NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I think in this case it's a supermarket in the town centre or something, so it's not like it's one staff member on their own in a small shop. Still pointless though.
Scotland to establish minimum unit price for alcohol
- Thread starter Sunset Tree
- Start date
I think in this case it's a supermarket in the town centre or something, so it's not like it's one staff member on their own in a small shop. Still pointless though.
My advice to any staff working alone at night who are asked by a pissed-up person for booze would be to serve them. Fuck the law. The owners of the shops should be responsible for installing security if drunken punters are to be challenged in any way. No fucking way should it be down to the shop assistant.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
My local supermarket employs security staff, which I imagine is a hell of a lot more useful in dealing with drunk customers than a breathalyser.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
It's quite a small shop, very central with some benches nearby that drinkers congregate on
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Sounds like the just the sort of place for a regular police patrol, which they should be doing anyway, right?
People in off licenses have to challenge people all the time. They have to refuse to sell booze to people under 18 too, some of whom might also get lairy. But most of the time they won't, and it makes the assistant's job easier if they have a line in the sand they can point to if they feel it's necessary to challenge someone or refuse service. If they think someone is under 18, they can ask for ID. In two shops in Cardiff, if they think someone is drunk they can ask them to do a breathalyser. I don't think there's much difference really.
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
Wtf? Sometimes i buy 1 or 2 tinnies because i want a drink to relax but don't want to get pissed, and i know if there's a 4 pack in my fridge i would be tempted to drink more that night or drink whatever is left on a night i might otherwise have not drunk.
The article suggests its to stop underage drinkers.
bimble
floofy
I don't get it either. Might wander down in a bit see if they'll sell me a single can.
It is a place where sometimes people hang about outside holding cans, its possible (maybe) that it was the shopkeepers own decision to start refusing to sell one by one I don't know.
Google shows that banning shops from being able to sell single cans is a thing in some places in America, to discourage 'street drinkers'.
Capitol Hill Corner Store Battle Heats Up
Also, Newport:
City centre ban on selling single cans of super-strength booze
It is a place where sometimes people hang about outside holding cans, its possible (maybe) that it was the shopkeepers own decision to start refusing to sell one by one I don't know.
Google shows that banning shops from being able to sell single cans is a thing in some places in America, to discourage 'street drinkers'.
Capitol Hill Corner Store Battle Heats Up
Also, Newport:
City centre ban on selling single cans of super-strength booze
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
There a massive difference. The first requires someone to produce ID, which they can do virtually confidentially with no one else seeing any detail.
The second requires performing a potentially embarrassing physical act in front of others.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
And let’s have a bit of mission creep with drugalysers too if nobody is bothered eh?
If you ain’t done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear. That’s right yeah?
If you ain’t done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear. That’s right yeah?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I think it's more the association with the obviously criminal act of drunk driving which will get peoples' backs up. Implying that someone might be a criminal could generate some small measure of resentment. It's not entirely rational to feel such things but we're dealing with people here, not androids.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Staff don't need any kind of backup or judgement call to decide to sell alcohol or not. Staff in any kind of licensed premises are completely within their rights to refuse to sell alcohol to anyone without giving any reason. They can only be held accountable if they do give a reason and that reason is itself actionable - eg discriminatory.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
There is another issue here. Some - well many, owners/licensees are loath to have their staff refuse sale/lose them money, so insist on setting the bar very high for refusing drunks. I don't know how often I've heard it over the years but the "Only refuse sale if they are physically unable to get their money on the counter" is pretty common in the trade.
The chances of prosecution for serving a drunk person are pretty slim TBH.
Clearly. But it's not always that easy to do it in practice, so giving people tools to make it easier is sometimes necessary.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Its not nearly as bad as SHAAP's original proposal.
They rolled-out on a plan to link alcohol sales to the ID register, so you couldn't buy drink without presenting an ID card and if your purchase went above their arbitrary weekly "limit", the government themselves would issue a fine similar to a parking ticket/littering offence and repeat infractions would lead to detention and compulsory medical treatment - all provided off-NHS by RWJF-backed private clinics/contractors paid for on a US-style insurance model.
And frankly, although they toned down their rhetoric a bit when they got input to the Holyrood top table, I don't for one minute believe that their control-freak tendencies have been brought under control.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
No, its a complete cop-out.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I can almost feel the electrodes on my balls...
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
It's a curious idea, this one that says that 'society' has a duty to protect people from themselves, especially when coming from people who are left wing.* By society, everybody clearly means the government (the idea of 'society' policing itself being a romantic dream.) In reality, governments only have a duty to present people with the facts when it comes to personal health. Personal behaviour being largely out of the control of anybody else, if people fall ill due to their own stupidity/liking for harmful substances, then they should be treated like anybody else and their treatment paid for through taxation like anybody else's. But, of course, we've already gone beyond that, with governments claiming that while they can't control capital, they can at least try to intervene in everybody's personal behaviour.
*I've even heard people say that society/goverment has a duty to help people live long and happy lives, as if happiness can even be defined, and as if a long life is a naturally desirable aim for everybody no matter what the circumstances.
*I've even heard people say that society/goverment has a duty to help people live long and happy lives, as if happiness can even be defined, and as if a long life is a naturally desirable aim for everybody no matter what the circumstances.
Last edited:
rather like going into the little room to have your juice
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is part of a trend, particularly in Scotland and Wales, towards addressing perceived social problems through the introduction of more top-down controls.
In this case of course they're only intervening to control the feckless poor.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
The foot is in the door now - Wales, NI and the Republic next - after an "evaluation" of the Scottish situation. Not that I associate Ireland with particularly cheap alcohol of course.
Wales & Ireland to follow Scotland’s lead and end cheap booze
Then, who-knows..?
Wales & Ireland to follow Scotland’s lead and end cheap booze
Then, who-knows..?
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Also they really need to stop saying 'end cheap booze'. No such thing here already. You want to see cheap booze go to a French or belgian or german supermarket
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The cheapest, weakest stuff is the best example of the idiocy of this. Sainsbury's basic bitter, for example. Will go up in price from £1.10 for four cans to £1.80. My guess is that it may well just stop being sold. Who drinks that? It's so weak, it's virtually impossible to get drunk on it. It's so cheap that it is an affordable choice for people on very low income. I buy it as a way of both saving money and cutting down on my drinking at home. No doubt others buy it because they're skint and it's the only alcoholic drink they can fit into their budget (it's much cheaper than everything else in the shop).
Out of that list above, I see lots of drinks that people on low income who are moderate drinkers will buy - Tenants, Strongbow, Cream Liqueur, Whiskey, Lambrini. Add to that list supermarket own brand saver stuff. This idea fucking stinks.
ETA: Add to that Polish lager in cans from offies. That will be much more expensive. Again, not 'aki-juice', but a common choice by people without much money who fancy a drink.
Out of that list above, I see lots of drinks that people on low income who are moderate drinkers will buy - Tenants, Strongbow, Cream Liqueur, Whiskey, Lambrini. Add to that list supermarket own brand saver stuff. This idea fucking stinks.
ETA: Add to that Polish lager in cans from offies. That will be much more expensive. Again, not 'aki-juice', but a common choice by people without much money who fancy a drink.
Last edited:
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
This is one of the fundamental problems with current drug policy. Alcohol misuse (short term) has quite a lot of external costs given the quite large minority of people who get violent when pissed and so harm others directly, normally without consent. Compared with cannabis where the external costs of use* are low.
(*and most of the the external costs of cannabis production are due to it be un lawful, but thats another debate.)
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Just pall up with some bods from the not drinking thread and use their allowance.
In my sleepy town there is one 24hr garage and it uses the fact that you can buy booze there all night as a sales and marketing thing, big sign out the front, “Only place in Godalming to buy alcohol 24 hours a day!”
Last edited:
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
This post misses the point quite spectacularly. We are not atomised individuals, we are all connected and our actions affect others. As A380 points out alcohol misuse has high external costs in terms of violence, I'd add to that other forms of anti-social behaviour and accidents too. And perhaps the biggest impact is on the immediate family because contrary to popular myth most people with alcohol problems are not lonely old men on park benches. So we do have a duty to collectively try to manage addiction because of the number of people who are affected. And even if we were genuinely only talking about an impact on the drinker themselves, I still don't think that's a reason for simply abandoning addicts to their fate, as it's 'their own stupidity'.
It's not left wing to allow people to behave how they like no matter the impact on others, and it's not left wing to think it's fine for big business to design products that are basically designed to fuel addiction and profit from misery (eg the very cheap white ciders). I'm sure most of us wouldn't think it ok if a cartel was to flood the poorest communities with cheap opiates - we'd think it was a looming social disaster - and I really don't see the difference. I'm not sure the MUP is the best solution to all this, and it's certainly won't work by itself, but it's deeply depressing how many people view any restriction on alcohol at all as an outrageous assault on their personal freedom.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The logic 'something must be done > this is something > therefore, we must do this' is deeply depressing.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Well it's not quite that though is it. It's 'facts and stats about alcoholism > something must be done > this is something > it has been trialled elsewhere and evaluated > the balance of evidence suggests it will reduce harm > therefore we should try this'
I suspect that many in the public health world would prefer to have a different approach. They understand about the 'determinants of health' - they will know that reducing poverty and inequality will likely have a bigger impact on addiction than this kind of tinkering - but they don't get to make those decisions. And they know that whatever they do on the alcohol issue will be opposed vehemently by one of the most powerful business lobbies in the country. So they focus on one thing that has a weight of evidence behind it where they think they might win. It is depressing, but it's the reality of the clash of health and profit.
Similar threads
