You are right that Britain needs to avoid denial of its alcohol problem (Editorial, 24 March). You are also right that the problem is much bigger than young people bingeing, with middle-class drinking at home racking up the majority of the massive costs to the NHS through the cumulative impact leading to health problems such as high blood pressure, stroke and cancers.
Minimum pricing is one measure designed to tackle one element of the problem – young people drinking as much as they can for as little as they can on a night out. The need to do something is evident from the numbers of attendances at A&E, violent incidents and the unprecedented rise in deaths from alcoholic liver disease at increasingly young age. The link between price and consumption is especially strong for young people. Current policies are failing and it is right to try a minimum price.
Looking to the middle-class drinking at home, a different type of action is required. There is a raft of urgently needed policies beyond pricing that Alcohol Concern and others have been calling for, some of which are in the government's alcohol strategy, such as alcohol screening's inclusion in NHS health checks for 40- to 74-year-olds. We need to start having a mature conversation about drinking, and believe that health campaigns in the workplace are one way to begin. This is something that Alcohol Concern does – we'd be very happy to bring one to the Guardian offices!
Eric Appleby
Chief executive, Alcohol Concern
• Your editorial rightly points out the need to tackle some of the myths surrounding British drinking culture. It is a shame, therefore, that you decided to wheel out the hoariest myth of them all: that the British have been hard drinkers since the days of St Boniface. The reality is that for most of the 20th century the British drank less than the majority of our European neighbours, with consumption only beginning to increase from the late 1960s – mostly because of a boom in wine sales. Problems associated with alcohol are to do with affordability, but they are also to do with social norms; constantly reinforcing the idea that Britain "has a drink problem", and has done so unfailingly since the eighth century, is not just an oversimplification: it is one of the surest ways to establish the idea in young people that excessive consumption is part of their cultural heritage. That can only make the job of changing drinking culture harder.
Dr James Nicholls
Bath Spa University
• The government's decision to introduce a minimum price for alcohol is to be welcomed. On this issue at least, ministers finally seem to be listening to health experts.
Measures set out in the new national alcohol strategy include a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol in England and Wales and greater powers for local authorities to deal with binge drinking. These will help prevent irresponsible retailers from offering heavy discounts on alcohol and also reduce the pressure on the licensed trade, helping to protect pubs from closure.
The need for a new approach is indisputable. Every year there are over 20,000 alcohol-related deaths, with alcohol abuse costing the NHS £2.7bn and an estimated £22bn for society as a whole. However, if the prime minister's ambition for responsible drinking to become more than "just a slogan" is to be realised, government needs to go further still.
Increasing the minimum unit price to at least 50p would be a good first step. This level is supported by Alcohol Concern and would be in line with research from Sheffield University, which shows the greatest positive impact would be for a minimum price of between 50p and 60p.
Second, we need to recognise that relentless advertising fuels our harmful binge drinking culture. The lessons from the food sector and the misuse of the "five a day" logo show that allowing corporations to self-regulate can be ineffective, if not dangerous. We need mandatory rules on alcohol advertising.
Finally, as Polly Toynbee says (Comment, 27 March), an unwanted side-effect of minimum pricing is likely to be a substantial windfall for major alcohol retailers. A straightforward solution would be to introduce a levy – similar to that proposed in Scotland – so that the proceeds of higher alcohol prices are ploughed back into preventing alcohol abuse and to help communities who suffer its impacts.
Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion
• There are clearly issues related to alcohol which have to be urgently addressed in this country; in particular, antisocial or vicious behaviour which must stretch the resilience of the emergency services to breaking point. However, the tone of your article (How Lansley lined up with drinks industry against moves to introduce minimum price, 23 March) was alarmist and lacking in perspective, and appeared to "line up", to use your own term, with the views of some interest groups which are, at heart, opposed to people enjoying alcohol at all. The country isn't sinking into a bog of alcoholism of the kind portrayed by William Hogarth in the 18th century, and the impression that it is is to a large extent created by newspapers and other media. An understandable concern about public health shouldn't extend to the new puritanism which expects all of us to conform to ideal standards imposed by "health professionals".
Jeremy Taylor
Bushey, Hertfordshire
• I am sure you were cheered by the "Notes to editors" section of the Home Office press release about the initiative on a minimum price for alcohol, listing the pilot areas for compulsory sobriety measures: Hull; St Helens; Plymouth; Cardiff; Westminster. That last one seems entirely appropriate in light of recent events, and no doubt the ambience of refreshment facilities in the Houses of Parliament will benefit greatly from it.
Paul Faupel
Somersham, Cambridgeshire
• One aspect of public drinking is rarely discussed. This is the fact that it is illegal to serve alcohol to inebriated persons, in off-licences or public bars. My local bars in South Queensferry serve drink to dozens of customers who nightly emerge in a clearly drunk condition. Why do police not enforce this law? If they did, alcohol sales would suffer, but the cost of dealing with alcohol abuse would fall. Without unfair minimum pricing, suppliers would then be free to compete in helping those of us who enjoy poisoning ourselves to do so more cheaply.
Bruce Whitehead
South Queensferry, West Lothian
• I don't think raising the price of alcohol addresses the problem of binge drinking. It is the availability of alcohol which makes it so easy to drink to excess. Years ago, pubs closed at 10.30pm; only a few private clubs stayed open later. Consequently one could walk about in town centres at night without any trouble – something that is impossible nowadays.
Wendy McMullan
Cheltenham
• A minimum price on alcohol could help hone the skills of young people. Back in the 70s we used to "pre-load" on homebrew. What next, a minimum price on sugar and yeast?
Pete Weston
Frome, Somerset
• The government may mean business when it comes to tackling the nation's problematic relationship with alcohol, but the new alcohol strategy lacks an awareness of how today's underage drinkers are getting their hands on booze. Minimum pricing will make no difference to this problem – it's social action we need.
Four years of research shows alcohol retailers are raising their game when it comes to preventing underage sales. But in every corner of the country under-18s are continuing to drink, and often to excess. Proxy purchasing of alcohol – by parents, siblings and friends – is becoming increasingly common, and is the missing ingredient in the new strategy.
Our data shows that retailers and landlords have done a huge job in preventing underage sales, but it's of no consequence if parents and friends help under-18s circumvent the system.
Ed Heaver
Director, Serve Legal
• My father, aged 96, each week buys a four-pack of 2.1% ABV beer from a well-known supermarket for 89p, a total outlay of about £45 a year. This is his only alcoholic intake and well within recommended maximum limits for alcohol consumption. Under latest government proposals for 40p per unit minimum pricing, his annual expenditure on this product will rise to around £75, effectively an additional great grandad's tax per annum of £30. Still, I suppose in future this will keep him from wreaking late night havoc on the streets.
Vincent Piggott
Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire
• According to your front-page report (Coalition to set minimum alcohol price, 23 March) the impact of a minimum price on alcohol would have a minimal effect on those who drink within recommended limits. I would suggest this betrays the fact that neither David Cameron, nor your journalists for that matter, are regular customers of the same supermarket as I am.
My drink of choice is a red wine costing £2.99 per bottle. A minimum price would raise that by 93p – and two bottles a week would cost almost an extra £100. A far cry from the £5-6 that the government claims.
Actually, the cost of wine has fallen massively over several decades, but nobody has claimed that excessive wine drinking is a problem. It's therefore not the price that causes binge drinking.
Geoff Collier
Oakworth, West Yorkshire
• Under Labour our pubs were targeted by first introducing a smoking ban. The ever increasing rise in alcohol duty also helped in closing up to 50 bars a week. My dad, a sprightly 81-year-old veteran of Korea, and his OAP cronies were basically priced out of their local pub, where they had a chat over a pint or two of mild ale. No sign of binge drinking here. They retreated to the supermarket, where they purchased their chosen tipple of beer and cider to pass the time over their daily dominoes game, now played at friends alternate homes. Now Cameron has targeted them too with his outrageous plan to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol. Who loses out in this attack? The low-paid as usual, and those on basic state pensions and every sensible drinker.
Millionaire politicians who splash out on £50 bottles of champers over a £75 dinner will continue their own binge drinking. They don't even flinch at the cost of petrol, diesel and home heating bills – it's nothing to them. MPs of all parties, on an average £230k a year, including allowances and "expenses", do and say nothing except for an honourable few. They don't live in our world! Instead of targeting those who cause mayhem in our streets, they take the easy option, because after all, we are all in it together – aren't we?
Jim Burns
Hale, Cheshire
• I recently had a consultation with a GP/dermatologist at an outpatient clinic. He inquired how much alcohol I drank as part of the consultation. He then told me that one bottle of wine was four units, so I was well within the limit of 14 units per week if I drank three bottles of wine a week (for example). He said that one bottle held four standard glasses of wine and each was one unit of alcohol. He didn't believe me when I said I was sure he was wrong and a bottle of wine contained around nine units of alcohol, equal to six small glasses of wine, around 1.5 units per glass, despite my best attempts to explain this.
I find it quite worrying when even a member of the medical profession in this country is getting it so wrong – what hope does the rest of the population have?
Sue Jackson
Isleworth, Middlesex