Tuesday 18 January 2011

Today's Minimum Pricing Idea Is An Aperitif Before The Binge

Nanny Beeb has been doing her level best to keep this story going for the whole of the day, hasn't she? It's been a three line whip with TV, Radio and online going at it hell for leather, whipping up the gullible with garish tales of puking youths and collapsed livers.

I've kept a weary eye on a lot of the commentary, but many seem to have missed the undercurrent entirely.

The health lobby, for example, are rather disappointed, they wanted something much more draconian ... but then they would because they're cunts.

However, if they'd only departed from their soundbite construction for a few minutes and instead thought properly about the proposals, they would see what's actually happened here and be so ecstatic that they might even pop open a bottle of cranberry juice in celebration.

This isn't the be all and end all of anti-alcohol policy. It's just the first step on a long temperance journey towards alcohol denormalisation, chillingly alluded to in this short and seemingly innocuous paragraph.

They say banning shops and bars from selling drinks for less than the tax paid on them will cut crime and set a "base price" for the first time.
Yes, that's right. For the first time.

And this is precisely what it is. It's a precedent; a potential enabling act for eternal government control of the price of alcohol. Just like the Soviet policy, but this time in a 'free' country.

The coalition aren't as astonishingly fuckwitted as the idiotic SNP who thought a brazen contravention of EU competition law was a clever way to go about it. Nope, this is far more subtle.

You see, once it is accepted by a bovine public that the state has a right to set a 'base price' for alcohol, they can change that base whenever they choose. OK, it's currently deemed illegal under EU law but don't expect that to last when this very light touch is presented to our righteous troughing overlords in Brussels. That's when the trumpeting and international oneupmanship can begin in earnest.

That's when the 'next logical step' will come into play and - just as 'gateway drugs' lead onto the hard stuff (apparently) - the aperitif of duty plus VAT will only encourage career wankers to experiment by pushing for something harder and more heady. When this small snifter doesn't produce the right buzz for the righteous, and it won't, calls will go out (not from the likes of us, natch) for something further to be done and the 50p, 60p, or even 70p unit and beyond is then only a circle jerk away.

Of course, much of public opposition today has rightly centred around the collective punishment aspect. Many have chipped in by objecting to being punished financially for the poor choices, or bad behaviour, of the few.

And this is where they, also, have missed the whole point of the exercise.

They seem to be under the impression that the whole process is being set in motion to discourage anti-social binge-drinkers, park bench youths or alcoholics. That would be to under-estimate the comprehensive hatred these people have for anyone who lives outside their ideals for a perfect life.

Take proper cunt Ian Gilmore, for example, who has been making himself exceptionally busy today. He let the cat out of the bag somewhat in 2007.

Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians, gave his full support to the focus on the health costs of heavy drinking. “We really need the spotlight more on health. While crime and antisocial behaviour is important it’s too easy to concentrate on that because it’s somebody else causing the trouble.

“When you look at health it’s more uncomfortable because there’s a very significant percentage of the population already drinking at potentially hazardous levels.”
He's not talking about people who bother others with their drinking, nor the person sadly destroying their life George Best style. Oh no - he won't stop until every man jack of you keep to below a weekly unitary intake plucked out of a moron's arse. Nothing else will do.

This is why we've heard the collective punishment defence termed 'very weak' by professional fake charity advocates, and why a representative of the Lifeline Project popped up this morning on Radio 5 to churn out unsubstantiated stats to Nicky Campbell such as "we are all drinking too much", and "one in three drink more than the recommended weekly limit". It matters not that alcohol consumption - and the consequences thereof - is declining ... their jobs depend on the existence of a problem, so they will create one.

As such, in the absence of a real menace, you'll do.

They don't want to counter merely those who cause harm, they really do want to punish everyone. It's part of the plan. In fact, it is the plan.

Considering the above, there's only one way to react to even such a seemingly benign measure such as is mooted. Resist it in its entirety, because this administration - like the last - really is that devious and antipathetic to the life choices of its own people.

I'll not leave you on a downer, though, because there is always a silver lining.

The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) said that the Government definition will do nothing to alleviate the pressure on pubs and allow supermarkets to continue to sell alcohol below-cost.

“Today’s decision means pubs will continue to close as they are undercut by supermarkets selling canned beers at pocket money prices,” said chief executive Mike Benner.
Stop that sniggering at the back!

Sorry, Mike, but you ceased to be relevant to these tossers in around 2006 when instead of roaring in defence of pubs, you caved like a newly-born Bambi. They couldn't give a monkey's chuff what you think anymore.

Oh yeah, and nice adoption of Alcohol Concern's 'pocket money prices' soundbite, you irresponsibly short-sighted twat.


Mark Wadsworth said...

Well yeah, as the experience with cocaine and heroine illustrates, once it's illegal and prices are very high, consumption tails off to more or less nothing.

A bit like the collapse in sales thereof once dealers were no longer allowed to use fancy, branded packaging and retailers could only sell 'under the counter'.

It's a good job that people can't just hop on a ferry over to France to buy booze and fags for a third of the cost, or Heaven knows in what sort of mess this country would be.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Dick, I can do no more than to refer you to my own personal physician, Dr Gonzalo Montalban, who has the perfect solution:


Anonymous said...

There is a huge elephant which again and again is not observed, and that is 'by what right do these zealots tell grown ups what to do?' They define binge drinking as having in excess of three pints in a session for a man, and having in excess of two glasses of wine for a woman. Now, we can argue about what constitutes 'the limit' if we want to, but the really important thing is that, for adult free people, there is no limit. Thus, for the vast majority of us, the limits have no meaning.

The law stops people who sell alcohol from selling to anyone under 18. So, by definition, everyone who buys alcohol is an adult. So, theyare resposible for their own behaviour. 'Alcohol Concern is not responsible and, in fact, has no right whatsoever, to assume responsibiltiy.

There is the ELEPHANT.

But you are absolutely right - this is the thin end of the wedge. It is not dissimilar to the State introducing this mind blowing change to our perceptions,on the back of a Heath Act, that private property is public property. I still do not understand how it has come to pass that owners of private property have accepted this idea with such alacrity. Are they thick? Or is it that most of these 'property owners' are so far removed from the business being conducted in their properties that they are totally disconnected from their property rights? I fear that it is so.

There are all these elephants tramping about all over the place, but the BBC etc cannot see them. It really is very odd.

Also, this idea that a law forbiding the sale of booze below the duty price is going to make any difference to anything is very, very silly because such actions can only be very marginal. That is, we are talking about a penny or two. Th only significant reason for supermarkets to sell booze at such low prices is to gain an advertising, marketing advantage. That is, the power to say in an advert, that 'our' prices are lower than anyone elses. Is that the real reason for this proposed law? I think that it is, but...shuss....the people are not supposed to be able to work that out. Do you know, if the Gov just said that this is their reasoning, I would not have a problem with it. But they don't. they have to go around and around in circles - wasting time and money, and encouraging the zealots to even greater excesses.

It really is weird.

Anonymous said...

And of course, we won't notice when cheap plonk has gone up to £10a bottle if, by that point, we've all been conditioned to believe that we're bingeing by drinking one small glass of wine a day.


Anonymous said...

Let's all just brew our own. Fuck the lot of them.

Cooking Lager said...

This is step 1 on the road to prohibition


Anonymous said...

It will end up like boring Sweden.
Ridiculously high taxes and everyone brewing their own.

dunhillbabe said...

I ask again - at what point did my body become the property of the State ? I can think of only one reason for it. The State requires us to remain fit and healthy so we can work till we drop - the retirement age will go up and up until it reaches that point... then when you do drop, the State will harvest your pristine organs for transplant operations (opting out having been a short lived sop to the objectors) - and sell any left over to the USA...

Anonymous said...

On a sort of related theme, I put in an FOI to the local police about alcohol related arrests for the last 10 years.

Apparently they only have this information available from 2008 onwards....could it be they know why I am after this information.


Anonymous said...


I did the same. My request is undergoing further evaluation as a qualified exemption applies apparently. Not holding my breath.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Manwithmanychins: Funny enough, other authorities claim not to have records going very far back, either.

Guess I was lucky with the Met. 3 years is the best so far apart from them.

But then, computers can be horribly confusing things, I suppose. {rolls eyes}