We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

No to plain wrappers on cigarettes


Algerian peter

Likes # 0

Now no to minimum alcohol pricing.

Has the PM's guru Lynton Crosby got interests in booze, also?

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

"Sorry to burst your bubble but measures taken on tobacco have been very successful with smoking prevalence falling substantially."

Yes but I do no think it is wholly due high pricing although I accept this may be a factor. Health education, more and better drugs and assistance for those that wish to stop surely have a major part in this.

Like this post
Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

measures taken on tobacco have been very successful with smoking prevalence falling substantially.

But very little help is given to smokers to help them quit. As I mentioned I was sent to a group session nonsense just to get the Champix drug. This should be freely available rather than silly groups.

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

Chronos, Champix I think it depends on your GP and where you live as to its availability. Same old story, it's very expensive so "not out of our budget if we can avoid it"

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

Chronos the 2nd

'But very little help is given to smokers to help them quit.'

The NHS offers extensive support for people who want to quit and spends over £80m a year on anti-smoking measures.

Champix, like any drug, is not entirely free from risk so it is important that people using it are supported.

It is also not cheap so it is right that the NHS tries to ensure that people who get it are intending to try and quit and not just kidding their families.

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

bumpkin

'I do no think it is wholly due high pricing'

You're right and MUP was not the sole measure proposed by government. It was, though, the measure targeted by the drinks' companies because they could spin it as having its greatest effect on moderate drinkers and misrepresent the evidence.

There is no magic bullet to kill off our willingness to damage ourselves and our society.

But, though MUP would only be one small part of a control strategy, backing away from it because of pressure from businesses is hugely significant.

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

A report published today (that the government has had since June) confirms that 'Minimum unit pricing (MUP) policies would be effective in reducing alcohol consumption'.

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

fourm member, of course there is no easy solution to many social problems but if MUP were introduced then where do you set the level for the best result. As I asked earlier who would get the extra money, I don't mind if it is the Treasury rather than Tescos.

Like this post
Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

Fourm member

Have you had personal experience of the "NHS extensive support for people who want to quit?" because it might look good on paper or on this case a website but in the real world it is far less extensive.

As for your assertion Champix is not risk free, I would be grateful if you could name any drug that is. I am not sure where you got the idea that people prescribed this drug are supported, no one I know who has taken it has had any 'support.' 1 actually did suffer quite major side effects but no pain no gain is how I looked at it.The final week course of the drug I spent in bed I was so ill with not supporter in sight. But it worked and I no longer smoke

You say it is not cheap, compared to methadone it is very cheap and I believe far more effective.

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

bumpkin

'who would get the extra money'

That's not an easy question to answer. The simple answer is that the retailer would get the extra income but the complication comes in that this is the extra income from each alcohol product. MUP WILL reduce the total number of products sold so it is impossible to say what the net effect on a retailer's total income will be.

Many retailers use cheap alcohol as one weapon for attracting shoppers. If that were not available the chances are that they would look at other areas where they could create incentives.

So, there may be some net deficit in income or a net surplus. I believe that any identifiable surplus would be invested in alternative offers so overall 'normal' shoppers would not be disadvantaged.

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

Chronos, I agree with every point you have made so apart from " compared to methadone it is very cheap" compared to methadone champix is very expensive. I think you may have made an assumption there.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Android One vs Android Silver vs Google Nexus: What is the difference?

IDG UK Sites

2014 Mac mini release date, specs, rumours: When's the new Mac mini coming out?

IDG UK Sites

Long live the internet fridge: the Internet of Things is coming

IDG UK Sites

How Prometheus' colourist Juan Ignacio Cabrera gave a tense, edgy feel to Chosen