Saturday, January 09, 2010

The baby steps of prohibition

The BBC has hit the ground running this year, with two Have Your Says dedicated to issues of lifestyle fascism. The first was this glorious when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question:
What changes should be made to food policy?

Not 'Should we change food policy?' or 'Do we need to change food policy?', but 'What changes should be made?' In the world of sales, I believe that's known as the assumptive close.

The food question was swiftly followed by a booze question:
Should alcohol have a minimum price?

Which is more neutral, until you click on the link and it says:
Should 50p be minimum price for a unit of alcohol?

As opposed to 40p or 60p, presumably.

Thankfully, the public are not as keen on this idea as the Beeb and its fake charity buddies. Supporters of minimum pricing are outnumbered 10 to 1 in the comments. Naturally, a fair few cunts have offered their opinions as well, such as this bloke...
The fact is—people in the UK are incapable of doing what is good for themselves, it is up to the government to force through positive lifestyle changes. I agree with this one.

And this smug twat...
As much as I hate nanny state intervention on everything, I think this is probably a good idea.

There is something in British culture that makes us binge drink, which leads to fighting which leads to fear in the sober populous.

I won't change my drinking habbits though. I only drink the good stuff and not that industrial alcohol they advertise as 'reasuringly expensive'.

The second gentleman has fallen for the biggest con about this whole scheme—that minimum pricing will only affect the bottom end of the market. The reason minimum pricing is such an horrendous idea is not that it will make a four pack of Stella cost £4.60 or a bottle of whisky cost £14 (as it would with a 50p minimum). The problem is that, once implemented, every time a booze-related scare story appears in the papers, the course of least resistance will be to raise the minimum price.

Obscenely high though it is, the price of cigarettes is not actually set by the government. The massive tax rate on tobacco means the government has more impact on price that the manufacturers, of course, but there is still at least a theoretical distinction between tax and setting the price.

Giving the government the power to decide what constitutes an 'appropriate' price for a product is a whole new ball game. It is a policy suited only to authoritarian socialist regimes and represents a fundamental shift of power from the market to the state. And it's easy to imagine how that power would be used in the future. Let's for a moment speculate, shall we?
12 November 2012

Minimum alcohol price 'too low' say health groups

New figures from the Department of Health showing that alcohol misuse has not fallen as quickly as expected since 2010 has led to calls for a higher minimum price. The current rate of 50p a unit was described as "a joke" by Marian Fuckbucket of Alcohol Concern.

"Alcohol misuse costs the NHS £55 billion a year," said Ms Fuckbucket. "All the evidence shows that increasing the minimum price to 60p will save 4,592 lives a year in England alone. The government needs to show that it is taking this issue seriously."

Alcohol Concern described the 50p minimum as "a step in the right direction" when it was introduced two years ago but have since accused the government of complacency. Alcohol consumption has declined in recent years but is still higher than in several EU countries.

8 April 2014

75p minimum price would have saved tragic tot, say campaigners

The tragic death of Jason Child could have been prevented by tougher anti-alcohol measures, health campaigners said yesterday. The five year old was killed in a hit-and-run incident on Monday morning. The driver, Stuart Knob, 19, was three and a half times over the legal drink-drive limit.

"This tragic case is a damning indictment of the government's failure to address Britain's binge-boozing culture," said Dr Alan Gobshite of the Royal College of Physicians. "All the evidence shows that people like Mr Knob start drinking because of cheap alcohol in supermarkets, where cider can be bought for less than the price of a dozen eggs. It is shameful that we continue to sell alcohol at prices lower than in several Scandinavian countries."

A report released last week by the Royal College of Physicians showed that alcohol abuse was costing the country £120 billion a year and was responsible for 25% of all cancers. Dr Gobshite called on the government to raise the minimum price to 75p a unit, in line with the rate in Scotland. "Raising the minimum price from 60p to 75p will save 34,928 lives a year and would have little effect on responsible drinkers and those who, quite sensibly, don't drink at all," he said.

A recent report from the European Commission found that there is "no safe level of alcohol use" and estimated that passive drinking [PDF] costs EU member states over £500 billion a year.

5 July 2017

Minimum price escalator will save NHS billions, says Department of Health

Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10p a year will result in "the greatest improvement in public health for a generation" said Health Minister Caroline Vile yesterday. The controversial measure, opposed by the drinks industry, was passed into law with an overwhelming majority in the wake of the tragic case of Britney Alkie, whose death was shown live on television in January this year.

The current minimum price is 90p per unit and has not increased for over a year. The Department of Health says that raising the price to £1.20 by 2020 is the single most effective way of achieving the government's ambitious target of halving overall alcohol consumption within ten years.

Health groups have long campaigned for the change, citing evidence that it will save 53,967 lives and save the UK £214 billion. "We are delighted that the government has finally woken up to the havoc alcohol wreaks on society," said Lucy Mouthpiece, spokesperson for Alcohol Concern, the independent health charity.

"If we are going to continue to allow the sale of alcohol, the price must reflect the damage it causes," said Ms Mouthpiece. "While we welcome this move as a step in the right direction, the action must not stop here. There is much more the government needs to do to get this problem under control, starting with a crack-down on drink smuggling that has spiralled in recent years."

If you don't think any of this sounds remotely plausible, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you. The slippery slope has already begun. You might recall that the original idea was to set the minimum price at 40p. This has since increased to 50p, and the public health bastards are already campaigning for it to rise to 60p.

This article is real:
Raising alcohol price to 60p a unit would save 900 lives a year—expert

ONE of Scotland's leading public health experts has called on the Scottish Government to set a minimum price for alcohol 50 per cent higher than is currently proposed.

Dr Emilia Crighton, the convener of the Faculty of Public Health in Scotland, claimed 900 lives a year would be saved in Scotland if the minimum price was 60p per unit.


And so is this:
Minimum alcohol price 'would cut binge drinking'

Alcohol should be priced at a minimum of 60p per unit to drive down binge drinking, public health experts said today.

Today, a survey of 205 public health experts for the UK Faculty of Public Health, found 87% were in support of introducing a law to set a minimum price for alcohol.

Almost six in 10 (59%) were in favour of raising the price to 60p per unit, while 35% thought 50p was appropriate and 5% thought 40p a unit was sufficient.

In September, the Scottish Government heard how it could save £950 million over 10 years through minimum pricing at 40p a unit.

The measure would reduce hospital admissions and deaths by 3,600 a year in Scotland alone.

If these fucks are calling for a higher unit price now, when the idea is in its infancy, what do you think they'll be demanding a few years down the road?

And at 60p, the idea that minimum pricing only affects plebs and alcoholics starts to look very shaky indeed. Here's the very least you'll be paying when these temperance bullies get their way:
1 bottle of Cobra beer (600ml): £1.98

4 pack of Stella Artois (500ml): £6.24

Bottle of 14% wine: £6.30

70cl whisky: £16.80

1 litre vodka: £22.50

Once brought in, the minimum price of alcohol will go up and up as sure as night follows day. As ever with these duplicitous, prohibitionist scum-fucks, there is no point trying to appease them. They've been given every opportunity to show good faith over the years and have responded with nothing but lie after systematic lie. How much you pay for your drink is between you and the brewery. The government, the quacks and Alcohol fucking Concern can keep their filthy, thieving hands off.

46 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

Personally I think the Lib/Lab/Con pact should go for it, nothing is more likely to bring down the pact than prohibition of legal substances.

Assuming the people can be bothered of course.

DC said...

I thought minimum pricing was illegal under EU law?

That's not to say the cunts won't try and find someway round it cause it suits them.

Anonymous said...

Abolish the NHS.

Ian B said...

Well, this is anglospheric socialism at work (my "anglosocialism"). The key thing about this homegrown socialism/statism is that it is morally salvationist.

In simplified terms, communist socialists consider the proleteriat to be oppressed victims of the bourgeois capitalists. It exalts the proles as virtuous, and even heroic, labouring under the oppression of the ruling class.

Anglo socialism (being itself bourgeois) considers the proleteriat to be the authors of their own misfortune, who are in a depraved state due to their own moral failings. It thus uses state power to (attempt to) reform the masses. When Alan Milburn said that the aim of New Labour was to give more people the chance to be middle class, that was pure Anglosocialism talking.

Anglosocialism become ideologically hegemonic in Victorian times with the rise of "Victorian Values". It is the base of anglosphere leftism and anglosphere rightism (that is, conservatism as we call it). It is widely believed- universally by the ruling class, the only class whose beliefs gain political traction- that it is the job of the state (themselves) to save the masses from their own depravity, taking the view that the majority, if given freedom, will devolve to a bestial state, and only strict control from above can prevent that.

This is why Britain (catchphrase, "it's a free country") has been persistently since the late C19 the most miserablist armpit in Europe- "The Iran Of Europe" as I once saw somebody describe us on the internets). Until we can shake off the Victorian ideological hegemony- temperance, the work ethic, prudishness and so on, we will not get any personal freedom regardless of whether we elect "socialists" or "conservatives" because they all believe the same thing.

It's widely held on the Right that some kind of foreign marxist ideological invasion occurred in the post-war period (we may call this the Cultural Marxism Hypothesis, or Exogenous Tyranny Hypothesis, heh). Under the, er, Anglosocialist Hypothesis ("Endogenous Tyranny Hypothesis", anyone?) we see that our oppressed state is internally generated by an ideological hegemony that has been in place for nigh on two centuries; "political correctness" is a Victorian invention, and the current manifestation is simply the latest form of it. At its basis is a ruling class belief that they must act as benign tyrants, turning the entire country (and internationally the world) into a Port Sunlight style "model village" with free libraries and no pubs to distract the proles from the pursuit of virtue.

The fantastically successful cultural revolution in the nineteenth century- so successful that people today believe that Victorian values are "traditional" and have always existed- transformed the most liberal nation in Europe into one which, by the next century, was ready to accept any level of state control and ruthless exploitation and control of its citizenry in pursuit of moral virtue. The licensing laws, imposed under the figleaf of wartime necessity, are a classic example of that.

Until we can, en masse, reject the belief in moralist government in which our tyranny is rooted, we will make no progress towards freedom.

Anonymous said...

> Until we can shake off the Victorian ideological hegemony- temperance, the work ethic, prudishness

So the solution to all our nation's problems: we need more drunken, lazy cunts that fuck anything that moves. COUNT ME IN.

Actually, I'm not sure how much I'm kidding with the above. Honestly, it's the only reason I keep smoking (because anti-smokers are such cunts), and the main reason I'm going to drink a litre of vodka tonight (I was going to have a few drinks before I read this, and now I'm going to get shitfaced just because it'd horrify them if they saw it).

Anonymous said...

This sort of idiotic "thinking" is what now passes for political thought. A brief review of history (usually by somebody in their 30's or older as reading skills are nosediving) would bring us back to the old days of Prohibition is the States. That was intended to reduce the "damage" of alcohol.
It worked.
They had the "damage" of alcohol combined with automatic weapons on the streets, organised crime (better than disorganised crime perhaps?) and it did not stop the trade in alcohol one jot.
In the Scandinavian countries, a great many homes have a still and they are not making bio-diesel rather the local version of vodka or "moonshine".
People are going to drink. You know it, I know it, it may even penetrate the skull of a politician long enough to find a working brain cell and even they may realise it (eventually). Minimum pricing is a tax, a well dressed up one in the guise of "caring government", but is undeniably a tax.
Michael (well on the road to becoming a bloody angry Michael...)
TTFN

manwiddicombe said...

When one is aggressively pilfering one's alcohol from the local retail outlets does one really bother to investigate the recommended retail price?

Dick Puddlecote said...

Perhaps if these prohibitionists campaigned to get us out of the EU, they might have a chance. Until then, it's still illegal, as Tim Worstall tires of mentioning over and over and ...

Anonymous said...

Don,t these idiots get it if they win their arrgument hands down and stop smoking and stop drinking the state still needs it,s taxes. so what next when they take little spot for his daily walk it,s a dog shit tax when they bravly exercise by cycling or jogging they tax that too BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.

Mitch said...

They really do want us to exist like workers in an Ant colony with of course them at the top.

Dagny Taggart said...

Who is John Galt?

Simon Jester said...

Just waiting for the A&E muppet to tell us all what a good idea these minimum prices are...

Hank Rearden said...

Hey Dagny, lets get a bottle and head to the woods - you can examine my motor.

manfromthefuture said...

i am reminded that this year i plan to start my own homebrewing again.

whilst i can.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Ooo - I wouldn't dream of telling you anything, Simon.

Facts only seem to upset you?

Spartan said...

Time to get the mothballed white vans up and running again ;-)

More business for the EU at expense of the UK ... the EU already has mine and a lot of others tobacco trade.

Not to mention the ever growing home-brewing cottage industry in the UK.

Robin said...

If the CEOs of the supermarkets met and decided to have minimum pricing for alchohol products due to their social concience, would the BBC types applaud their morals or condemn their profiteering ?

Current said...

If you think about the above scenario it's not really all that terrible. The government will try to inflate away the national debt in the next decade. So, it's unlikely that inflation will be lower than 4%. At that rate an increase over a decade of the minimum price from 60p to 90p is actually no increase at all in real terms.

Really, a minimum price is the best situation because its constantly diminished by inflation. A percentage tax is much worse because it won't be eroded by inflation and people will constantly be pushing for that to be raised too.

Bill Sticker said...

Hmm. Mandatory price controls. Since when have those done any real good?

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

BUY ALL the proper good laboratory glasswarw, such as "Quikfit", and rubber tubing, and all the other kinds of stuff you will need, while you still can and are allowed to.

Some of you will make a mmint by prodicing alcoholic drinks just under the State price and selling the stuff, and others will just be able to drink nearly all you want most of the time.

A good Stewart Condenser, or one of the Davies double-surface pattern (no relation) is good for spirits, and very accurate.

There is also no substitute for a good Mercury Thermometer that reads from 50-100C accurately.

For the benefit of our marvellous and public-spirited (no pun intended) police, I hasten to add that at no time have I done any of these experiments: I have neither the time nor the liking of spirits, enough, to do them. I just know they will work and it's no crime to say so, and I want to warn "policymakers" and "movers and shakers" of what will happen if they decide to go ahead with these mad pricing schemes.

_Felix said...

I compiled the following points mostly from the HYS forum:

If it's supposed to prevent annoying drunks, France and Italy have very low alcohol prices without the streets full of drunks that supposedly go along with this.

Alcohol is already very expensive here, so if the theory of the connection of drunks to price is correct, lowering our price to match elsewhere in Europe would cause violent drunken riots and widespread death.

If it's supposed to prevent the deaths of alcoholics, the high prices of hard drugs don't prevent addicts from stealing if necessary to make purchases.

If it's supposed to bring about culture change, Norway and Iceland already impose high alcohol prices and continue to have lots of alcoholics (and illegal stills).

Ways around the policy include buying in France, smuggling, stealing, and brewing.

These reasons why it won't work tend to overshadow the reasons why it's wrong to impose morals on the public even successfully.

Jim said...

It will arguably make things worse. Alcoholics will just spend more money on booze and less on food and bills until they're begging on the streets like junkies. And predictably this will lead to more theft and more power for the black market. In fact, when you consider booze is the no.1 drug in Britain, they'll be rubbing their hands with glee.

Ian B said...

Prohibitions never achieve the stated intended effect. They invariably, by their own defined standards of what is good, make things worse. (That is, if e.g. the intention is to provoke "responsible" drinking, they will cause less "responsible" drinking"). Whether one considers that this is what the prohibitionists are really after, or whether they actually believe their policies will achieve their stated aims, depends on how cynical one is.

Anonymous said...

We will be paying in euros by 2020!

vervet said...

And as we all know for sure, 100% no doubt, any price increase resulting from minimum pricing would be offset by an increase in the subsidy in the bars and restaurants of the Houses of Parliament.
In fact the duplicitous, troughing bastards would probably draft legislation that automatically raised the subsidy in line with minimum price increases.

ENGLISHMAN said...

The real problem is that they have changed our relationship ,democratic or otherwise,to our "representatives",who now consider themselves our masters.How do these mental titans arrive at the notion that a minimum price will "save" four thousand odd lives?have they the power to see into the future?all that they have is numbers on a peice of paper,which has no relevance to a human beings actual life,many of these "four thousand"will succumb to one of the thousand ills that flesh is heir to,irrespective of drinking,they will be killed by cars,die in fires,be "vibrantly"murdered while walikng home,electrocution,heart attack,sex etc.We are allowing them to treat us as nation of village idiots,subject to thier decrees,because we do not possess the raw guts that should go with such an abundance of intellect that is strewn across the internet,safer to bitch than have to do anything,but the day is comming when you will have no option but to physically resist,how bad are you willing to let this become?

DiscoveredJoys said...

And if the 'minimum pricing' regime is imposed will it apply in the bars of the House of Commons? You know the place where they are still allowed to smoke?

In a faux advertising voice: "This is not just any prohibition, this is an Elites Excepted Prohibition."

Stephen said...

Anglo socialism (being itself bourgeois) considers the proleteriat to be the authors of their own misfortune, who are in a depraved state due to their own moral failings

Ian B, you have your political terms seriously confused there. That's bourgeois liberalism you are describing there. And you are right, New Labour, and the worst bunch of working class hating fucktards inflicted on this country since the cunts who devised the Poor Laws.

Anonymous said...

Al capones guns dont bark.

C-A-P-O-N-E -CAPONE

Remember this you puritan stinking calvanist cunts.
Not to mention the political fuckwits .
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
PROHIBITION CREATES CRIME.
MORONS ,MORONS ,MORONS.

If you wish to hear the whole lyrics to this great Dennis Al Capone song see link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57deEq08blU

Stephen said...

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
PROHIBITION CREATES CRIME


Well it depends what the prohibition is of. Prohibitions that create victimless crimes are always a devil to police, as no one has any incentive to report it to the police. The side-effect of prohibition by cost will be a black market in alcohol. If this proposal ever gets to the statute book - and I doubt it will, for it affects the interests of just too many people - those who can, will circumvent the law in any way they can. By buying from black market suppliers or by going to France to buy booze. A sizeable proportion of the population of England live with a day trip's distance of the hyper markets of Calais to make any such law wholly ineffective.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

An aside sort of... The Norwegians have gone a step further. Anything over I think 3.75% is only available through state outlets (Vinmonopolet) at punitive prices dictated by a noisy bunch of righteous creep.

They have a pompous Calvinistic streak a mile wide and no shortage of righteous fuckwits (many sporting strange beards)- alcohol prices are mercilessly ratcheted each time these noisome wheels squeak. It is extremely tiresome especially when they regularly get caught "doin an Iris" Stinking hypocrites doesn't really capture it but heck, you know what I mean.

Now, strange thing is - if you plot alcohol price against sugar sales as an Oslo newspaper is wont to do 'pon occasion - the two track quite wonderfully in tandem.

Not sure what the moral is ... just saying is all eh?

Anonymous said...

Sweden was selling booze from state run shops in the 70's.
They also had massive drink problems and suicides. It solved nothing, just pissed people off (and no doubt racked up a tidy profit.)

Furor Teutonicus said...

If you don't think any of this sounds remotely plausible, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.

Anonymous said...

Sweden was selling booze from state run shops in the 70's.
They also had massive drink problems and suicides. It solved nothing, just pissed people off (and no doubt racked up a tidy profit.)

1/10/2010 03:58:00 PM


LOOK at those figures from Sweden and Finland in tnat time. (SURE they can be found somewhere, IF they have not been "dissapeared")

In the first twelve months of "price control" the alcoholism rate in those countrys ROSE by more than 100%!!!

BECAUSE people started brewing and distilling their own.

What was the answer to that?

Until recently, if it is not STILL, it is illegal in Sweden to buy yeast, and grains, (or hops) and either honey or sugar together.

WHY the FUCK does someone not FORCE these wankshits in "Government", and "alcohol concern fake charitys" to answer WHY they think their "idea" would work any better in Britain?

Yet EVERYONE I say this to, no matter for or against IGNORES the fucking HISTORIC EVIDENCE totaly!

WHY is this question nopt being "asked in the House"?

the a&e charge nurse said...

'In the first twelve months of "price control" the alcoholism rate in those countrys ROSE by more than 100%!!!' - that's a very simplistic view of addiction, Furor Teutonicus.

Are you suggesting that legion of malleable Swedes became dependent on the sauce simply because they could not obtain bottles of Carlsberg from their favoured provider?

I've heard of brand loyalty, but even allowing for the distressing effects of flagrant state intervention such assertions about cause of alcohol dependence simply do not stack up.

Incidentally, I find it almost risible that anyone should have fears that access to cheap alcohol in the UK is likely to be curtailed any time soon given that so many exciting lo-price deals are on offer.

GangstersRus Limited said...

I saw this coming last year and have since learnt how to make my own Vodka.

Well, we already have minimum pricing, its the tax on alcohol - as I understand it, a Litre of Vodka cannot be sold for less that £6.48 a litre - seeing it costs me about £2 or so to make, and people don't have £15 to spend on a bottle anymore - what if I split the difference and sell it to you for £8?

Its worth buying a gun to protect a business like that...!

Simon Jester said...

"Incidentally, I find it almost risible that anyone should have fears that access to cheap alcohol in the UK is likely to be curtailed any time soon given that so many exciting lo-price deals are on offer."

Ooh, goody! Where?

bodo said...

Check out the excellent BBC r4prog 'More or Less' where they shoot down the lies of the 'massive rise in costs of treating alcohol problems' claim so often churned out by the powers that be. Its about 20 min in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00plzyj

Sam Tarran said...

It's strange that the reason many of the advocates of minimum pricing cite is the trouble you get in the streets on Saturday nights and such. Isn't the problem there policing?

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

I think it is worth re-stating here as other commentators have in other places.

This whole thing is NOT about the health or social benefits of controlling tobacco, alcohol, tea and coffee - it is about CONTROL and power.

It really grates on me that the first smoking ban in Norway - 1991/2 - was an abject and complete failure. The only thing that happened was mass public disobedience, in fact many previously non smoking areas spontaneously sprouted ashtrays! This was an affront to the folk with weird facial hair and they redoubled their control freakery and got a second ban in. This is beginning to crack too (not that the righteous will admit to it) and smoking areas have morphed into the normal building infrastructure with walls and heating (I mean, it is considerably nearer the North Pole)

Anyway - it is to the eternal shame of the Brits that nothing similar has occurred in the UK - spinelessness abounds. The BBC et al have pushed confrontation off the agenda - if somebody is a deranged, idiotic halfwit one is expected to empathise with them - I mean - look at your Prime Minister ........

Furor Teutonicus said...

the a&e charge nurse said...

'In the first twelve months of "price control" the alcoholism rate in those countrys ROSE by more than 100%!!!' - that's a very simplistic view of addiction, Furor Teutonicus.


THOSE were the GOVERNMENT figures. (If you don't like them fucking TOUGH!) BUT instead of the Government learning from them, they used it as an excuse to raise prices YET AGAIN!

(As I said, the figures MUST be out there, they were published enough in various books and reports at the time.)

I was there! Were YOU?

Are you suggesting that legion of malleable Swedes became dependent on the sauce simply because they could not obtain bottles of Carlsberg from their favoured provider?

For someone who, I presume, is a nurse, you are nnot very good at reading are you.

Try again nursey;

FROM MY POST.

In the first twelve months of "price control" the alcoholism rate in those countrys ROSE by more than 100%!!!

BECAUSE people started brewing and distilling their own.


I can, and do, make beer as strong as whiskey, NO problem. It just takes a few weeks longer.

And as Sweden was not unknown for having the odd hidden still, THEY sprang up like daisey in the spring time.

My Grandmother had FIVE, all in full production. BEFORE the "price control" she had one in weekly production and a second which was used for mid summer and Jule.

And as a foot note why the FUCK should the Swedes want to drink DANISH shite? "Carlsberg"???

the a&e charge nurse said...

A little touchy aren't we, FT?
Surely Carlsberg has a strong Scandinavian association, and Sweden IS part of the Scandinavian group?

Anyway my original point still stands - I doubt rates of alcoholism in Sweden can be attributed to a single factor alone (such as an increase in the number of stills amongst Swedish senior citizens).

The reasons for developing addictions of one sort or another are rather more complex.
Here is a brief overview, my angry Swedish friend
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/1387/1/Why-Do-Some-People-Become-Addicted/Page1.html

And for the apparently gormless Simon Jester here is a starting point in your quest for the UKs cheapest glug
http://www.supermarket.co.uk/news/2009/Dec/supermarkets-encouraging-binge-drinking-with-cheap-alcohol-deals.html

Happy shopping.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Anyway my original point still stands - I doubt rates of alcoholism in Sweden can be attributed to a single factor alone (such as an increase in the number of stills amongst Swedish senior citizens).

It was atributed to the one fact so strongly that even today, it is illegal in Sweden to buy Grain/Hops/concentrate Fruit juices, and or honey and sugar in the same shoping trip.

And, it was, IS not just "Senior citizens" ("Old gits" is the better description by the way), there was NO ONE in the Northern villages or towns, or those fromn the citys that had these "holiday shed" things, that did NOT have them full to heaving with home brew beer and stills.

Another thing you do not take into account. Any person drinking a pint does not neccessarily become alky. But make that pint thze strength of Martini, or even Whiskey, and they keep drinking the same pint, what do YOU think happens?

the a&e charge nurse said...

A little touchy aren't we, FT?


WTF??

I answered your bloody comments. What the FUCK do you mean by "touchy" and "angry"?

Shit pal, do NOT EVER come into a Berlin bar. You will probably think the third world war has broken out because some one speaks loud enough to be heard above the T.V.

Have you Brits REALLY become SO cowardly that you think every one is "angry" or "shouting" at you? (You are by FAR not the only one, and I am not the only one that is accused either. Shower of bloody wet nellies.

Surely Carlsberg has a strong Scandinavian association, and Sweden IS part of the Scandinavian group?

But is Denmark? (What do you call a Dane with a brain in his head? "STOP THIEF!" (Swedish joke).

Anonymous said...

The reason Sweden has large alchohol rates is simply because it is so fucking boring there is nothing else to de except get steaming.
Bit like Britain really.
Sunnier climes have less of a problem for two reasons.
1.Sunshine makes you feel better.
2.A lot of hot countries have so much poverty they just cannot afford to get pissed.
3.This point is unrelated to the above I drink ,I enjoy drinking and no dirty puritan "sack of shite with a bit of string tied round middle" is going to tell me otherwise.
Gerroff my boze ya fugin bezer !
And my fags as well ya cunt ye.
Alchohol concern (fake charity),ye be warned !

Furor Teutonicus said...

Anonymous said...

The reason Sweden has large alchohol rates is simply because it is so fucking boring there is nothing else to de except get steaming.
Bit like Britain really.


I will give you 100% pass rate on BOTH of those statements.

I spent most of my child hood, sea time and part of my army time North of the Arctic circle. (My family came from Gällivare in Sweden. the other half from Germany). My Grandfather had his ship in Narvik, and we fished the Polar sea, and I was based at the arctic and mountain warfare training school in Norway for a time.

But that is the REASON for drinking. NOT the CAUSE for alcoholism.

Remember, at the time Swedish law dictated that spirits could only be 30°, when the rest of the world was 40 or 50°. THEN you get a whole population who started to make BEER at 20 to 25°!!!

ALSO do not forget, because my Grandmother was Saami, therefore meaning, OFFICIALY I am as well, as are MOST of the people living there (although I never took up the citizenship), we had free access to the Saami on the Koala peninsula, which is Russia!

No customs, or VERY few. Most times the snow drifts were higher than the attempts at border fences. You just, LITERALY walked over them. It was just like between Canada and the States during prohibition.

And the same will happen (home production wise) in the U.K. Although actual smuggling MAY be slightly more difficult.

ChlorineIsntGoodForYou said...

Anyway - it is to the eternal shame of the Brits that nothing similar has occurred in the UK - spinelessness abounds

Or perhaps because the passive smokers amongst us are not so passive any more. Light up in my presence at your own risk!

Simon Jester said...

A sadly unspecific link, A&E - it boils down to "some supermarkets, at some point in time".

FT, the reason A&E thinks 'every one is "angry" or "shouting" at' him is because, in his case, it's true. I'm not in the habit of calling people cunts, but...