

    Champagne gets you drunk more quickly because of the bubbles in it, helps the alcohol get absorbed into your bloodstream faster.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A UK unit is 10ml or 8 grams of pure alcohol, fairly simple really, how does how quickly someone gets drunk affect in anyway the set amount of alcohol in a drink?

    How drunk you get depends on how quickly you drink the alcohol, rate it's absorbed, volume, etc. etc.

    Champagne gets you drunk more quickly because of the bubbles in it, helps the alcohol get absorbed into your bloodstream faster.

    My point was units are supposed to be an indication of how much you should drink, but obviously having 2 or 3 units of something 'mild' is going to be better for you than 2 or 3 units of something heavy, even if you drink less.

    I thought before that units took things like that into account, but obviously it seems they don't. that's my point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's P x V / 1000

    where P = percentage alcohol by volume and V = volume in millilitres.

    So pint of 5.7% beer = 5.7 x 568 / 1000 = 3.2376 units

    Nice and simple to work out obviously.

    Or you could just multiply the percent of alcohol by the amount of drink in litres. Which in bong's example is roughly just over half of 5.7% so no need for someone to campaign to make a pub pay for their laziness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    My point was units are supposed to be an indication of how much you should drink, but obviously having 2 or 3 units of something 'mild' is going to be better for you than 2 or 3 units of something heavy, even if you drink less.

    I thought before that units took things like that into account, but obviously it seems they don't. that's my point.

    How is it going to be any better/worse for you what you drink as long as you drink same amount over the same amount of time?

    A bottle of wine or 3-4 pints will do same damage to your body.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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?"

    I've also worked in a pub... and can't really remember many people ever asking for a tiny 125ml glass of wine. 125ml is historic, it prob goes back to when people didn't really drink wine properly... 125ml isn't a 'standard' measure anyway else. 175/250ml is what people seem to want...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've also worked in a pub... and can't really remember many people ever asking for a tiny 125ml glass of wine. 125ml is historic, it prob goes back to when people didn't really drink wine properly... 125ml isn't a 'standard' measure anyway else. 175/250ml is what people seem to want...

    125 has always been a standard measure. Pubs are perfectly within their rights to serve 125, but none do. Apparently in the past, most pubs did. 175 has always been a medium glass, not a small glass in the UK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    125 has always been a standard measure. Pubs are perfectly within their rights to serve 125, but none do. Apparently in the past, most pubs did.

    In the past...
    175 has always been a medium glass, not a small glass in the UK.

    Yeah, in the past.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, in the past.

    Nope, in the present. From Trading Standards:
    Wine sold by the glass
    sizes must be 125ml, 175ml, or multiples of either;
    So 125ml is still a small wine glass.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    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.

    That's a silly idea. Which would never work.

    A large percentage of hospital admissions could be classed as "self inflicted".

    Also what would you do, if the person was unable to pay for the treatment?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Why is taxing it the answer? Why should I pay more because a bunch of morons can't hold their drink?

    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.

    because our stupid gov would say oh no because then they would not go to hospital and we can't let people do themselves harm its our duty to think for them and not cure it for them at others cost would be against their human rights bla bla bla bla and so forth. You make a good point why do we have to cripple ourselves over other peoples stupidity !
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And how are we going to make the pay exactly? Nice idea, but it wouldnt work in practice.

    the americans manage it just nicely !
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    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.

    here here
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the americans manage it just nicely !

    lol :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    lol :D

    well from what i know "no money" = "you can die for all we care"

    if just a little of that was employed here in some instances people would think twice rather than oh well theres the NHS to take care of it for free, why should i pay for a smokers care ? or a drunkads cure ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well from what i know "no money" = "you can die for all we care"

    if just a little of that was employed here in some instances people would think twice rather than oh well theres the NHS to take care of it for free, why should i pay for a smokers care ? or a drunkads cure ?
    I think you'll find smokers more than pay for their own care, thanks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well from what i know "no money" = "you can die for all we care"

    if just a little of that was employed here in some instances people would think twice rather than oh well theres the NHS to take care of it for free, why should i pay for a smokers care ? or a drunkads cure ?

    I meant overall at praising the american health system. Teaches me not to read the quoted text :p

    The American health system is probably the most inequitable in the world, with people with money receiving world class healthcare and people without (around 1 in 5 are not medically insured) just have to go to 'public' clinics that are overstretched etc.

    Is this right that in a country with the best doctors and the best hospitals that people should have to queue for medical treatment? That they should be turned away from life saving treatment?

    It's nothing to do with money and it's nothing to do with making people take precautions so they don't need the hospital, and it's everything to do with being a good human being. If I (hypothetically, a doctor) have the skills and equipment to heal you, I will. The American scenario is extremely different. Which is why everyone should have nominated hilary clinton :/ because she wanted to go someway towards nationalisation of healthcare (as much as she can, bear in mind the big pharmas and hospital coalitions control a lot of money, and money controls the whitehouse).

    Here's another situation: someone gets drunk and gets their nose broken in a fight they got into. Some would argue leave them bleeding on the ground. But a decent human being (as long as they werent being abusive) would ignore the fact of how it happened and acknowledge here is a human who needs help.

    I've thought about it before when I was thinking of being a soldier, and after watching All Quiet On The Western Front I couldn't do it because it's in our instinct to help others, if I shot someone and they were crying for their family how could you callously turn away to do your 'duty' (I acknowledge it's a task of getting on with the job, and I admire those who can for the protection of others - but just saying I could not turn away, it would break my heart).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    I think you'll find smokers more than pay for their own care, thanks.

    They probably do in terms of the NHS bill, didn't someone say it was 8x over. I've never seen the stats myself. But I think the reason smoking is taxed heavily is because of the extra costs - if a parent dies because of heart disease because they smoked for 30 years how do you compensate the kids? You can't. So it's the governments way of trying to be a nanny state and I think in this case they got it right because the damage smoking causes is real and devastating to those it affects. Does that make sense :s

    It's like having fines for speeding, in a way, although I would argue that isn't a good intervention by the government in most cases :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    They probably do in terms of the NHS bill, didn't someone say it was 8x over. I've never seen the stats myself. But I think the reason smoking is taxed heavily is because of the extra costs - if a parent dies because of heart disease because they smoked for 30 years how do you compensate the kids? You can't. So it's the governments way of trying to be a nanny state and I think in this case they got it right because the damage smoking causes is real and devastating to those it affects. Does that make sense :s

    It's like having fines for speeding, in a way, although I would argue that isn't a good intervention by the government in most cases :p
    It does make sense, but that doesn't make it right. If someone chooses to smoke after they have children then it is their responsibility. And tbh, I don't think that's why smoking is taxed so highly at all.

    I have to give up anyway else I'll never be able to do the half-marathon >.<.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    I have to give up anyway else I'll never be able to do the half-marathon >.<.

    You should probably make a thread in anything goes, see if Jim or someone will sticky it to get some nice sponsorship :). And put a link in your sig!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    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.

    Add on top of that the cost for police who deal with alcohol related incidences such as violence and rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Add on top of that the cost for police who deal with alcohol related incidences such as violence and rape.

    quite ! I'd say stop bullying super markets and retailers into controlling alcohol use get the bloody police out of their cars and onto the street and deal with all antisocial behavior alcohol related or otherwise. why is the problem always takled from the ass end ?

    and adult can buy alcohol and give it to the kids so its not a good system in place right now and it penalizes everyone, why not go out there and clober the offenders AND the parents if underaged and give parents back the right to deal with their own kids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the americans manage it just nicely !

    The American system covers a lot less people and costs a lot more. Its cheaper for us to treat people who fall over drunk than it would be not to treat them and have the US system.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Tax is always the answer - to everything.

    What day is it?

    (So sorry.)

    Tax won't stop drinking. Better education maybe is. Maybe prohibition? That works, I hear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    What day is it?

    (So sorry.)

    Tax won't stop drinking. Better education maybe is. Maybe prohibition? That works, I hear.

    I don`t want to stop drinking. I don`t want to stop other people drinking.

    N.B.: I`m in France at the moment so please excuse the weird apostrophes. French keyboards are all over the show - they`re kind of like QWERTY, but not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7430132.stm not being stupid, but how will this be enforced?
Sign In or Register to comment.