Recommended Posts

(Reuters) - Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10 percent can lead to immediate and significant drops in drink-related deaths and may also have long-term beneficial health effects, according to a study published on Thursday.

Canadian researchers found that deaths caused by alcohol between 2002 and 2009 in the western province of British Columbia dropped when the minimum alcohol price was increased, while alcohol-related deaths rose when more private alcohol stores were opened.

The findings will be keenly scrutinized by alcohol policy makers, particularly in Britain where the government plans to introduce a minimum price on alcohol to try to clamp down on binge drinking and anti-social behavior. The United States does not currently set a minimum alcohol price.

"This study adds to the scientific evidence that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, even the heaviest drinkers reduce their consumption when minimum alcohol prices increase," said Tim Stockwell of the University of Victoria's Center for Addictions Research of British Columbia, who led the study.

John Holmes of the alcohol research group at Britain's University of Sheffield said Stockwell's study was a major contribution to evidence about minimum alcohol pricing and gave a "strong indication that the policy has reduced the consumption levels of those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels."

more

Yes , raising the price of Cocaine stops drug abuse. :/ People will drink no matter what the price.

I agree, over here they have a huge tax on alcohol, hasn't stopped binge drinking here. I currently pay $33 au for my scotch (700ml bottle), only thing that has cut my intake was the health issues it caused. Hasn't stopped me from drinking though.

Yes , raising the price of Cocaine stops drug abuse. :/ People will drink no matter what the price.

They aren't saying that at all. They are saying that it reduced the amount consumed. Of course that won't put off those who live to drink, but others may drink less than they other wise would.

Yes , raising the price of Cocaine stops drug abuse. :/ People will drink no matter what the price.

Yup, I drank too much when I was 16, at 33 I still drink too much and there is WAY more than 10% increase on alcohol prices since then

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already. Plus I have no doubt they would try to do it to increase revenue and nothing more. The government doesn't give a **** about the welfare of the people, they only want to keep us in line and leech as much money from us as they can.

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already.

10% wouldn't stop you from drinking enough to make the experience worth it, its barely worth it in the first place for 10%

?2.60~ for a pint, after increase, ?2.86

8 Pints, after increase it will cost ?2.08 more than before

If they want to help curb alcohol problems, remove ALL of the cheap crap from the local corner shops, supermarkets etc, the 3 litres of 7.5% cider for ?3.00, Lambrini and all that rubbish that people drink to get loaded before going out

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already. Plus I have no doubt they would try to do it to increase revenue and nothing more. The government doesn't give a **** about the welfare of the people, they only want to keep us in line and leech as much money from us as they can.

While I definitely agree that adults should be made responsible for their actions, not the government, I subscribe to the stronger side of this notion: That kids are utterly stupid when it comes to alcohol. So I sort of agree with raising the price.

If they wanted to make an actual impact, removing the half gallons (1.75L) of things like Heaven Hill and McCormick that are only $10 for a ridiculous amount of alcohol, would be the smarter choice.

EDIT: Err, what Detection said. :p

(Reuters) - Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10 percent can lead to immediate and significant drops in drink-related deaths and may also have long-term beneficial health effects, according to a study published on Thursday.

Canadian researchers found that deaths caused by alcohol between 2002 and 2009 in the western province of British Columbia dropped when the minimum alcohol price was increased, while alcohol-related deaths rose when more private alcohol stores were opened.

The findings will be keenly scrutinized by alcohol policy makers, particularly in Britain where the government plans to introduce a minimum price on alcohol to try to clamp down on binge drinking and anti-social behavior. The United States does not currently set a minimum alcohol price.

"This study adds to the scientific evidence that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, even the heaviest drinkers reduce their consumption when minimum alcohol prices increase," said Tim Stockwell of the University of Victoria's Center for Addictions Research of British Columbia, who led the study.

John Holmes of the alcohol research group at Britain's University of Sheffield said Stockwell's study was a major contribution to evidence about minimum alcohol pricing and gave a "strong indication that the policy has reduced the consumption levels of those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels."

more

It's called a backdoor attack - raise the price of the product, and fewer folks will buy it.

Maryland did the same thing with tobacco farming - they made it prohibitive to do (for farmers - Maryland used to be the second-largest source of tobacco for smoking in the United States - second only to North Carolina and ahead of Virginia), and as a result, farms have largely become precursors to subdivisions in southern Maryland and even the Eastern Shore. As much as some would LOVE to blame the General Assembly (Maryland's State House), the assault started from the Governor's Mansion - and with former Governor Parris N. Glendening. His administration was behind the raising of both tobacco and alcohol taxes in the state as well - same reasoning. (Despite claiming it was to offset Medicare/Medicaid cost increases, the REAL purpose was to reduce sales of both products.

All they are going to manage to do is to **** people off.

This... same with cigs too.... all it does is make them make other changes to thier lives to compensate...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft's fast coding model MAI-Code-1-Flash comes to Copilot Business and Enterprise by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft’s recently announced MAI-Code-1-Flash model is now generally available to GitHub Copilot Business and Copilot Enterprise customers. With this support, organizations can have more centralized policy controls and billing while finally being able to use Microsoft’s lightweight, first-party coding model. According to GitHub’s announcement, Business and Enterprise plan administrators must enable the MAI-Code-1-Flash policy in Copilot settings before developers can access the model. Microsoft says that MAI-Code-1-Flash is for fast, iterative coding work rather than the most demanding architectural or debugging tasks. GitHub’s official model comparison page says that the model is great for "general-purpose coding and writing," while it excels at fast, accurate code completions and explanations Microsoft introduced MAI-Code-1-Flash on June 2 as part of a broader collection of internally developed MAI models. GitHub subsequently expanded support to Copilot CLI, the Copilot cloud agent, GitHub.com chat, GitHub Mobile, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, and Xcode, but said support for managed Business and Enterprise customers was still on the way. In Microsoft’s own benchmark testing, MAI-Code-1-Flash scored 51.2% on SWE-Bench Pro, compared with 35.2% for Anthropic’s Claude Haiku 4.5. Microsoft also claimed that the model used up to 60% fewer tokens on SWE-Bench Verified. Do note that these are vendor-run results rather than independent measurements. The model is billed at provider list pricing under GitHub’s usage-based system. GitHub currently lists MAI-Code-1-Flash at $0.75 per million input tokens, $0.075 per million cached input tokens, and $4.50 per million output tokens. For organizations, the main incentive to use MAI-Code-1-Flash is likely to be efficiency rather than maximum capability. A smaller model that responds quickly and limits unnecessary output is quite useful for repetitive agent tasks at scale, especially after GitHub Copilot’s move toward usage-based billing. The "Flash" model is recommended for fast work and not necessarily for huge repositories with loads of context. It's better if teams compare their output with other larger models, especially if they're working on security-sensitive changes and complex, multi-file work.
    • yes AND no the "original" or plain/normal Optiplex 7010 won't be getting any more new firmware updates BUT the Optiplex SFF/SFF Plus {small form factor}, Micro/Micro Plus & Tower/Tower Plus 7010 editions DO get new updates such as this new one   and here are similar guides from the Dell web site for Dell systems: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000390990/secure-boot-transition-faq https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000347876/microsoft-2011-secure-boot-certificate-expiration
    • AT&T has been spying on US citizens with the NSA for decades.. they just know how to keep it more under wraps.. the evil level is still there.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      206
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      157
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      71
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!