Metropol

But isn’t that the nature of all restrictions – just as there are under-18-year-olds who could drink responsibly and over-18-year-olds who drink irresponsibly?

Perhaps I’m just boring but I don’t understand why anyone would need more than three drinks in a pub. There are plenty of very nice soft drinks, and I think I’d accuse anyone who has more than three drinks in a pub of being in some way addicted to alcohol. I’d probably argue the same about caffeinated drinks, too, although caffeine doesn’t usually have a negative impact on society.

The advantages of giving people “cards” would be that people who have abused alcohol in the past and been arrested for being drunk and disorderly could simply have their cards removed cutting off the supply of “public” booze. Also it would keep a good register of those who are eligible to drink, since people would have to sign up for the cards. And it would solve the problem of under-18s getting alcohol in an instant.

Also perhaps the best application would be it could flag up those people who go to the pub EVERY DAY and drink large amounts of alcohol. Such people could be offered counselling, etc.

Of course the cards would need to be linked to some kind of biometric, such as a fingerprint, so that people didn’t simply share or steal the cards.

cdd wrote:But isn’t that the nature of all restrictions – just as there are under-18-year-olds who could drink responsibly and over-18-year-olds who drink irresponsibly?

Perhaps I’m just boring but I don’t understand why anyone would need more than three drinks in a pub. There are plenty of very nice soft drinks, and I think I’d accuse anyone who has more than three drinks in a pub of being in some way addicted to alcohol. I’d probably argue the same about caffeinated drinks, too, although caffeine doesn’t usually have a negative impact on society.

The advantages of giving people “cards” would be that people who have abused alcohol in the past and been arrested for being drunk and disorderly could simply have their cards removed cutting off the supply of “public” booze. Also it would keep a good register of those who are eligible to drink, since people would have to sign up for the cards. And it would solve the problem of under-18s getting alcohol in an instant.

Of course the cards would need to be linked to some kind of biometric, such as a fingerprint, so that people didn’t simply share or steal the cards.

I strongly disagree, cdd.

I don't think having more than three drinks in a pub is indicative of a level of addiction, just as I don't think someone drinking a lot of coffee is necessarily addicted to caffeine. If having a couple of drinks is your own personal 'limit', then that's fine, but you really can't generalise that across the entire populous. Moreover, you really can't limit alcohol consumption to some lowest common denominator to address whatever proportion of people do abuse booze, whilst completely thieving others of their rights to drink however much works for them. Your comparison between alcohol and caffeine also seems to imply that alcohol has an intrinsic detrimental effect on society, which it just doesn't.

Gavin Scott wrote:That wouldn't work for me who, generously, buys enough booze for a handful of friends coming round to my house.

If you're buying I'm on my way

Gavin Scott wrote:Why should I have my consumption curtailed because the more thuggish elements can't behave properly?

However, while it is legal for adults to partake in it, then it should be sold at a fair price. Why should law abiding folks have to pay extra because kids and dodgy shopkeepers are causing the problem?

I agree. The Scottish Executive commissioned a report on this subject last year. Whilst it's something of a turgid read, it highlights many of the problems and explores some of the solutions tried elsewhere in the world (and was the best I could google).

Many problems, but not all, appear to stem from off-licence sales to underage drinkers. Proper enforcement of the current minimum age for purchasing alcohol would be a start. Possibly raising the minimum age would be a further step after the first was working successfully.

Most of the alcohol I buy is from the supermarket, and consumed socially at home with friends. I would feel unfairly penalised if the tax was increased on the premise that it would prevent public disorder taking place in my front room.

What happens on the streets at night is a matter for the police to deal with, which is already paid for through taxation. Arrest those who offend; charge and fine or imprison them - but don't include the legitimate law-abiding drinker in the process through sweeping excessive increases in taxation.

cdd wrote:I think the big problem is not the purchasing of bottles of alcohol at the supermarket etc - people who buy alcohol at a supermarket tend to consume it at home - but the sale of alcohol at pubs, clubs etc.

So the way I'd limit consumption would be to give everyone a card they have to swipe at licensed establishments that lets you purchase up to e.g. three units of alcohol purchasable per 24 hours.

Aside from the practical implications of trying to limit consumption in that truly Big Brotherish manner, surely that approach would just kill off pubs? If people are restricted to 3 drinks at the bar and they know they're going to want to consume more, then surely they'll just buy their drinks from a bottle shop or 'off licence' and then go and consume them at home with their friends instead. That approach would likely result in more house parties, more loud music keeping neighbours awake, more calls to the police, and generally more inconvenience to local communities. I doubt most people would consider having the 'problem' moved from city centres or even local pubs to the next door neighbour's house would be an improvement.

Ultimately, the sort of policy you're talking about would be fiercely resisted by pubs and clubs - it will unambiguously result in fewer customers consuming less alcohol, which is not good business. I would also argue that it should be opposed by police - when the 'problem' is limited to pubs and clubs, at least they have an idea where they should concentrate their resources. In no way would some sort of alcohol consumption card represent an improvement. Indeed, it would be a thoroughly deleterious policy that would simply shift the 'problem' underground and make it harder to deal with. It is impractical, unworkable and an entirely bad idea.

nodnirG kraM wrote:You know, that's almost word for word what I was going to write earlier, but thought against it as I'd already given my tuppence. You're not the spy in my brain are you?

Perhaps you're the spy in my brain?

Yet what few people seem willing to acknowledge is that this marked rise in violence has come at the same time that smoking has been banned inside pubs and clubs. Everyone has to go out into the street for a fag,

This IMO is the single biggest issue with the smoking ban in the UK. Aside from the fact that the government are too scared to make smoking illegal because of the revenue they'd loose, the farcical way in which they have 'banned' smoking by forcing people out onto the streets to smoke wheras previously they'd be happy and content to light up inside a pub/club now means that there are far more pissed up and pissed off people on the streets late at night than there ever were before. Combine that with an area where it's illegal to drink alcohol on the street and so the punters can't even take their drink out with them for a fag, and you have a recipe for nothing other than a rise in violent crime.

Unless the government are prepared to ban consumption of alcohol (which, along with smoking, they will never do because of the associated tax losses despite half-heartedly bleeting the health risks which are irrelevant anyway since everyone who regularly smokes or drinks is well aware of what they are doing to themselves) they have to accept responsibility for what they have done - the smoking ban was not asked for, is not needed, and doesn't work. The sooner people can legally smoke inside pubs and clubs again, the sooner you will see a downturn in alcohol-related crime.

cwathen wrote:This IMO is the single biggest issue with the smoking ban in the UK. Aside from the fact that the government are too scared to make smoking illegal because of the revenue they'd loose, the farcical way in which they have 'banned' smoking by forcing people out onto the streets to smoke wheras previously they'd be happy and content to light up inside a pub/club now means that there are far more pissed up and pissed off people on the streets late at night than there ever were before. Combine that with an area where it's illegal to drink alcohol on the street and so the punters can't even take their drink out with them for a fag, and you have a recipe for nothing other than a rise in violent crime.

I think you're trying to create a link with the smoking ban which doesn't actually exist. Alcohol-related anti-social behaviour hasn't increased notably since Summer 2007 (England & Wales) or Summer 2006 (Scotland). It has been a gradually increasing problem over the last 10 years.

There are two distinct aspects to this problem.

Firstly, those who leave pubs/clubs after or during a night out. Most towns and cities have specific areas with a concentration of the most popular pubs and clubs. The police normally manage to control the crowds in these areas with an increased presence. It's these areas which provide the media with their material everytime the subject is up for debate because it's easy to send a photographer or film-crew to a pre-determined location on a Saturday night. Perhaps more people go out these days than 20 years ago when the economy wasn't so bouyant and people didn't have the same level of disposable income.

Secondly, those who buy alcohol specifically to drink outdoors. These are generally groups of underage or lower paid individuals who can't afford to spend £40-£50 on a night out in a pub/club. Because of the ban on drinking alcohol in the streets in most towns and cities, these groups will congregate in the residential areas. It's here than much of the anti-social behaviour occurs. It goes largely unchecked because it's difficult to police a transient mob of youths effectively.

Perhaps the above is an over-simplification. Would it help if the government banned the drinking of alcohol outdoors everywhere? I suspect it would have an impact on those gathering in the residential areas.

Yeah, OK. So they want an increase on alcohol - in the pubs and in the clubs and whatever. Ath the moment it seems the Police are doing FA to solve the problem, I was reading one of those articles in the paper where on first glance in sounds pretty good, but actually it is terribly poor! The headline read "Police pour 65,000 bottles of beer down the drain."

Yes, sounds impressive. When you realise that this was over a year, and there were many forces participating. When you do the Maths, you find out that that is the equivalent to 10 pints a day in Liverpool getting taken off under age drinkers. Oh, what an achievement! So yes - it may seem that there may have to be some tax rise of some form, not necessarily sure whether it should be on alcohol or what not, but it is definitely needed!!

Next - you have all the trouble with the violence and the attacks on the streets on the weekends. The Police say the worst of the violence is between 2.30am and 3.30am. And yet, they had said previously in the article that the average time for pubs closing, even in light of the 24hr drinking laws, is 11.30pm. Obviously, because it would be too costly to run a pub 24 hours a day, most pubs if they do close a little later, close at 1am, and that is still shy of the violence statistic! It is the Supermarkets that are selling the booze 24 hours a day; and the clubs.

So, the solution should be simple, then. Tax the alcohol being sold in the clubs and the Supermarkets, and don't tax the pubs where the drink is consumed on the premises earlier in the night!

Connor Sephton wrote:So, the solution should be simple, then. Tax the alcohol being sold in the clubs and the Supermarkets, and don't tax the pubs where the drink is consumed on the premises earlier in the night!

Tax is NOT the solution. Even the Treasury's Wanless Report highlighted "difficulties of using the tax system to promote public health". The inference is that you cannot change attitudes by simply making something more expensive.

On the continent the tax on alcohol is only a fraction of that in the UK. They don't have anything like the problem with alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour. The UK is the perfect example that high tax on alcohol doesn't have any effect on social problems. The only reason they are continuing to flog the dead horse of "tax it more" is because it brings in revenue.

Stuart, you are right - taxing won't do anything, especially as the people who are causing the trouble are getting merry on something potent, and yet cheaper than bottled water.

As ridiculous as this sounds, maybe kids should just be allowed to drink. I was reading a fascinating article in The Guardian a few months back and it compared Holland to Britain. Hands down, in the comparisons listed, Holland won every time when it come to which citizens had better childhoods, teenage pregnancy rates and smoking rates. Surprsingly though, you would think Holland's methoding would result in a higher smoking rate.

In schools, Dutch students are designated huts in which they are openly allowed to smoke by teachers, but nobody goes there - because it isn't school. You cannot obtain street cred doing something you are allowed to do. So, smoking rates are dramatically lower because it is not seen as an act of rebellion anymore.

If Britain adopted that attitude when it came to people drinking then maybe things would be better. Of course, smoking and drinking are two completely different kettles of fish, and there would be no surefire way to ensure innocent people stopped getting murdered, but perhaps if getting drunk out of your mind wasn't such a cool thing to do and the authorities like the police had more power and didn't have to stand back and watch helplessly, maybe things'd change.

Either that, or give them something to do. A few youth clubs (unfortunately, not enough due to lack of finances, surprise surprise) are opening during the evenings to give teens something to do. If they are drunk they are not allowed in, (of course they are not breathalised or anything) but any drinks they take in with them are taste checked, which means they can ensure it is an alcohol-free zone. Plus, if they go out, they are not allowed back in.

This is where the tax comes in, if the government had more money to make these Youth Clubs more prominent and more available for children, maybe things could get better. And let's face it, at the moment, things are only going to get worse.

And I know, why should the law-abiding, sensible-drinking citizen have to pay? Well, come on, do you honestly mind having to pay those few more pennies for some plonk?

Connor Sephton wrote:Stuart, you are right - taxing won't do anything, especially as the people who are causing the trouble are getting merry on something potent, and yet cheaper than bottled water.

EDIT (some of Connor's comments were removed at this point to make the quote shorter)

This is where the tax comes in, if the government had more money to make these Youth Clubs more prominent and more available for children, maybe things could get better. And let's face it, at the moment, things are only going to get worse.

You've contradicted yourself.

Connor Sephton wrote:...I know, why should the law-abiding, sensible-drinking citizen have to pay? Well, come on, do you honestly mind having to pay those few more pennies for some plonk?

In a word, "YES", I do object to a few more pennies in tax. I already pay my proportion of income tax, without any of the tax breaks enjoyed by those with children.

I am not prepared to fund even more tax revenue for the benefit of their uncontrollable progeny.