And the ones that survive do so that much poorer. Brilliant...?

Also, really, I know it's already been said, but IRONIC?

No. Not at all. It's not even Alanis Morisette ironic.

and "up to" is money grubbying nanny state speech for 1 or 2?

So I guess this is going to signal the start of my moonshine business

/probably

I've prepared for this event and have converted all of my worldly assets into boxed wine. Fools invest in gold, Scholarly men invest in Franzia

Oh look, this thread again...

Does not approve.

RexTalionis: [www.fanpop.com image 320x240]

Not til your 15.

"He will throw his weight behind plans to emulate Scotland where supermarkets and pubs are forced to charge a minimum of 45p per unit of alcohol to prevent the cut-price selling blamed for fuelling the orgy of public drunkenness."

Something tells me the author is against this... can't put my finger on exactly what though...

/Firefox says there's ONE L in fueling
//Daily Fail, indeed...

This is, like, THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF IRONY.

I'm going to choose to believe that this was a troll and award you 10/10, subs.

I'm a very functional person but if asked to admit, I have to say i do drink far too much. If it were more expensive, I would probably drink less since the thin wallet comes first and foremost.

Then again, I live in South Korea, which is a paradise for cheap hooch if you can stomach the local firewater (soju).

Unfortunately, I can.

If that were really the case, NYC would be as sober as Salt Lake City.

I do love the obsession with saving X number of people each year - usually only in the hundreds or thousands(which in the grand scheme of the total population means almost no one at all) - generally at a cost of making life more miserable for everyone else.

So no, I don't support laws that would intend to protect us from ourselves. I think government has a role to protect me from the actions of others, and conversely to protect others from my actions. It has no reasonable role in protecting me from my own stupidity. We don't need government to treat adults as if children. As long as our decisions affect only us, let us make our decisions - even if they might be mistakes.

We don't need higher taxes on alcohol to protect anyone. We don't need the war on drugs - just like we didn't need alcohol prohibition. We don't need seat belt/helmet laws. We don't need the government banning effective diet pills that are only dangerous to idiots who misuse them.

But asking the governments of the world to treat adults like... adults - I know this is clearly radical and insane notion that has no place in reality.

Besides I think this study doesn't take other adverse effects into account. Suppose you said - "studies show that high heroin/meth/etc prices result in 1200 fewer addict deaths each year" - well those high prices have another effect. Those junkies have a harder time scrounging up the cash and so they often engage in other illegal (very often violent) acts to raise the funds for their next fix. How many people die as a result of this? Would their study take into account the possibility of alcoholics taking similar measures?

Is there some reason to force alcoholics live longer?

JRoo: Is there some reason to force alcoholics live longer?

yes, no, maybe

2000 a year is nothing. That's slightly fewer than die of car accidents in the UK and noise level compared to the US's 33000 auto deaths per year.

it really worth your diminishing returns to try to stomp out every last possible threat to every stupid human on earth? The answer may be yes if it's just so you can grub more tax revenues, but that's the only way.

Again, a comment on ironic. It's like saying people will drive less when gas prices go up.

That said, people might decide to homebrew in order to avoid taxes (much like cigarette rollers). Only this time, they'll be home when they drink, so less driving.

//Sorry for the diversion. Drunk right now and currently in stages of learning homebrew form a friend.

A recent official study found that setting a minimum price of 30p a unit would prevent 300 deaths a year, 40p about 1,000 deaths, and 50p more than 2,000 premature deaths.

Anyone have a link to this study? I'd be interested to see how they studied the effects of raising the price of alcohol without raising the price of alcohol.

\oblig.

This is the exact justification Sweden uses to support its taxes on booze. I gotta admit, in my case it works. I'm too poor to drink as much as I would otherwise.

This made me think of that anecdote about Gallo driving around and yelling to winos "What's the word?" And he was thrilled when they'd respond "Thunderbird!"

"What's the word? Thunderbird
How's it sold? Good and cold
What's the jive? Bird's alive
What's the price? Thirty twice."

What is a "unit"? Typical regular-sized can? Pint glass?

Or you could make your own, even cheaper.

Just raise the price of a 40% ABV 750ml to $1000 so only the rich can drink. That would lower death rates too.

/*hic*
//Stay away from my Highland Park

maxwellton: This made me think of that anecdote about Gallo driving around and yelling to winos "What's the word?" And he was thrilled when they'd respond "Thunderbird!"

"What's the word? Thunderbird
How's it sold? Good and cold
What's the jive? Bird's alive
What's the price? Thirty twice."

Who likes it most?

is that headline in english? syntax motherfarker.

LaughingRadish: What is a "unit"? Typical regular-sized can? Pint glass?

No, a unit would be a half pint of standard lager.

Also, subby is an idiot.

some_beer_drinker: is that headline in english? syntax motherfarker.

It is a perfectly valid sentence.

\not subby

In other news; the birthrate in the UK will go down considerably.

And if you ban it all together deaths drop too....but we tried that already

with rousing success.

What better way to stop stupid farks from killing themselves than to raise prices for everybody else?

ladyfortuna: "He will throw his weight behind plans to emulate Scotland where supermarkets and pubs are forced to charge a minimum of 45p per unit of alcohol to prevent the cut-price selling blamed for fuelling the orgy of public drunkenness."

Something tells me the author is against this... can't put my finger on exactly what though...

/Firefox says there's ONE L in fueling
//Daily Fail, indeed...

The OED says there's TWO Ls in fuelling in English, there's only one L if it's US English. The Daily Heil is many, many things, most of them bad, but American isn't one of them.

Jumpin Jbot: I'm a very functional person but if asked to admit, I have to say i do drink far too much. If it were more expensive, I would probably drink less since the thin wallet comes first and foremost.

Then again, I live in South Korea, which is a paradise for cheap hooch if you can stomach the local firewater (soju).

Unfortunately, I can.

Me too. I used to drink the soju often but haven't touched it for over two years now. If you live near Seoul you can find a limited collection of American microbrews at Lotte department store in Myeongong or at High Street market in Itaewon. These days that's about all I'll drink in addition to the tap beers at the Wolfhound.

LaughingRadish: What is a "unit"? Typical regular-sized can? Pint glass?

I go by Kitchen units

Is it at the point where using ironic correctly is in itself ironic?

Doctor Jan Itor: Just raise the price of a 40% ABV 750ml to $1000 so only the rich can drink. That would lower death rates too.

Actually, no it wouldn't

All of these busybody, irritating, interfering studies and subsequent proclamations ignore one simple reality - multiple studies have shown that on average moderate drinkers (one to two pints of beer a day) live much longer than those that don't drink. There are multiple mechanisms at play. There are health disadvantages as well. It won't work for everyone. BUT on average, drinkers live longer.

And at the two pint level that's already well over the UK's NHS recommended maximum weekly intake. Despite the fact that if you do what would make them happy (don't drink at all) you'll likely drop dead years earlier.

These two things tell me all I need to know - government guidelines on alcohol, as with most other drugs, are based on some sort of moral imperative, not facts. They think that the answer to some people drinking too much, is to crack down on the moderates who are actually getting a benefit.

It's beyond belief.

Still cheaper to smoke pot that drink pots ( 10 oz beers )

/ I approve of huge taxes on the killer booze.

One of the many problems that didn't exist to this extent when parents raised their children, thus instilling responsibility.

ahorridwok: So I guess this is going to signal the start of my moonshine business

Doctor Jan Itor: Or you could make your own, even cheaper

That's already happening over here. I've read of a couple of cases of people being blinded by illegal hooch - mostly Eastern Europeans. Polaks is craaaaaaaazy!

Mincer: That's already happening over here. I've read of a couple of cases of people being blinded by illegal hooch - mostly Eastern Europeans. Polaks is craaaaaaaazy!

Remember the hospitals having to remove the alcohol hand gel because Eastern Europeans were drinking it and getting critically ill?

bk3k: I think government has a role to protect me from the actions of others, and conversely to protect others from my actions. It has no reasonable role in protecting me from my own stupidity.

What happens when one's own stupid acts have an effect on others? Good luck trying to stop someone determined to carry on the chain of responsibility as far as necessary for their goals the children.

OhioUGrad: And if you ban it all together deaths drop too....but we tried that already

with rousing success.

Actually there's kind of a Laffer-curve effect. Ban it too much and deaths go up due to black-market ills - tainted product, enormously inflated street prices, turf wars between gangs, corrupted police....

/oh I see, you're trying to add actual irony because of the tag.
//go Bobcats.

Has anyone mentioned that this isn't ironic yet?

As newly sober recovering alcoholic, I'm looking to save more than $7K this year by quitting. Coffee expenses have, however, increased significantly.