Wednesday, 23 March 2011

More on minimum pricing for beer

'Wirral Council has abandoned moves towards minimum pricing of alcohol. It follows a public consultation by the authority which showed no strong majority for or against the proposals. The autority's licensing and general purposes committee decided unanimously to stop short of supporting a Merseyside-wide bylaw for pricing of alcohol.'

The propaganda war against drinkers continues though. In the same edition of the Liverpool Echo a headline proclaims '40% of Liverpool tipplers "at risk"'. The article states 'Regularly drinking two pints a day is enough to impact on health according to government guidance so the focus isn't so much on alcoholics but the 42% of Liverpool drinkers who are storing up problems without even knowing it.'

Alright, Scousers like a drink. We know that. But can we really believe that 42% of those who drink alcohol 'are storing up problems'? Anyway isn't it supposed to be MORE THAN 2 pints a day that is bad for health. I thought that 2 pints was the maximum so called 'safe' level. Where is the evidence for this 2 pint danger limit? I remember some years back when it was 4 pints. Why the cut?

When one of these 'experts' provides reliable data showing that 1½ pints a day is o.k. for health and
2½ pints isn't then I'll accept it. Until then I'll ignore them.

1 comment:

  1. I'm unable to see how any council can bring in minimum pricing without being guilty of creating an illegal cartel. Councils can't ignore competition legislation, which I suspect is the real reason this proposal has been dropped.

    As for 2 pints a day: all based on units which have little scientific basis, as one of the scientists involved admitted a couple of years ago.

    It's a good job we can rely on investigative reporting from our journalists, all noted for their sober habits and going to bed by 10.00pm after a cup of Horlicks. Which 'expert' did they quote unquestioningly this time?