http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/08/22/109202/do-super-strength-lagers-encourage-homeless-people-to.html
what do other people think of this?
i agree with the charity Thames Link that the tax should be increased on super strength lagers and white cider. i know people that drink this stuff and they do not do it responsibly they do it to get wasted. round my way the white cider is the real problem it is so cheap and so strong and made from chemicals i am sure the cider has never even seen an apple.
at 98p a litre the cider is easily obtainable for most people and if the goverment wanted to be responsible it should increase the price. my neighbour recently bled to death from evey orifice from a lifetime of drinking and i know in the last few years i never saw him without the blue bottle of white cider. the tax on ciggys keeps getting piut up and therefore so it should on alcohol.
i dont mean to sound like a daily mail reader (!!)
what a nanny state we live in. what about the people and i know many who drink senceably and have very little money? they already pay a fortune for smoking which is their choice why should they now pay more for a drink at the end of the week?
People know the risk of drinking . i know people are going to say drinking is an addiction and they are right but theres a lot of people who drink at the end of the week to relax and destress who can't afford to find other methods of relaxing and why should they. why should they pay more tax we all pay too much as it is.
i go out most weekends with friends and i look forward to enjoying a glass of wine. i only have a couple and i wouldn't appreciate having to pay more for them just because some people have no self control and drink too much which then addects their health. everyone in life has choises and what they choose to do is upto them
chez i agree with you that people should be allowed to drink if they want. the issue here is super strength lager and cider. do you drink this when you go out?
i just think that they should be more expensive than they are so people could say only afford two instead of four for example. when i say more tax i mean on these super dooper strength stuff that people drink to get wasted. its also pocket money prices at the moment so i am sure its the drink of choice of young people too
hi lizzer i do agree to a degree but what worries me is where is it going to end? according to statistics since the smoking ban working man's clubs are closing as well as pubs and clubs. so where is the working class supposed to relax and unwind?
if the do put tax on say white cider are they going to stop there? before we know it all alcohol will only be affordable to the middle class will that then make drugs more afordable to the working class?
if they then succeed and the consumption of alcohol decreeses will they then start adding tax to junk food as people are dying young due to their weight and poor diet?
where is it going to stop?
if they did add more tax on alcohol and all the added tax was allicated to rehad , support groups etc to help addicts to stop drinking then i would feel at least the extra wasn't being put to other unrelated usses but i don't believe that that is going to happen.
if the government is that concerned about out health why is fruit and veg so expensive
sorry to go on about this subject but i do feel strongly about it. people need help with their problems from professionals who can show/teach people a different way of life. the problem is there isn't enough resourses to go around
The first thing that comes to mind with this story is a song by comedian Dennis Leary about how he passes a homeless guy begging on the street and his first thought is that if he gives him any money then he'll only spend it on cheap booze, then he has a moment of clarity that it's none of his business how he spends it, and that he is only likely to buy drink and fags with the money so who is he to judge!
I think the question in the title of this post is incredibly oppressive - perhaps it should read "do super-strength lagers encourage PEOPLE to drink?". I'd think being homeless would be the encouragement I needed to drink!
It's ok for the middle class proffesional to head for a bottle of whiskey/wine when stressed, but not for other classes? Is that the message?
Personally I think all acohol should be priced by the unit. So if a bottle of wine has for example 4 units in it, it would be one minimum price. And a bottle of cheap super-strength cider would be a higher mimum price, if it has for example 8 units in it... (as a very rare drinker, I have no idea of the actual amount if units in these drinks- so this is a purely hyopothetical, rough guess and may be very wide off the mark! If so, please forgive me!!!)
I specifically say a minimum price- as obviously certain drinks contain other ingredients, or are more expensive in their production processes etc.
By it's very nature, this might cause people to think more about their drinking habits- in relation to the effects on their purse anyway....it may not make much difference to those who drink due to addiction etc, but I am afraid there is little that would, apart from easily accessible and widely available detox help and advice, as and when people request it.
(I agree with the above poster, who made the point that being homeless in itself might drive people to drink in excess. Many people, in any situation -not just thsoe who are homeless- use drink as a form of self-medication, to help them cope with the circumstances they find themselves in. I would be much mroe worried about those young people who are drinking massive amounts just to look 'cool' and feel accepted in their peer groups, or those people who have a bottle of wine- or two- each night after work simply to escape from the extreme stress and lack of management support they face daily- sound like many social workers?!-, than those who are homeless.)
i hope i did not sound like a daily mail reader as i am really not.
i happily give money to homeless people on the street and when people say to me they probaly spend it on drink i say i dont mind it is up to them and why should i judge what they spend the money on. i agree that it is a form of self medication as being on the streets is difficult. but i really do think super strength lager / cider should be more expensive than it is so people dont drink as much or maybe they will commit crime to get the money to buy the drink. its a difficult one but i do know that at 98p a litre bottle for white cider that is 9% is too cheap and it tastes so disgusting i dont think people are drinking it because it tastes nice.
in the article it says that they have reduced the size of the cans for some super lager which is a good idea, i dont understand why this devestating, addictive drug is legal but others aren't, double standards spring to mind.....
It seems to me that the answer to this question is no. It doesn't really get to the route of the problem at all - a more appropriate question would be 'what encourages homeless people to drink and in particular super-strength lagers?' and maybe more importantly 'why are there still so many homeless people?'
Supposing the tax is increased and that super-strength lagers become financially out of reach of the homeless, will they give up drinking? I doubt it.
I know if I was homeless I would want something to dull the pain. More focus needs to be placed on tackling the reasons for homelessness and the responses to it.
I think there is a clear line dividing super-strength products and other alcoholic drinks that means that this doesn't have to be a slippery slope to legislating against all booze. Other countries have legislated against super-strength beer without consequently outlawing, say, cider. There are simply no grounds for thinking that would happen.
I also vehemently disagree with the idea that this is some form of class warfare on those that can't afford better drinks. This would be a completely different debate if Thames Reach - which, remember, is a charity that actually works with homeless people and sees the effect of the drinks, not some anti-alcohol organisation who are coming at this from an ideological standpoint - were dealing with hundreds of merlot-induced cases every year. But they aren't; it is super-strength lager that is actually the problem here.
The cost to the NHS of alcohol-related injuries and diseases is an estimated £2.7bn a year. Labour and Conservative governments have consistently used tax on cigarettes as a means of reducing overall tobacco consumption to improve the health of the nation, but tax also clearly helps to pay for the treatment of smokers - likewise with alcohol.
Thames Reach has a strong case for higher taxes on certain drinks, but will Alistair Darling act on the recommendation? Tough call - the Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably too busy drowning his sorrows about the fact that the economy is facing its worst crisis in 60 years to consider taxing the stuff. (Note to the Labour government's army of PR executives: I am NOT suggesting the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a super-strength lager drinker.)