Minimum price plan to end cheap alcohol sales

[Allezfan]

I can't make head nor tail of what you're saying there mate.

If 8,000 litres of beer are consumed by a country of 8,000 people then that's a consumption rate of 1 litre per person. Even though some of those 8,000 people are likely to be one year old babies and so not drinking any beer themselves. The actual ammount the drinkers of beer are drinking will be higher.

If 50% of the population drink then they're drinking 2 litres each, but if only 25% of the population drink it's 4 litres each for the drinkers and yet the stat you're using of consumption per person stays the same.

In 1925 drinking among women was much rarer so the % of the population that drank was lower so even though each individual drinker was drinking more, the greater percentage of non drinkers means that the consumption rate in litres per person is lower. But the average drinking person was still drinking more then they do now.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

A pint of your best Moonshine Mr Capone !

I'll sens da boys round with tha truck later, makes sure yous gots the money.

 

[Tubey]

If 8,000 litres of beer are consumed by a country of 8,000 people then that's a consumption rate of 1 litre per person. Even though some of those 8,000 people are likely to be one year old babies and so not drinking any beer themselves. The actual ammount the drinkers of beer are drinking will be higher.

If 50% of the population drink then they're drinking 2 litres each, but if only 25% of the population drink it's 4 litres each for the drinkers and yet the stat you're using of consumption per person stays the same.

In 1925 drinking among women was much rarer so the % of the population that drank was lower so even though each individual drinker was drinking more, the greater percentage of non drinkers means that the consumption rate in litres per person is lower. But the average drinking person was still drinking more then they do now.

Ahh gotcha.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the stats work. They're surely static comparisons of the populace, otherwise you're comparing chalk and cheese and the results would be as valid as asking "how many people had a penis in 1935?" and asking men only, and then asking the same question to both men and women in 2012 and analysing the results.

You'd have to imagine that a survey will first ask "do you drink?". If they answer no, they are off the survey.

For example, in modern surveys, 75% of males and 59% of females said they drank. The other 25% and 41% respectively were left off the "how many litres per year" survey question.

 

[noharmdone]

Ahh gotcha.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the stats work. They're surely static comparisons of the populace, otherwise you're comparing chalk and cheese and the results would be as valid as asking "how many people had a penis in 1935?" and asking men only, and then asking the same question to both men and women in 2012 and analysing the results.

You'd have to imagine that a survey will first ask "do you drink?". If they answer no, they are off the survey.

For example, in modern surveys, 75% of males and 59% of females said they drank. The other 25% and 41% respectively were left off the "how many litres per year" survey question.

I actually put down my honest alcohol consumption on the form at the hospital before an op a few years back. I know its too much, but unless you have dependency ( which I dont ) they are not overly bothered.

 

[evilwebby]

So unless I'm very much mistaken that chart shows that for WOMEN the incidence of lung cancer is inversely correlated to the rate of smoking...

 

[Fensta]

Good one, exploit the poor. People will drink no matter what the price, same with smoking. They know it but still claim it's to help out. Nanny state bullsh1t mixed with legalised extortion. I f'kin hate the government...

 

[Slavan]

its a neccessary tax to change a nations cultural habit.
it should however be up for review in 10 years time when hopefully the habit has been kicked.

 

[Allezfan]

Ahh gotcha.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the stats work. They're surely static comparisons of the populace, otherwise you're comparing chalk and cheese and the results would be as valid as asking "how many people had a penis in 1935?" and asking men only, and then asking the same question to both men and women in 2012 and analysing the results.

You'd have to imagine that a survey will first ask "do you drink?". If they answer no, they are off the survey.

For example, in modern surveys, 75% of males and 59% of females said they drank. The other 25% and 41% respectively were left off the "how many litres per year" survey question.

You're wrong. The graph you quoted is from the BMA and is literally just litres per head per year. It includes the 10% of the population that were abstinent, women and children. Google alcohol consumption rates in 1900 and you can see the source with a properly labeled axis.

The fact is that from 1300 to 1920 the average drinker drank more than the average drinker does now. It's very unfair to judge the current situation against the genuinally abberrant 1930-80 instead which isn't remotely representive of the general history.

 

[Tree13]

Good one, exploit the poor. People will drink no matter what the price, same with smoking. They know it but still claim it's to help out. Nanny state bullsh1t mixed with legalised extortion. I f'kin hate the government...

45p a unit is not a price that exploits the poor. It's actually below the current retail price for alcohol in most forms, bar large bottles (1 litre plus) of spirits, multiple crate deals on beer and the nasty three litre plastic bottles of cider that kids drink in parks.

There's just under 2.5 units in a pint - do you know of a pub anywhere that sells pints in the £1.00 to £1.25 range? Because that's the minimum price that this proposal would mandate. In most pubs, they'd have to knock the prices DOWN by 50% to sell at that price. And shots would have to be at least 45p a pop (28 shots in a normal 700ml bottle: £12.60 a bottle minimum price for JD, Smirnoff, Archers etc.) - again, how much are they in your local pub at the moment?

It won't hit any prices other than the manifestly irresponsible ones.

 

[chrissyjack]

Is this legislation coming in now ? Just in time for when everyone buys the "Three packs for £20 " from Asda , etc..

 

[Slavan]

45p a unit is not a price that exploits the poor. It's actually below the current retail price for alcohol in most forms, bar large bottles (1 litre plus) of spirits, multiple crate deals on beer and the nasty three litre plastic bottles of cider that kids drink in parks.

There's just under 2.5 units in a pint - do you know of a pub anywhere that sells pints in the £1.00 to £1.25 range? Because that's the minimum price that this proposal would mandate. In most pubs, they'd have to knock the prices DOWN by 50% to sell at that price. And shots would have to be at least 45p a pop (28 shots in a normal 700ml bottle: £12.60 a bottle minimum price for JD, Smirnoff, Archers etc.) - again, how much are they in your local pub at the moment?

It won't hit any prices other than the manifestly irresponsible ones.

Shhhh

dont explain the facts.

they hate the tories for the sake of it, its all thatchers fault.

dont give them the truth, better to live in denial.