www.alkoholpolitik.ch

I read with great interest earlier, this BBC News article about the Coalition Government’s plans to bring in a minimum price for alcohol in England and Wales.
In the Coalition Agreement, it was stated that: „We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price“. Ministers are now fleshing out their proposals to make this a reality.
It will work by banning shops and bars from selling drinks for less than the tax paid on them. It is hoped that this will send a signal that the Government is clamping down on the sale of extortionately cheap alcohol. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/19/11) johnmarkcole.blogspot.com, 01/18/11 our Online Comment: It is fine to have an ideology. Then you don’t need thinking.
There is a lot of talking about personal freedom. What about my freedom when the alcohol industry forces me to pay a life long the huge alcohol related social costs? The World Health Organization has mentioned that we all are Passive Drinkers. We all suffer from the harm of alcohol consumption. Taxes are ridiculous low.
Everybody is free to consume according to its income. Drinking alcohol is not a human right. It is better to fight for jobs with an income which enables everybody to live a decent life, instead of giving cheap alcohol to keep the poor calm and down.
What about my personal freedom, when the media do not give the necessary information I need to discuss this matter and ask for the right measures to be taken by the government, because they are alcohol lobbyists? Did you know that in May 2010 the World Health Organization accepted with all 193 votes of the member states a resolution on a global alcohol strategy? In it the alcohol related harm on society and the evidence based measures for harm reduction are listed. Governments only had to implement those proposals, but instead they try everything which wouldn’t harm the alcohol industry. The industry keeps the profit, society pays the social costs in money and in life, etc.

…a summary review of the evidence base.
‚Below cost‘ ban announced as duty + VAT re-opens pricing debate.
The Government has announced the ‚below cost ban‘ will be defined as the rate of duty + VAT, despite concerns from critics that few drinks are sold below this level. A Home Office press release said „This is an important first step in delivering the government’s commitment to ban the sale of alcohol ‚below cost‘ price.“
However some media reports described the measures as ‚minimum pricing‘, a different approach based on cost per unit. See here for the differences between a below cost ban and minimum pricing. The ban on sales below a duty + VAT rate has been calculated as preventing retailers from selling… (Source: Alcohol Policy UK110119 / Home Office, January 2011

State governments closely regulate the sale of liquor in 18 states in this country. In these „control“ states, the government limits access in an effort to protect public health and limit alcohol-related costs. But there’s increasing pressure to privatize, in spite of research that shows „control“ systems work well.
Just ask Paul A. Stroup, III, Chief Exeutive Officer of the alcohol beverage control board in Mecklenburg County, N.C. In an editorial published Jan. 9 in The Charlotte Observer, Stroup laid out a pretty convincing rationale for not privatizing liquor in his state: … (Source: Join Together, 01/18/11)

…designed to punish poor people for the crime of getting hammered.
“Minimum alcohol pricing” sounds like such an inoffensive idea. No one is likely to go to the barricades, far less to the wall, in order to “Smash Minimum Alcohol Pricing!” So in the interests of political honesty and clarity, and with an eye for encouraging some people to consider going to the barricades over this latest Lib-Con measure, I think we should start referring to “minimum alcohol pricing” by its true name. This is a Sin Tax, pure and simple, designed to punish people, specifically poor people, for the crime of occasionally wanting to get hammered and have fun. … (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/18/11) blogs.telegraph.co.uk, 01/18/11 Comment: Typical arguments of a liberal. Many comments, some positive ones.

Alcohol use is the third greatest contributor to the global burden of disease, estimated to cause 3.8% of all deaths. Among people aged 15 to 44 years, alcohol is estimated to result in 4.6% of all disability-adjusted life years lost and a disproportionate number of fatal injuries. 2 Heavy drinking is classified as the consumption of more than 210 g of alcohol per week for men and more than 140 g per week for women, owing to differences in clearance and body size. As a metabolic poison, heavy alcohol use is
associated with cardiovascular disease, oral cancers and liver cirrhosis. As an intoxicant, it causes dependency, injuries and trauma as well as substantial social harms. (Source: Alcohol Reports, 01/18/11) cmaj.ca, CMAJ 2011. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.110029 our Online-Comment: In May 2010 the General Assembly of the World Health Organization held in Geneva accepted with all votes of the 193 member states a Resolution on a global Alcohol Strategy. In it the evidence-based measures are listed which reduce the general consumption of alcohol in a given society. No need to wait any longer.

An increase in the state alcohol tax is on the to-do list of the Maryland General Assembly, and some recent polls show much of the public wouldn’t be against it.
A coalition of health care advocates is lobbying to increase the tax at the wholesale level. The trickle-down effect would mean consumers pay 10 cents more per drink, but it would generate more than $200 million a year. A statewide poll found that 66 percent of voters support an increase, 42 percent strongly favor the money be spent on health priorities, and 39 percent favor using the revenues to offset the deficit. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/15/11) wbaltv.com, 01/14/11

Maryland lawmakers are readying for a fight to raise the state’s alcohol tax.
Members of the Senate health committee asked the state’s health secretary on Thursday for studies on Maryland’s drinking habits and how consumption in other states has been affected by changes in the alcohol tax. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/14/11) the Washington Examiner, 01/13/11

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller this morning had sobering words for those advocating a hike on beer, wine and liquor taxes: The proposal is „nonsense,“ he said. „It is not going to happen,“ said Miller, who has instead pushed for a hike in the state’s gas tax. Miller, House Speaker Michael E. Busch and Gov. Martin O’Malley participated this morning in an annual legislative issue forum hosted by radio host Marc Steiner.
The conversations were largely dominated by talk of budget cuts. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/13/11) weblogs.baltimoresun.com, 01/12/11 Comment: Commentators say he owns a bar. This is only a discussion on fiscal matters. Nobody sees the impact on public health.

Three out of ten municipal alcohol administrators have experienced threats in connection with their work of inspecting alcoholic beverage serving at restaurants and pubs, according to a survey among the country’s all 308 alcohol administrators in Sweden. (Source: Alcohol Reports, 1/10/11) stockholmnews.com, 1/08/11

Alcohol may soon come with a new kind of high. It’s not stronger proof. It’s a higher tax.
Alex DeMetrick reports supporters of a “Dime a Drink Tax” think they have a shot at making it happen in Maryland. If you like to pull a cork, you might pay an extra 10 cents for every glass. It’s called the “Dime a Drink Tax,” and it would hit all alcoholic drinks, if Maryland’s legislature approves it this year. For supporters like health care providers, this may be a good thing. “Alcohol excise tax is a win-win for the state. They provide much needed revenue, and reduce alcohol consumption and related problems,” said David Jernigan, Johns Hopkins professor.
“Some 44 percent of Marylanders do not drink. They will pay no tax,” said Jernigan. The “Dime a Drink Tax” could raise $215 million in new revenue. For light to moderate drinkers, the tax would amount to only $10.83 per year. The last time Maryland raised the tax on alcohol was in 1972. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 01/04/11) baltimore.cbslocal.com, 01/04/11 our Online-Comment: Everybody should understand that:
– We are all passive drinkers, as the World Health Organization tells us. We suffer under reduced life quality and pay the whole life long terrific amounts for social costs because of alcohol.
– Alcohol taxes are very low and do not cover the social costs. By inflation it gets always cheaper. Since 1972!
– Higher prices mean less harm from alcohol, less social costs: savings.
– Those who drink moderately or not at all have the most profit. No or little more taxes and the lot of profit.
– Taxes should be combined with inflation anualy.