janie48 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Thats what David Cameron has said. Do you think he is right to want to tackle the problem of excessive drinking? which is apparently getting much worse. Its said to cost the NHS 2.5 billion a year.We have all seen the pictures on our tv screens of what the Town centres are like at the weekends,and A&E departments filled with abusive drunks.Then there are all the crimes associated with alcohol abuse.Yet in todays culture it seems be considered perfectly acceptable to drink excessively instead of moderately. Most of us like to have a few drinks on a social occasion,or the odd glass or two at home..nothing wrong with that,and we've all been young once! Isn't time though to take the whole matter more seriously and encourage more responsibility instead of turning a blind eye to it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 They need to abolish the jizya. Alcohol should not be taxed, we need a free-market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yes why is it that Brits seem to have this problem of binge drinking , an American reporter was in London covering the wedding last year (Anderson Cooper) he left his hotel room at 11pm went outside as the pubs were turning out, he said people were just throwing up and urinating on the side walks like it was nothing...maybe it's just London at 11pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's alright for Cameron and the rest of the MPs telling us that there will be minimum pricing while they still get their subsidised bar and restaurant, hypocrites. He is just using it as an excuse to increase prices for everyone and rake in more money. Why should people who like the occasional drink have to pay for the idiots that just go and get drunk. Would make far more sense to charge people who have to be taken to hospital because they are too drunk, a minimum of £100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's alright for Cameron and the rest of the MPs telling us that there will be minimum pricing while they still get their subsidised bar and restaurant, hypocrites. He is just using it as an excuse to increase prices for everyone and rake in more money. Why should people who like the occasional drink have to pay for the idiots that just go and get drunk. Would make far more sense to charge people who have to be taken to hospital because they are too drunk, a minimum of £100. the minimum price which is usually bandied about is 50p per unit or around £1 a pint which will make not a jot of difference to the average beer drinker. it might have a bigger impact on spirits. hopefully, it will end the practice of supermarkets selling cheap beer which might boost the pub trade a bit which would be very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 ... Would make far more sense to charge people who have to be taken to hospital because they are too drunk, a minimum of £100. But what about health care being 'free at the point of provision'? Perhaps everybody should be obliged to obtain medical insurance (through a state-run scheme or from a private company) and everybody should be given a bill which they would take to their insurers? It's either 'free at the point of provision' or 'everybody gets a bill'. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's alright for Cameron and the rest of the MPs telling us that there will be minimum pricing while they still get their subsidised bar and restaurant, hypocrites. There are 11 bars and pubs in the PALACE OF WESTMINSTER. More restaurants, serving economy alcohol. According to the politicians, only the rich should have access to subsidised alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 But what about health care being 'free at the point of provision'? Perhaps everybody should be obliged to obtain medical insurance (through a state-run scheme or from a private company) and everybody should be given a bill which they would take to their insurers? It's either 'free at the point of provision' or 'everybody gets a bill'. You can't have it both ways. Insurers would not cover self-inflicted injuries, so that would amount to exactly the policy that iansheff is suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 According to the politicians, only the rich should have access to subsidised alcohol. the politicians are not saying that, why are you lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/cameron-to-make-being-drunk-much-safer-201202154896/ A Downing Street source said: "As we hurtle towards the point where the economy stops being Gordon Brown's fault it is important that we keep everyone very, very drunk." love the dailymash..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.