Is cheap booze really the issue?

Too often when someone is in court accused of committing a crime when drunk the defence offers this as a mitigating factor - that the behaviour was 'out of characte'r. Why do we not change the law so that committing a crime while under the influernce of alcohol or drugs is seen as an aggravating factor leading to, say, an automatic 10% increase in the sentence, whether fine, community service or prison.

It will bring some people up short when they are sentenced and will at least be a legal recognition that drunkeness is a serious factor in crime.

Recent research shows that drinking among younger people is decreasing overall but people of our broad age range are drinking more, that ubiquitous becoming with measurable affects on our health.

moved I find that people more and more want 'artisan' drinks offered e.g. some of the lovely lemonades, elderberry presse etc.

gilly TBH I think it's a cultural thing and I don't know how you change that. I don't think there's any deep or hidden reason that people "feel the need to drink so much and so often" (unless of course they're dependent or self-medicating with alcohol - but surely people can't be that unhappy en masse?

All the evidence points to the fact that cheap booze freely available is part of the problem, that and the licensing hours do have an impact. I know my daughter won't go out with a certain group any more because "the offie" is available when they have already had far too much to drink and her nerves can't take the train journey home!

POGS I think maybe you should have put a after "Maybe Labour will put it in their manifesto, they are obviously all for it or else they would be welcoming the u-turn of the proposal." I don't think that would earn them the votes they need! They are just saying that because they are the opposition [grin}

Just want to say that we went to an engagement party last summer where there was no alcohol at all and we all had a great time!

I still say we need to get to the real reason people feel the need to drink so much and so often.

Sorry meant to convert the link www.ias.org.uk/newsroom/uknews/2013/news130313.html

Kid gloves, pussy footing from the government is exactly what is going on. Health bodies and doctors are tearing their hair out because we are sitting on a liver disease time bomb: http://www.ias.org.uk/newsroom/uknews/2013/news130313.html

Something has to change. So what if the moderate drinker has to find a few pounds extra a month to buy their booze, and as for the poor not being able to afford litres of white cider... I rest my case.

I think there is a point that has not been spoken about by the media very much.

The Scottish Parliament are looking to start 'minimum alcahol pricing'. They have been told that it cannot happen because it breaks the regulations regarding EU trading conditions. I think the government have said that they will be looking at how the Scottish Parliament manage the situation and maybe the subject will be brought up again in the future. Maybe Labour will put it in their manifesto, they are obviously all for it or else they would be welcoming the u-turn of the proposal.

If minimum pricing was to be introduced the extra cost per unit and the subsequent charge for the product will mean the supermarket/outlets receive the extra revenue not the government for any good use!.

Personally I think there should be a charge for anyone taken to a police cell or hospital clearly under the influence of alcahol. There is already in place a fine for drunken behaviour, use it, no let offs! Any kids found drinking should be collected by parents, not taken home. If the parents are not showing responsibility then they too should be fined.

In other words stop treating the problem with kid gloves which has been happening for years. Kids just think it's all one big joke, usually with stupid parents knowing they are doing it. It's an across the board class problem too.

Raising the price of drink might deter younger people from drinking too much. i don't think it will have an effect on those who are already heavy abusers of alcohol.
Maybe lobbyists persuades Blair that if we had unregulated opening hours we would suddenly all adopt a more moderate "continental" style of drinking. Anyway he asserted this and he was wrong, wasn't he. Bet there would be a lot of lobbying from the industry if they tried to bring back shorter licencing hours.
Oh those far off days when pubs closed at 10.30 and, in Wales, all day on Sunday. They also closed for a few hours in the late afternoon didn't they.
And there were no nightclubs other than a few in big cities.

Ana I hadn't thought of that - you're right.

Yes - I think many more voters were alienated by his determination to press ahead with the gay marriage law, but that didn't deter him...
(No, I am not against gay marriage, just saying.)

I don't know why Blair changed the licensing laws so that pubs could open practically all day and night (or why he encouraged the opening of super casinos). I don't think increased licensing hours are the core problem, but it certainly can't help.

It's common to see drunk and argumentative people in UK town and city centres late at night and it seems to be particularly a problem in the UK. Jess I agree with you - I've often heard DJs on the radio joking about getting hammered, as if it's "cool" or some sort of badge of honour and I wonder if the rest of Europe has this sort of jokey attitude to people getting so drunk that they don't know what they're doing.

I don't feel that raising the price of drink will stop habitual drinkers (some of whom, as gillybob suggested, may have started drinking to blot out problems). As several have said, cigarettes cost a fortune now but I, and many others, still buy them (yes, I know, it's stupid), but as Movedalot says, if cigarettes had been enormously expensive when I was young I may not have developed the habit in the first place.

Anyway, whatever anyone thinks, it looks like Cameron has backed down yet again. It's said the reason for this is because he'll alienate a lot of voters but I think it's more likely he's been warned that big business takes a very dim view of his plan.

No, Bags you're right of course, you still need a license to sell alcohol. I should have said, 'licensing hours'. Although it does seem very easy to,get one now. Round here, pubs and off licenses are closing but every corner shop and petrol station now seems to sell alcohol as well as all the supermarkets.

The chancellor, the lobbyists and some of those positioning themselves for the leadership won the day then.
Excess alcohol consumption costs a hell of a lot in terms of NHS demand.
I do think the whole of our culture is very much pro-alcohol. Very different to when I was growing up in the 50s when men drank, in pubs and golf clubs, but not any men that I ever met.
Interviewers and announcers are constantly dropping in little comments which normalise drinking:
every happy occasion should be associated with alcohol (you're going to celebrate with cheesecake was said in amazement to a athlete last week on BBC)
every sad occasion should be associated with alcohol (drown your sorrows)
alcohol is the obligatory remedy for anything stressful or tiring "you've earned a glass of wine"
a hangover is a cause for a nudge and a wink "you had a good night then"
etc

Have licensing laws been 'abandoned', or have pub opening hours changed? You have to have a licence to sell alcohol, don't you?

Does anyone else think it's more than a bit strange to have abandoned licensing laws and then endlessly go on and on about how dangerous booze is? The brewers and distillers have always been a very powerful lobby. And contributors to party funds.

When I was a student, I could never afford more than two drinks and neither could most of my friends. I do think that the price probably stopped us drinking more than we should.

Also, I think that a higher price per unit of alcohol could provide the government with cash to finance care for people with alcohol problems.

Putting up the price of cigarettes as well as the health message getting through has stopped some existing smokers and also stopped some from starting. I don't think putting a minimum price on alcohol will stop those already addicted but it might stop some from getting that way in the future.

Like putting up the price of cigarettes every budget, the proposal to 'price people out of the market' where alcohol is concerned seems to be a cynical move by the government (any government) to up their tax income while piously claiming it's 'for our own good'

I should have added that those people who drink to excess will continue to drink to excess regardless of the cost of drink.

Everyone keeps saying that the Government needs to do something to stop people drinking too much. How about the people themselves actually doing something about it? Why should we be a 'nanny state' and expect the Government to do everything for us? We should take responsibility for ourselves.

I see today that Cameron has abadoned his alcohol pricing plan

I speak an entirely new (to anyone) kind of language when I have had a few kittylester but I envy your perfect French.

Not sure what you don't understand kitty the fact that he/she went out at 10pm or the fact that they were still out at 4am? Personally I can't see why anyone would have the energy want to bother going out at 10pm but that's age for you !

I think these are the very drinks that are the issue Ana the cheap 2ltr bottles of White Lightening and the cheapest cans of extra strong lager. I don't think it would effect the hard up couple either.

I don't see how a minimum price per unit would affect anything other than cheap lager or cider. Someone was saying on the radio this morning that such a change would 'penalise the hard-up couple who only buy one bottle of wine a week' - but surely wine already costs far more than 50p per unit?

The worry for me is that they'd just put all prices up anyway...

An added bonus for me Gillybob is that I can speak PERFECT french after a couple of drinks

I think that having pubs etc open all the time is another huge factor in drunken behaviour. I was shocked recently to find that a victim I was supporting went out at 10pm and was assaulted at 4am. I just don't understand why it is necessary.

The newspapers are full of stories involving young (and not so young) people committing crimes under the influence of alcohol. I know that when I have had a drink (or two) I get a new found confidence that I don't have otherwise, I tend to talk and laugh more too, but that's it. At what point does someone become so drunk they become extremely violent and dangerous? Is it the alcohol to blame or are they predisposed to this behaviour anyway and the drink just gives them more confidence to act out the violence?

JessM I can understand MP's from all sides being tugged left and right with this one. On one had you have the health issues and on the other alcohol sales bring in huge revenue. Add to that licencees/landlords/publicans and there is no easy answer.

absent I agree alcoholics and heavy drinkers will drink whatever the cost and will find the money even if they have to resort to crime to fuel their addiction. What I am trying to understand is what difference the cost would make to these people or should we be looking more closely to the reasons why people resort to heavy drinking in the first place? Which brings me back to the hopelessness.