http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/03/minimum-price-for-alcohol

That's as idiotic as those teachers that punish the whole class because of a few morons...

Anyone selling say a can of beer for less than 50p is using it as a loss-leader. . .

As a contributor to the teetotal thread, I have no issue with this at all .

Now, being serious, I have to say I kind of agree with it in general terms. Anyone selling say a can of beer for less than 50p is using it as a loss-leader to get people into their shop. Given they're not doing it for charity, that means they are putting the price of other goods up to maintain their overall profit levels. And honesty, I can't think of a great justification why those of us who don't drink should be subsidising those who do, given the general cost to society of alcohol use as it stands - I can't imagine the people buying the 50p cans of lager are your discerning, social drinker. Strikes me they're much more the 'get [LIFTED], throw up in the street, possibly have a fight and end up in casualty' types. And I don't see why their excesses should be made easier, frankly.

I don't know about a minimum price but I'd got for a regulation that no alcohol shoudl be sold for less than cost.

Jon

They're talking about 50p per unit of alcohol.

So a can of beer ~ £1
A bottle of red wine ~ £5
A bottle of spirits ~ £14

That means doubling current prices. If they do that, I'm going to march on parliament with a flaming torch and I expect a million people to follow me.


*edited due to bad maths*

Well what I drink typically costs at least £2 per pint, sometimes £3 so it wouldn't affect me much. It would mean the end of cheapish spirits though.

We're talking supermarket prices, not bar prices??

"The nation's growing addiction to alcohol is putting an immense strain on health services, especially in hospitals, costing the NHS over £2.7bn each year."

first smoking then obesity now alcohol
all under the headline NHS savings
i wonder what's next …