As it should be.
Would you say the same thing if they raised it to 30?
As it should be.
I never said they were evil. I just think that their primary, if not sole, motivation is to maximise profits. A goal they have pursued ruthlessly for many years. As they have every right to.
That is fine; what isn't fine is them making out they want to raise prices in order to save our society but the government is stopping them![]()
Quite - the drinking age is 18 now but a huge number of under 18s drink, many binge drinking regularly.
It could then be argued well it's taboo, that's why they do it - so we should bring the drinking age DOWN to 12 or something...
Ultimately whether the age is 12 or 21, I don't think it'll make much difference to our drinking culture either way.
Buying Fosters is ridiculous to begin withI don't agree with forcing companies to sell at 35p a unit, anyway. Something like a 4 pack of Fosters will end up costing £5.60 - that is ridiculous.
My 02:
Never addressing the cause of a problem, always taking the easy road and creating financial solutions to cultural and social issues.
Why do people go out and get drunk?
Well, what else is there to do??
NOTHING, health and safety has shut down anything that resembles fun. Those things which you can do, cost an absolute fortune, as they have been sold off to some foreigner who is wanting to make money.
What?
Why do you think that we should be grateful that the government allows it? The government are administrators not overlords.
NOTHING, health and safety has shut down anything that resembles fun. Those things which you can do, cost an absolute fortune, as they have been sold off to some foreigner who is wanting to make money.
Personally, I think raising the minimum age from 18 to 21 is a bad idea primarily because student life would be adversely affected. Being a student and alcohol are inherently intertwined.
Personally, I think raising the minimum age from 18 to 21 is a bad idea primarily because student life would be adversely affected. Being a student and alcohol are inherently intertwined.
Burnsy
restaurants, cinemas, shops, art galleries, museums, castles, tours, theatres, cafes
If kids could get drunk legally if they want to, sure they would be smashed for the first few months but after that it would become boring and the norm so they would stop. But this government always thinks banning things is the solution.
This is not really a conversation related to this thread, but of course they are overlords. They govern what you are and are not alllowed to do. Alcohol costs more money in healthcare and damages than any other substance, legal or otherwise, and yet remains perfectly legal. Marijuana, on the other hand, has a tiny pecentage of the associated costs and effects on health, but consuming it is an arrestable offence.
This indicates one rule for one drug, and one for another. Why is alcohol acceptable, even though it destroys lives, causes addictions and costs me, the tax payer, a god-damned fortune every year? Because it's taxed. It's taxed, and it is "controlled".
The governing body has the power to cut off supplies of one substance (this is not a discussion about smuggling), but allows another entry into the population to keep the mob happy* and under control. If that's not an overlord, i dont know what is.
*And this is a valid point. If alcohol was banned, imagine the uproar. Imagine what would happen to this country if they banned alcohol. It would be chaos! Alcohol is to the UK what Guns are to the US. It's a part of our society. The fat, football hooligan binge drinker defines us as a people. Everyone is acting like a price increase is like taking away their God given right to have what they deserve. Like they're owed it or something.
Alcohol is a luxury. Luxuries come at a price. I honestly don't see why a price inscrease is a problem.
But kids in Britain drink from the age of about 14, and keep doing so throughout their entire lives, disproving your point.
But kids in Britain drink from the age of about 14, and keep doing so throughout their entire lives, disproving your point.