Cheap drink having a devastating effect on the region (From The Northern Echo)
Send us your pictures, video, news and views by texting NORTHERN ECHO to 80360 or email us
Cheap drink having a devastating effect on the region
9:14am Thursday 4th February 2010 in
-
- By Barry Nelson » Health Editor
NORTH-EAST health bosses have called on the Government to bring in a minimum price for alcohol to curb the devastating impact of cheap drink.
The call to tackle cheap drink, which they say is having a devastating effect on the region, by setting a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, is made in an open letter in The Northern Echo and The Daily Telegraph today.
Signed by all 13 North-East public health directors, it coincides with the publication of research by the North-East Alcohol Office, known as Balance.
It said alcohol was available in the region for as little as 12p a unit, with cans of lager on sale for 22p, a 70cl bottle of vodka for £6.98 and a two-litre bottle of cider costing less than a loaf of bread.
The letter says the cost to the North-East of alcohol-related harm is unsustainable and urges the Government to “act quickly and decisively and show the same political leadership that was shown on smoking in public places”.
The North-East NHS officials stress they do not wish to penalise moderate drinkers, pointing out that a minimum unit price of 50p means a minimum price of £1.50 for a pint or £4.50 for a bottle of wine.
The directors ask if this is too much to pay to cut deaths by a quarter, crimes by 46,000 and save the country £1bn every year.
As part of what Balance describes as a worrying trend for “super-low prices” the report reveals that a two-litre bottle of cider is available from three of the big four supermarkets for £1.21 – 14p per unit of alcohol – and is even cheaper at discount outlets.
Balance director Colin Shevills said: “Alcohol is being sold at pocket money prices. In fact, armed with the UK average pocket money of £6.24, young consumers can purchase enough alcohol to drink twice the recommended daily limit for an adult male, every day.”
Mr Shevills said cheap drink was fuelling the North- East’s problem with drink, and said: “Alcohol is a primary instigator in violent crime.
“It increases hospital admissions, which drains vital NHS resources. It encourages absenteeism and causes disability, which increase the amount of benefit claims.”
He said the “ridiculously low” prices make it clear that alcohol price cannot be left to shops.
Durham Police Chief Constable Jon Stoddart said: “While illegal drugs tend to get all the headlines, the issue of alcohol misuse presents us with serious problems… ranging from minor nuisance, disorder, violence and damage up to rape, organised crime and murder. We need to get to the root of this problem and address the issue of cheap, strong alcohol.”
Comments(34)
Big Dave
says...
2:30pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
11:18pm Thu 4 Feb 10
.
They've already destroyed the pub trade with high alcohol taxes and the smoking ban, and now they're trying to hit everyone (everyone, not just a minority) with even higher prices - so they'll get you at home too.
.
Is it about under-age drinkers? If so, take action against them instead of penalising millions. If we don't have the resources to tackle these alleged 'teenage binge drinkers' then don't tackle them, but still no reason to hit everyone else.
.
Reduce crime? I suspect that the opposite could be true. Criminals steal to buy drugs, so it could be stealing to buy alcohol next. £1bn in savings? What a nice big round number that is - I wonder who worked that out? It would be interesting to see how the calculation was made.
.
Draining NHS resources? The taxes raised from alcohol are far in excess of the cost of treating alcohol-related illnesses.
.
So all 13 public health directors signed at the same time, and at the same time as 'Balance' issued their research. What a carefully planned campaign this is - are they doing what Labour have encouraged them to do? Let's see if we get hit with this in the coming budget.
.
The Tories have mentioned they will target the problem rather than hit everyone with a price hike - I hope so, but we'll see.
.
As for Big Dave's idea of raising the age to 25. I can just imagine a 24 year-old Army sergeant returning from Afghanistan wanting to go to the pub with his family for a few beers, but can't 'cos he's not old enough to drink! He can serve his country, get married, vote, lead his men into battle - but he can't have a beer. Ridiculous.
.
Can't these people get a life - and while they're living it, get pi55ed now and again, and again.
Big Dave
says...
8:18am Fri 5 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
1:40pm Fri 5 Feb 10
Big Dave
says...
2:38pm Fri 5 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
6:12pm Fri 5 Feb 10
.
If the decision on drinking age is a political one, then 18 is the correct age, unless they change the age of adulthood in all respects.
.
I think the American's have it wrong, with 21 as the drinking age.
Big Dave
says...
9:51am Sat 6 Feb 10
spragger
says...
11:49am Sat 6 Feb 10
We all know who abuses drink, look in the town centres at weekends and the A and E.
HIT THE PERPENTRATORS!
*shakes head slowly*
says...
1:04pm Sat 6 Feb 10
"The directors ask if this is too much to pay to cut deaths by a quarter, crimes by 46,000 and save the country £1bn every year." Apparently for some selfish souls, the answer is 'yes'!
What exactly is so sacred about drinking that means we should tolerate the misery that drunkenness brings to families, and the violent attacks by the intoxicated evident every weekend at A&E?
So what if the pub trade is gone??? Opium dens have gone too - that was just people relaxing after a hard day's work, wasn't it??!!! lolll!!!!
Let us be clear --- alcohol provides no benefit to society or to individuals. At best its low-level drug use, at worst a social nightmare.
Its not a 'stealth tax' because we've all heard of it!!! 'Stealth' doesn't mean 'publicised'!!!! LOLL!!!
Its a deterrent (and if you dont spend any money, you dont pay any tax!) and I hope it happens sooner rather than later.
billysaid
says...
2:49pm Sat 6 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
6:49pm Sat 6 Feb 10
*shakes head slowly* wrote:A few dubious points made by Shaky, yet again.
Some people can't see past the bottom of a beer glass, eh??!!! "The directors ask if this is too much to pay to cut deaths by a quarter, crimes by 46,000 and save the country £1bn every year." Apparently for some selfish souls, the answer is 'yes'! What exactly is so sacred about drinking that means we should tolerate the misery that drunkenness brings to families, and the violent attacks by the intoxicated evident every weekend at A&E? So what if the pub trade is gone??? Opium dens have gone too - that was just people relaxing after a hard day's work, wasn't it??!!! lolll!!!! Let us be clear --- alcohol provides no benefit to society or to individuals. At best its low-level drug use, at worst a social nightmare. Its not a 'stealth tax' because we've all heard of it!!! 'Stealth' doesn't mean 'publicised'!!!! LOLL!!! Its a deterrent (and if you dont spend any money, you dont pay any tax!) and I hope it happens sooner rather than later.
.
I'm sure the Public Health Directors, on their fat Director salaries (paid by the taxpayer) won't find several more pence on a pint too high a price to pay. Ordinary, hard-working people may have a different view - not that they seem very important to New Labour these days.
.
Cut deaths by a quarter? I assume they mean alcohol-related deaths - perhaps not making that clear doesn't spin quite as well. Reduce crime? The opposite could be true. And £1bn savings - really? Shaky seems to believe all this. Would a price increase also help to find Saddam's WMD?
.
I don't know any families who suffer misery through drunkenness. I'm sure there are some but this does not reflect most of society. Violent attacks treated at A&E? Let's see the figures and compare them to the number of drinkers in the UK.
.
"So what if the pub trade is gone???" Sadly typical of the New Labour attitude. They've dealt it a severe blow with recent tax rises and the ill-conceived smoking ban and now they seem happy to destroy it totally. If beer was £1 a pint and smoking rooms were available can anyone tell me that pubs would not be thriving again? If they would (and I think so) then this clearly means that people, if they had the choice, would like to socialise in pubs. So who do the Labour government think they are to interfere in people's lives and dictate to them how they should live? I accept there is a public health issue but prohibition-style policies are too severe and unacceptable.
.
As for the suggestion that there is no benefit to society from alcohol! That sounds like a statement from a drunk if ever I heard one. Millions of people enjoy responsible drinking. Because they enjoy it socially, this enjoyment is of no benefit? Society obviously thinks otherwise or they wouldn't want to do it - not the drunks, everyone else.
.
Tax revenues from alcohol run into billions (and far exceed the cost of treating alcohol-related illness). This money is available for governments to spend on various public services, according to the priorities of who is in power. Now I've always thought that the provision of public services is a clear benefit to society - if Shaky is telling me otherwise then we'll have to disagree, again.
Big Dave
says...
7:21pm Sat 6 Feb 10
And as for drunkeness affecting families, I assure you there are a huge amount affected by alcoholism and the effects of alcohol; speak to any police officer or read most of the mitigation for crimes reported on this site and they all have a feature in common...alcohol. I don't profess to know the answer to the problem with binge drinking but it does strike me as wrong when booze is cheaper than bottled water- it's a recipe for disaster. Someone once said to me of pubs... "If you charge a pound a pint, you'll ge pound a pint people"...look at the number of alcohol related incidents attached to Route 66, then contrast them with the number from say 22's...one is cheap and the other far from it then tell me minimum pricing wouldn't work in reducing some of the problems
*shakes head slowly*
says...
7:28pm Sat 6 Feb 10
There is no benefit to ANY drug use --- 'social' or not. Saying its ok for people to drink because 'they enjoy it' and denying that alcolhol causes problems is weak and peurile!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!
*shakes head slowly*
says...
7:58pm Sat 6 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
11:04pm Sat 6 Feb 10
*shakes head slowly* wrote:A short response this time, Shaky? But just as crass as your usual posts.
Never mind dean - - maybe someone will blindly agree with whatever drivel you spout next time you post, eh? Where's some sad suckup like lacey when you need him???? LOLLL!!!!! There is no benefit to ANY drug use --- 'social' or not. Saying its ok for people to drink because 'they enjoy it' and denying that alcolhol causes problems is weak and peurile!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
.
So billions of pounds to spend on public services is of no benefit? And you're a Labour man?
.
For people to enjoy a social pint responsibly is most definitely OK. And I did not deny that alcohol can cause problems.
.
If I were you I wouldn't trumpet your beloved Labour Party this close to an election, whilst saying at the same time that people should not be allowed to enjoy a drink of alcohol. On second thoughts carry on - it might help to get rid of the fraudulent lot.
.
Back to reasonable debate - even if I still disagree - Big Dave. Alcohol duties amount to approx £8bn a year. The NHS estimate the cost of treating alcohol-related illnesses as £3bn a year. Quite a profit. And I believe the gap on tobacco duties is a similar one.
.
I wasn't suggesting that it should be £1 a pint by the way. That was an example I used to support my belief that if people had the choice they would socialise in pubs more than they are able to nowadays. I just don't believe that government should force people to live their lives in a particular way - they should intervene only when absolutely necessary.
*shakes head slowly*
says...
11:38pm Sat 6 Feb 10
(Thats some terrible back-pedalling you did there. Very poor.)
Tell us again why you know better than all 13 North-East public health directors AND the Durham Police Chief Constable AND the the entire staff of the NHS about the effects of alcohol???? Dont worry nobodys calling you an alcoholic -- lets leave the crazy accusations and personal stuff to you shall we???!!! (Although you do seem scared of something...) lolll!!!!
billysaid
says...
10:09am Sun 7 Feb 10
Big Dave
says...
12:09pm Sun 7 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
3:48pm Sun 7 Feb 10
"Never mind dean - - maybe someone will blindly agree with whatever drivel you spout next time you post, eh? Where's some sad suckup like lacey when you need him???? LOLLL!!!!!"
.
and then: "lets leave the crazy accusations and personal stuff to you shall we???!!! "
.
Oh dear Shaky, you really do struggle on here - you can't even be consistent on the same thread!
.
And not even one example of my supposed 'terrible back-pedalling' - 'cos there ain't one.
.
Again, I've never said that I know better than the 13 Public Health Directors (yet another misrepresentation from yourself) but I do question their tactics. If a police officer tells me that knives in public are dangerous because someone being stabbed through the heart may cause serious injury or death, I don't think 'fair enough, you know best', I think 'talk about the blindingly obvious'. If a weatherman tells me night will follow day....etc...I think even you will get my point.
.
So whilst P. H. Directors are better qualified than most to talk about the medical consequences of alcohol abuse, it is obvious to most that for an alcoholic to drink vast amounts of alcohol every day is not good for their health.
.
However, the issue of minimum pricing as a means of tackling the problem is a political judgment not a medical one. Their view that the whole nation should suffer higher prices is one that I, and many others, disagree with. The alleged problem should tackled by properly targeting it. Big Dave's idea (that I disagree with) of raising the minimum age to 25 would be far more effective than minimum pricing. Other measures would be more effective too, but raising revenue seems to be the main driver of this carefully co-ordinated, disgraceful campaign.
.
A word of warning to those who enjoy a pint in the comfort of their own home. The Directors are calling for a minimum price of £1.50 a pint. You can buy a 24 pack of 440ml cans of lager at most supermarkets for approx. £14 (sometimes less, sometimes more). 24 x 440ml = 10.56 litres. 1 pint = 568ml. 10.56 litres divided by 568ml = 18.6 pints. £14 for 18.6 pints = a current price of 75p per pint for home consumption, and they want it to be £1.50. So on the back of all the recent Labour tax rises on alcohol, Labour seem happy to encourage this campaign that is now calling for the current price to be DOUBLED.
.
A few pence on a pint? Let's not fall for the spin yet again folks...
Dean M
says...
3:59pm Sun 7 Feb 10
.
It is widely accepted that the levels of alcohol-related violence in the bars and clubs of Europe is far lower than in the UK. It is also a fact that we already have a much higher level of alcohol tax in the UK than in most European countries.
.
Pricing policy would be effective?
Big Dave
says...
6:41pm Sun 7 Feb 10
*shakes head slowly*
says...
9:39pm Sun 7 Feb 10
Alcohol is also known to be similarly terrible, but is not yet fully accepted. This is because the alcohol lobby are in exactly the same position that the smoking lobby was about ten years ago -- and theyre trying the exact same tactics!!! Claiming "Its against freedom of choice", saying "Alcohol harms noone in moderation"...in short ANYTHING to make consumers feel they should carry on consuming their harmful product.
I really dont think we should be letting supermarkets sell chemical cider to our young people just to make a profit, but opinion differs.
Dean --Your maths skills are nowhere near as honed as your nonsense-talking skills!! So how can a move deliberately designed to DECREASE the amount being consumed be called a revenue generating exercise? Durrrr.
Also, why the big fluffy panic about £1.50 a pint??? I thought you said the pubs were empty anyway, so who's going to be affected??!!! LOL!!! Ah, lets call it £2!!!!
Jolly Roger
says...
10:34pm Sun 7 Feb 10
That is what you get nothing more.
Same difference as them trying to tell us what we can buy at a reasonable price.
Also it is they fault by bring in 24 hour drinking, so not controlling drinking at reasonable times.
Dean M
says...
12:24pm Mon 8 Feb 10
"Dean --Your maths skills are nowhere near as honed as your nonsense-talking skills!! So how can a move deliberately designed to DECREASE the amount being consumed be called a revenue generating exercise? Durrrr.
Also, why the big fluffy panic about £1.50 a pint??? I thought you said the pubs were empty anyway, so who's going to be affected??!!! LOL!!! Ah, lets call it £2!!!!"
.
I used to think you had some intelligence Shaky but were just unfortunate enough to be a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter. I was wrong on the intelligence bit!
.
Let me explain it in very simple terms - as maths and skill are not words you should be using together.
.
10 pints at 75p per pint = £7.50 Okay so far? 8 pints at £1.50 per pint = £12.00
.
So a 20% reduction in consumption but a 60% increase in revenue.
.
Labour will have done their homework and know full well that any reduction in consumption will not result in a reduction in total revenue.
.
They will trumpet the fall in consumption of course, but not mention the extra money they collect.
.
Pubs are empty so who is going to be affected? Are you serious? How about the millions who drink at home, who are faced with a doubling of the price?
.
Highlighting your ridiculous comments on this one has been quite fun, but I guess it's time to move on.
Big Dave
says...
1:39pm Mon 8 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
6:08pm Mon 8 Feb 10
.
Drinking at home will reduce but probably not massively. Those on low incomes will obviously be worst hit. Let's say a reduction of 10%? So 90% of home drinkers will be faced with a doubling in price if £1.50 per pint is imposed. This is 90% of all home drinkers, not just the 'teenage binge drinkers' that are constantly being used as an excuse to put the price up for everyone.
.
So I think we can see that this will be a huge increase in revenue, for a small reduction in consumption, that may not tackle the problem effectively anyway.
*shakes head slowly*
says...
8:03pm Mon 8 Feb 10
"10 pints at 75p per pint = £7.50 Okay so far? 8 pints at £1.50 per pint = £12.00"
Err...don't you mean 5 pints @ £1.50 = £7.50??!!!! LOLL!!!!
Rubbish. Desperate rubbish.
No point if you're not even numerate to continue.
LOL again at same daft maths!!!! This time I AM really laughing out loud as I type!!!!
Dean M
says...
11:36pm Mon 8 Feb 10
.
Not sure why you want to go through the £1.50 times table, but if you check again I think you'll find 8 x £1.50 does = £12.00
.
I suspect you think that doubling of the price has to mean a halving of demand? Ridiculous. As I said - you have no grasp of the basics.
.
My example is based on demand reducing by 20%, which shows the government will make a huge profit, and I suspect (as others do) that it won't reduce by as much as that (meaning an even bigger profit).
.
Who knows? Maybe 30% down, but for you to insist it has to be a 50% reduction is rubbish.
.
Would any government bring in a policy that will price half of the nation's home drinkers out of the market? Not even this Labour government would be so suicidal.
.
Come on Shaky, raise your game.
*shakes head slowly*
says...
12:47am Tue 9 Feb 10
To invent a reduction to suit your own hypothesis is weak. If someone spends £100 quid a week on beer and the cost of beer doubles, they get to drink half as much for the same money --- so whats this baloney about you pulling an example "based on demand reducing by 20%" out of your fundament??? Who told you it would reduce by 20%??? LOL!!!! at still trying to defend fudging!!!!
Back of a fag packet accounting is all you're good for!!!! That and a good laugh LOLLL!!!!!
This is about "someone should do something" about the damage drink is doing to our region and you appear to be on the side of drink. Ok, stay there. I can see you'd rather argue til the cows come home than accept that a plan to reduce the damage caused by drink might actually do some good.
Cheers!!! Hic!
Dean M
says...
11:51am Tue 9 Feb 10
.
If I spend £20 a week on alcohol, 16 pints at home at 75p each = £12, plus 4 pints a week at the pub at £2.00 each = £8.00 which makes a total of £20. Happy?
.
Increase the cost of my home pint to £1.50 then I’ll knock the pub on the head and drink 13 to 14 pints at home instead. You’ve doubled the price of my home pint but my consumption has only gone down by a third. And the pub trade has taken another knock. Maybe I’ll convert the taxi cost to home pints too, maybe I’ll just spend a little more still to maintain my 20 pints a week.
.
Maybe I’m typical, maybe I’m not – but I’ve given other examples earlier. However, one thing is certain – your one-only example of price doubling means consumption must halve, and nothing else – is so simplistic that it’s total nonsense. A simpleton talking nonsense, Shaky.
.
This minimum pricing scandal will hit millions of innocent, low income people (and have knock-on effects to other areas of the economy) instead of tackling the real problem. It is yet another short-sighted Labour con.
.
By all means have the last word Shaky, but I’m sure you’ll just continue to accept the authorities view as usual. Where are these WMD by the way?
stevegg
says...
6:55pm Wed 10 Feb 10
Big Dave
says...
9:36pm Wed 10 Feb 10
Dean M
says...
12:05am Thu 11 Feb 10
stevegg wrote:If that's all they were proposing then no it wouldn't. However, they are proposing a minimum price of £1.50 per pint and if that happens then a 24 x 440ml can pack of lager currently costing c£14.00 will double to £28.00 - for everyone, remember.
Do they seriously think putting 50p or a £1 on a bottle of wine or pack of lager is going to stop binge drinking - get real!
More NHS & Health News stories
- Cameron pledges to tackle North-East drinks scandal
- Norovirus closes part of Middlesbrough hospital
- Mum gives thanks to health visitor through nomination
- MP in row over cancer treatments
- Hague urges Friarage Hospital "solution"
- Hospital campaign seeks royal backing
- Former footballer praises NHS after weight loss surgery
- Donors in brain bank deposit
- "Those doctors saved my boys"
- Survey shows fall in number of Darlington youths drinking
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
The Grim North says...
10:09am Thu 4 Feb 10