Scotland A Testing Ground Again!

[Toddy]

I don't 'want' to live in a sanitized world Martyn, I'm usually covered in mud, plant stuff and the like. I do detest the broken glass every bit as much as the discarded plastic though. Plastic bottles don't cause the injuries we see or leave common ground a minefield.

If the pubs can accept that there's a need to change, why can't you see the benefit ? It's all very well demanding that folks take responsibility for their actions, and I agree, but the reality is that these people won't, and the drain on society 'making' them take responsibility is just that, a drain, a huge burden.
Which brings us back to the leg things trying to stop them drinking for the length of their sentence.
I'm still dubious as to their effectiveness in real life though.

cheers,
M

[Ronnie]

Okay - I see this is a serious discussion so I will try to be sensible. Alcohol has been getting progressively cheaper year on year due to relatively small increases in alcohol duty against inflation, mass production by the big breweries, and increased spending power in the population:



There is a clear correlation between price and consumption. If we really want to tackle alcohol use in this country, we need to tax it more. This is unlikely to happen while government alcohol policy is largely controlled by the industry. The breweries are rich and powerful - money talks and you know the rest...

http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-b...-column-in-bmj

There is a similar situation in the US when it comes to sugar.

[nuggets]

Well, that's my Friday night fun out the window then

This guy `rab`should cheer you up , on topic episode as well


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMP4h...eature=related

[Maggot]

I don't get what the graph is showing. Obviously it's demonstrating something about price/consumption, but what? Is the axis showing pence, 40p to 140p, units, why is the 87 baseline 100? 100 what? It is a nice graph showing something or other, but it is clearly not showing it should be taxed more. If anything, it shows we earn more, as the % difference between what we earn and how much we pay is bigger.

It also clearly does not say who drinks what, when, how much, why or in what socio-economic group those people fall, and what they do when they have drunk it.

All in all, a completely worthless graph when taken as a stand alone piece of information. Quite pretty though, and a bit like a sky scraper if you view it at ninety degrees.

I'm still for the leg tags though, no convincing arguments against yet, except Toddys copper mate who thinks it's a bit like privatising the prison transport.

[santaman2000]

...


There is a clear correlation between price and consumption. If we really want to tackle alcohol use in this country, we need to tax it more. This is unlikely to happen while government alcohol policy is largely controlled by the industry. The breweries are rich and powerful - money talks and you know the rest...
There is a similar situation in the US when it comes to sugar.

Actually the price of sugar over here went out of the roof decades ago; our fat food factories switched to high fructose corn syrup. That's become a separate debate in its own right. Healthwise.

[Toddy]

The graph shows that relative to disposable income the price of alcohol has actually fallen.

It means that the bottle of whisky bought twenty years ago will actually cost less now despite inflation in the meantime.

Therefore the alchol is more affordable in quantity.

Skyscraper ? you're channeling your inner Basil Spence aren't you ? (curses on his name)

cheers,
Toddy

[Ronnie]

Actually the price of sugar over here went out of the roof decades ago; our fat food factories switched to high fructose corn syrup. That's become a separate debate in its own right. Healthwise.

Sorry, I was probably being unclear. My reference to US sugar is in response to the vastly powerful sugar lobby built on old slave money. This is why the federal RDA of sugar is set so obscenely high in your country.

[santaman2000]

Sorry, I was probably being unclear. My reference to US sugar is in response to the vastly powerful sugar lobby built on old slave money. This is why the federal RDA of sugar is set so obscenely high in your country.

Could you show me the reference in the FDA where there is a RDA for sugar? I've never seen ANY RDA for refined sugar. It's not even listed as one of the food groups.



However I did find this:
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ___________
"FDA Recommended Daily Values

The FDA sets recommended Daily Values for a number of dietary components. Daily Values are set based on a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, and set minimal recommended intake limits for vitamins, some minerals, and fiber, as well as maximal recommended intake limits for sodium, cholesterol and fat. Nutritional information panels on packaged food products indicate the percent of Daily Value of each listed dietary component found in one serving of the labeled food product. The FDA has not set Daily Values for sugar as of June 2011. However, the quantity of sugar, measured in grams--including both naturally occurring and added--in food products may be found listed on the nutritional information panel."
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ___________



And this:
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ___________
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most of the extra sugar in the diet comes from drinking sugar-sweetened beverages. This includes carbonated soft drinks, fruit drinks, punches, sports drinks, coffee and tea with sugar added and milk products that are flavored."
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ___________


BTW most of the sugar lobby now comes from the beet sugar factories out West (there was never any slavery in Mormon country)