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.
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Isn't that a circular argument. Pubs who pay for Sky get customers who pay for drinks and those that don't pay for it don't get people in
It's a bit like saying that cinema's who get surround sound get the punters in to watch the latest blockbuster and those who don't end up having to screen reruns of Laurel and Hardy movies to rapidly diminishing audiences
You invest to accumulate and Sky is just another investment...
I'm not arguing that Sky/ESPN is a bad investment, I'm saying that for many pubs its their only option to survive and as such they have to raise their prices of alcohol which forces people into supermarkets.
For many pubs its not 'Just another investment'. Its an investment that will make or break your business.
In that case it's a no-brainer as an investment (though its also one of the USPs for pubs. Sure I can watch the rugby and down a beer at home, but it doesn't have the atmosphere of the pub aand its one of the reasons I;m willing to pay a premium for a pub beer)
I agree, the atmosphere is better down a pub and so are they screen/sofa's/drinks so in hindsight the price you pay is fairly acceptable. But for those people who don't go to watch the game or don't want to pay such prices for alcohol then they would go to the supermarket for cheaper booze.
Which is the point I'm trying to get at, do you think its right for the government to raise prices to prevent certain people using it as a 'cheap' way to get drunk when many simply use the cheap prices to have the beer they cannot afford at their local houses. Especially when many people have mentioned 'The rich and the addicts will still pay'.
Thanks for the responses though everyone.
I think the counter argument to this is plainly Russia where low price of high strength alcohol like vodka has been one of the factors leading to its alcoholism issues.
If we compare to Sweden where alcohol is extremely expensive, then we see that it has significantly fewer alcohol problems.
Generally increasing the cost of alcohol does reduce alcohol related problems.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-alcohol-prices-idUSTRE80321420120104
The price of alcohol on Tesco is largely irrelevant to this. It doesn't help but giving publicans a level field by regulating the thieving Pubcos will help far more than yet another tax raid on poor people.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If the tax would definately go straight to say... An alcohol treatment centre and victim support, I'd easily be behind it... But just like the pastie tax and most Tory policies, it'll fuck the working class the hardest.
Its the same story with speed limits and road safety.
Its just whether we are giving up an important liberty for an immediate reprieve. Hard to say. We don't live in a perfect world though where we can go by ideals of what society 'should' be like, I think we just have to focus on a progression towards making things 'less shit'.
Totes agreed that alcoholism treatment, prevention and victim support should receive more funding though, in fact I would expand that to include all drugs not just alcohol.
Still can't see any practical problems with this minimum price though, a cheap drink will still be cheap, it is only the ultra-cheap ultra-high strength that are significantly affected (and in particular cider which was out of step with the costs of other alcohol too).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk