Scotland to establish minimum unit price for alcohol

[RD2003]

They put the price up, as happened in the communist USSR.

I spent a fair amount of time there in the Gorbachev period. They didn't put the prices up but enacted a de-facto ban. Those who drank moderately or only on occasion couldn't get alcohol even for a birthday celebration or New Year, or whatever, unless they knew how to use the black market. Inevitably, not everybody did, and as the state began to disintegrate it became increasingly risky. Alcoholics meanwhile spent all their days queuing at those outlets where it was rumoured a supply of drink would be arriving, thus further neglecting anything else in their lives. They were joined by many others who were not alcoholics but had also heard the rumour. When supplies materialised, it was common for black marketeers, KGB, cops, or anybody else with some kind of pull to step in and buy up all supplies for a token price. Alcoholics were reduced to drinking cheap perfume or anything else with a trace of alcohol, no matter how poisonous. The whole thing was universally regarded as ludicrous and an unmitigated disaster.

When the market was freed-up, booze was immediately once more plentiful, and along with fags advertised on TV. Alcoholism and any amount of drink-fuelled idiocy flourished like never before, and along with smoking was a major factor in the sharp fall in life-expectancy, and they still haven't managed to bring it all under control.

 

[DexterTCN]

...but even if we constrict ourselves to Scotland what's stopping the SNP from using this as issue to help drive the demand for greater tax gathering powers.

Oh...you mean the tax powers promised to us if we stayed in the union? No point asking us about what happened to them.

We tried, didn't get anyplace.

We're not getting any more.

 

[Celyn]

What do you suggest? Buckfast on prescription?

I don't think Buckfast is afffected, is it?

 

[killer b]

I don't think Buckfast is afffected, is it?

11 units, so minimum cost £5.50. I guess it's more than that now?

 

[Celyn]

I googled and found suggestions of £6.89 or £7:99.

 

[DotCommunist]

that money will go back to the monks though, rather than servants of mammon so maybe thats ok? Unless distributors eat all the largesse and don't even tell the monks about this

 

[Sasaferrato]

I don't think Buckfast is afffected, is it?

I was being ironic. Buckfast is a particular favourite, it's full of caffeine and sugar. A bit of research going on at the moment about caffeinated alcoholic drinks.

 

[Celyn]

that money will go back to the monks though, rather than servants of mammon so maybe thats ok? Unless distributors eat all the largesse and don't even tell the monks about this

I bet the monks are quite hip to the whole capitalism thing.

 

[redsquirrel]

Oh...you mean the tax powers promised to us if we stayed in the union? No point asking us about what happened to them.

We tried, didn't get anyplace.

We're not getting any more.

And so that's it. The SNP should just give up on trying to campaign around the Scottish Parliament getting more control of tax? Is the same logic to be applied to independence? Re-nationalisation? Nice "we" by the way.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I was being ironic. Buckfast is a particular favourite, it's full of caffeine and sugar. A bit of research going on at the moment about caffeinated alcoholic drinks.

To establish their health giving properties?

 

[happie chappie]

I see what you did there.

Dexter asked,



Attack business. Not allow this predicament to happen in the first place. And if it did, and there is a public health problem because of it (or did that public health problem exist anyway, y'know, because of the shit prospects, shit housing...I'm repeating myself aren't I?), then maybe we'd make sure any more money raised in taxes, er, I mean price rises definitely not aimed at the poor, would go towards paying for this health problem. Like bookies who make hundreds of millions off FOBT but only pay £7million between all of them towards gambling addiction problems. Tax the rich. I call it redistribution of wealth.

This is wrong. Tax brewers more heavily to pay for better public services by all means.

But using the money raised to deal with alcohol-related health issues is silly because you’re shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

By that time the person already has the problem. Far better to prevent, or at least discourage, excess consumption especially as the success rates for even the most expensive private rehab is patchy to say the least.

Ditto getting bookies to contribute more GamCare isn’t a bad thing per se, but that only offers help after someone becomes a problem gambler. Again, prevention is better than cure so the Government is asked to intervene by, for example, limiting the stakes on such machines.

One could argue that this will hit the poor disproportionally as they are more likely to use FOBTs and we shouldn’t moralise about how they spend their money but this would be daft. The overriding principle should be harm reduction.

In any case MUP isn’t about moralising. It isn’t being introduced in a vacuum. Alcohol abuse is a serious public health issue.

And the fallout from excessive drinking doesn’t just affect the problem drinker.

Other people also have to bear what can be a very significant burden, whether in the form of attacks on NHS staff and other public sector workers, drink-driving death and injury, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, and so on.

Many of these victims are poor too.

People develop problems with alcohol for a whole host of reasons. It is often a result of relationship breakdown, loneliness, self-medication after trauma such a sexual abuse, low self-esteem etc – issues that transcend class.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People develop problems with alcohol for a whole host of reasons. It is often a result of relationship breakdown, loneliness, self-medication after trauma such a sexual abuse, low self-esteem etc – issues that transcend class.

And yet, this measure does not transcend class - its target it class-specific.

 

[planetgeli]

This is wrong. Tax brewers more heavily to pay for better public services by all means.

But using the money raised to deal with alcohol-related health issues is silly because you’re shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

By that time the person already has the problem. Far better to prevent, or at least discourage, excess consumption especially as the success rates for even the most expensive private rehab is patchy to say the least.

Ditto getting bookies to contribute more GamCare isn’t a bad thing per se, but that only offers help after someone becomes a problem gambler. Again, prevention is better than cure so the Government is asked to intervene by, for example, limiting the stakes on such machines.

One could argue that this will hit the poor disproportionally as they are more likely to use FOBTs and we shouldn’t moralise about how they spend their money but this would be daft. The overriding principle should be harm reduction.

In any case MUP isn’t about moralising. It isn’t being introduced in a vacuum. Alcohol abuse is a serious public health issue.

And the fallout from excessive drinking doesn’t just affect the problem drinker.

Other people also have to bear what can be a very significant burden, whether in the form of attacks on NHS staff and other public sector workers, drink-driving death and injury, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, and so on.

Many of these victims are poor too.

People develop problems with alcohol for a whole host of reasons. It is often a result of relationship breakdown, loneliness, self-medication after trauma such a sexual abuse, low self-esteem etc – issues that transcend class.

You appear to have missed the second line of my reply "not allow this predicament to happen in the first place". Like I'd never have allowed FOBTs in betting shops.

Regardless, it is not wrong to penalise those who cause addiction problems and make them pay for the way they create vast profits.

I'd suggest it's wrong to encourage drinkers or gamblers from poorer areas and then punish those people for the way big business has operated. The question related to the bolted horse. Don't blame me for answering the specific question.

 

[redsquirrel]

In any case MUP isn’t about moralising.

Apart from it clearly is for some, such as Kenny MacAskill.

There is definite strand of moralising and/or classism in the parts of anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-junk food lobby. Not by all of those in favour of MUP, many see this as a way of alleviating the damage alcohol does to communities, but there's definitely some moralists pushing for this and similar measures.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Rising to 65p a unit apparently.