There's plenty of comment about David Cameron's announcement regarding the minimum pricing of alcohol. Leaving behind the very dubious reasoning for the move, one reason why the backlash won't be huge is the phrase itself. You can here people thinking to themselves " minimum, well that's nearly the same as low, and low pricing sounds o.k." Also, "45p; well I'm paying a lot more than that now for a pint/shot/short so it won't be a problem."
Of course, it will be a problem though because the more savvy of us well realise that a typical alcoholic drink has multiple units of alcohol. No doubt the confusion of what a 'unit' actually is will be exploited by retailers as an explanation for profiteering - "sorry for the price rise, but it's the minimum pricing to blame".
As many of us know it's only the start. Alcoholics don't stop drinking because a bottle of whisky goes up in price by £1.00. So when' statistics' are produced to show that binge drinking is still a problem the health lobby will say that the minimum price per unit is too low and demand a further increase: then another, and another.
That's why I believe CAMRA is wrong to support minimum pricing, which it is doing for completely selfish reasons, in that it thinks it encourage more people to go to pubs. They are, of course, completely deluded in that view.
ReplyDelete