Scotland to establish minimum unit price for alcohol

[ViolentPanda]

You're not crediting people with much in the way of agency are you? People choose to drink, they are not tricked into doing so by the mere availability of alcohol. Wherever people live, there will be someone selling drink in some form. If nobody was motivated to get shitfaced then special offers on shitface cider would make no difference to people's behaviour.

Agency is constrained by a number of factors, some of which will also directly influence behaviours. It's great having agency, but it becomes less great, the more that existing structures and practices limit the exercise of "choice", and influence your behaviours. Back when I was young and unemployed, agency was limited to riot, violence or getting fucked with either booze, weed or smack. As most of us had no work and therefore no money, that meant drinking homebrew or really cheap shit cider for most of us, with a bit of weekend weed, but for a minority that meant cultivating an unaffordable smack habit. People need a socially-acceptable numbing agent, and that's what booze is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Agency is constrained by a number of factors, some of which will also directly influence behaviours. It's great having agency, but it becomes less great, the more that existing structures and practices limit the exercise of "choice", and influence your behaviours. Back when I was young and unemployed, agency was limited to riot, violence or getting fucked with either booze, weed or smack. As most of us had no work and therefore no money, that meant drinking homebrew or really cheap shit cider for most of us, with a bit of weekend weed, but for a minority that meant cultivating an unaffordable smack habit. People need a socially-acceptable numbing agent, and that's what booze is.

And this measure aims to deal with a problem created by the existing structures and practices by attempting to control responses to those structures and practices by beating those responses out of people with a stick, in this case in the form of monetary punishment. Place people in a bad situation and punish them if they make 'wrong' choices. (And punish others caught in the crossfire as well - non-problem drinkers without much money.) It's not really so different from the idea that you respond to rising crime rates with longer prison sentences. That's why I consider it to be both regressive and reactionary.

 

[lazythursday]

And this measure aims to deal with a problem created by the existing structures and practices by attempting to control responses to those structures and practices by beating those responses out of people with a stick, in this case in the form of monetary punishment. Place people in a bad situation and punish them if they make 'wrong' choices. (And punish others caught in the crossfire as well - non-problem drinkers without much money.) It's not really so different from the idea that you respond to rising crime rates with longer prison sentences. That's why I consider it to be both regressive and reactionary.

The reactionary thing is to ignore the fact that people living in poverty have a much greater risk of dying or becoming severely ill from alcohol - certainly there were plenty of socialists in the late nineteenth / early twentieth century who viewed the availability of cheap alcohol in working class communities as part of those existing structures and practices that need to be changed. Alcohol addiction is a class issue. I don't think this should be the sole way it is tackled but evidence seems to suggest it will have a positive effect.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The reactionary thing is to ignore the fact that people living in poverty have a much greater risk of dying or becoming severely ill from alcohol - certainly there were plenty of socialists in the late nineteenth / early twentieth century who viewed the availability of cheap alcohol in working class communities as part of those existing structures and practices that need to be changed. Alcohol addiction is a class issue. I don't think this should be the sole way it is tackled but evidence seems to suggest it will have a positive effect.

There were also plenty of socialists in that period who advocated eugenics.

 

[killer b]

I reckon in this case they were right tho.

 

[Pickman's model]

The reactionary thing is to ignore the fact that people living in poverty have a much greater risk of dying or becoming severely ill from alcohol - certainly there were plenty of socialists in the late nineteenth / early twentieth century who viewed the availability of cheap alcohol in working class communities as part of those existing structures and practices that need to be changed. Alcohol addiction is a class issue. I don't think this should be the sole way it is tackled but evidence seems to suggest it will have a positive effect.

there were plenty of temperance organizations in that period, too

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whether or not it might have a positive effect wrt public health by certain measures isn't the only consideration, though. To compare it to a more extreme and even more crass example of a similar logic, the racist ban on Aboriginal Australians drinking might well have had a measurable positive effect on public health. Doesn't make it ok to do it.

 

[Pickman's model]

There were also plenty of socialists in that period who advocated eugenics.

excellent whataboutery

 

[lazythursday]

Whether or not it might have a positive effect wrt public health by certain measures isn't the only consideration, though. To compare it to a more extreme and even more crass example of a similar logic, the racist ban on Aboriginal Australians drinking might well have had a measurable positive effect on public health. Doesn't make it ok to do it.

So the freedom of people without alcohol problems to drink cheap alcohol (and those who sensibly sip the products affected seem likely to be few and far between...) trumps the need to try to tackle the pain and suffering caused by alcohol addiction?

 

[hipipol]

I might support this idea if it was paired with a massive spending blitz to try to eliminate homelessness and all the other reasons why people might want a rocket to oblivion for under a fiver.

As it is, it just seems like a possibly well-intentioned idea that is going to end up killing people who turn to industrial alcohol or drugs like fentanyl instead. It brings to mind how during Prohibition in the US, tens of thousands of people died from drinking industrial alcohol that had been mixed with poisons to stop people drinking it, and many more ended up paralyzed from Jamaica ginger, a medicine with a high alcohol content adulterated with ingredients designed to make it difficult to drink. People drank it anyway.

Every year in India where prices in most states are kept high, some states have a complete prohibition hundreds die or are maimed from what the Authorities refer to as "country liquor". Norway, rich as it is now, back in the old days, I got stuck in Stavanger for 3 days when I was working on a rig in the North Sea, fog over rig, diverted to Stavanger. Luckily, one of the guys on the chopper lived in Stavanger, our Diving Superintendent. He had his own still in his woodshed, as did his direct neighbour and the one past that. They were good distillers so no deaths far as I could find out. BUT all, including wife and kids drunk this stuff by the gallon. All were deeply fucked up by drink. 2 of his divers died because of many failings of maintenance and safety, he was finally sacked when he collapsed thru drink trying to get on the chopper in the Shetlands
Price is not everything, but it can have unintended and awful effects. Still worth a trial but needs a huge increase in the help available to help get people out of the trap, dont see any proposals from the great and good of the New Town about that

 

[NoXion]

So the freedom of people without alcohol problems to drink cheap alcohol (and those who sensibly sip the products affected seem likely to be few and far between...) trumps the need to try to tackle the pain and suffering caused by alcohol addiction?

No, because raising prices is not the sole means of dealing with alcohol addiction. If it really can be said to deal with alcohol addiction at all, that is. People aren't rational economic actors at the best of times, more so when addiction is involved. So expecting addicts to cut back when prices go up is ignorant naivete at best.

 

[lazythursday]

No, because raising prices is not the sole means of dealing with alcohol addiction. If it really can be said to deal with alcohol addiction at all, that is. People aren't rational economic actors at the best of times, more so when addiction is involved. So expecting addicts to cut back when prices go up is ignorant naivete at best.

But there does seem to be evidence that this will have a positive impact. I don't think it should be the sole measure, and I think it should be rigorously evaluated / reviewed - especially with regards to unintended consequences. There does tend to be though a knee jerk reaction from many to any measure that affects availability of alcohol.

 

[NoXion]

But there does seem to be evidence that this will have a positive impact. I don't think it should be the sole measure, and I think it should be rigorously evaluated / reviewed - especially with regards to unintended consequences. There does tend to be though a knee jerk reaction from many to any measure that affects availability of alcohol.

I think people are annoyed at being sold a policy that claims to deal with addiction, while in actuality penalising everyone who buys alcohol, at the same as making the sellers more money. It's patronising and disingenuous.

 

[lazythursday]

I think people are annoyed at being sold a policy that claims to deal with addiction, while in actuality penalising everyone who buys alcohol, at the same as making the sellers more money. It's patronising and disingenuous.

It doesn't penalise everyone who buys alcohol because most products will be completely unaffected.

 

[NoXion]

It doesn't penalise everyone who buys alcohol because most products will be completely unaffected.

You're right, it just penalises the povs who can't afford the fancy stuff. Not to say that won't change in the future - maybe they'll push it up to 60p per unit (or more) at some point. All in the name of public health, of course.

 

[killer b]

This article from the Jacobin a month or so ago was interesting I thought.

Nationalize the Pubs

 

[Silas Loom]

But there does seem to be evidence that this will have a positive impact. I don't think it should be the sole measure, and I think it should be rigorously evaluated / reviewed - especially with regards to unintended consequences. There does tend to be though a knee jerk reaction from many to any measure that affects availability of alcohol.

Agree with all this, especially the point about additional measures.

Pricing controls are the only measure which might disproportionately affect the poor. There's lots of other good stuff which can be done. Plain packaging. No visible displays in shops. Total advertising ban. Sponsorship ban. Raise purchasing age to 21. Enforce ID checks more aggressively. Ban distribution and sale on unlicensed premises, so that workplaces and social gatherings are more likely to be booze-free. Just copy everything that has been done with fags and roll it out more quickly.

Prohibition doesn't work. Taking on industry and making it really difficult for them to market, to brand and to differentiate - that really does seem to scupper their recruitment and retention of consumers.

 

[Sue]

This article from the Jacobin a month or so ago was interesting I thought.

Nationalize the Pubs

Very interesting, thanks. I was aware of the Carlisle thing (being from quite nearby) and also the Gothenburg pubs -- my Dad was born/lived above one and when he was a kid was very confused when people referred to it as 'the goth' rather than by its proper name.

 

[DotCommunist]

This article from the Jacobin a month or so ago was interesting I thought.

Nationalize the Pubs

I was looking for that earlier- it mentions that the Temperance movement in the UK reached its high point and then ebbed in a way it did not in america, I did wonder what other factors than 'theres a war on' caused this.

 

[Silas Loom]

This article from the Jacobin a month or so ago was interesting I thought.

Nationalize the Pubs

Food, entertainment, and games such as darts, dominoes, snooker, and bowls were introduced. Some pubs were designated food houses where nourishing state-made pies were served. Others boasted billiard tables and bowling greens. One even had a cinema.

Four words to gladden the heart of any social democrat. There's something superb about the mental picture of a nourishing state-made pie that trumps any concerns about the efficiency and responsiveness of the nourishing pie marketing board and the nourishing pie research council.

 

[Teaboy]

Agree with all this, especially the point about additional measures.

Pricing controls are the only measure which might disproportionately affect the poor. There's lots of other good stuff which can be done. Plain packaging. No visible displays in shops. Total advertising ban. Sponsorship ban. Raise purchasing age to 21. Enforce ID checks more aggressively. Ban distribution and sale on unlicensed premises, so that workplaces and social gatherings are more likely to be booze-free. Just copy everything that has been done with fags and roll it out more quickly.

Did much of that stuff actually work with fags though? I know some of it is very recent. It was my understanding that it was only after the smoking ban (in workplaces etc) came in that there was an actual notable decline in smoking and those taking it up.

ETA: I think booze is different anyway. Would plain packaging make much difference anyway? Is there brand loyalty in white ciders? Do people choose their wine over which picture of a landscape or a French chateau?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

ETA: I think booze is different anyway. Would plain packaging make much difference anyway? Is there brand loyalty in white ciders? Do people choose their wine over which picture of a landscape or a French chateau?

The big difference is that people don't smoke unless addicted, whereas many people drink infrequently with no harm to health, indeed many studies show light drinking can have positive benefits to health.

Making fags come in a green packet is one thing, with booze though the containers would need to be uniform, so champagne coming in the same container as Spesh, as £5000 brandy. The comparisson doesn't really work. Or maybe I'm lacking in vision here?

 

[Silas Loom]

I think booze is different anyway. Would plain packaging make much difference anyway? Is there brand loyalty in white ciders? Do people choose their wine over which picture of a landscape or a French chateau?

Wine branding is weird, certainly, as it's tied to provenance as soon as you go mid-market and upwards. And as you say, white cider drinkers might be perfectly happy with labels which just stated ingredients and ABV. Plain packaging would probably hit beer and spirits vendors harder, especially at the premium end.

 

[Silas Loom]

Making fags come in a green packet is one thing, with booze though the containers would need to be uniform, so champagne coming in the same container as Spesh, as £5000 brandy. The comparisson doesn't really work. Or maybe I'm lacking in vision here?

Special brew can be sold in green cans, brandy and champagne in green bottles. Bottles for sparkling wine might have a larger punt and an appropriate cork. Not much of an objection, really.

 

[Silas Loom]

many studies show light drinking can have positive benefits to health.

Hmm. Almost impossible to adjust for other lifestyle factors. Teetotallers are an unusual sample in any western society, and country-by-country comparisons are hugely affected by diet and other public health considerations.

 

[DotCommunist]

jesus said a glass of wine is good for the stomach but everything in moderation- so thats that solved

 

[Teaboy]

Special brew can be sold in green cans, brandy and champagne in green bottles. Bottles for sparkling wine might have a larger punt and an appropriate cork. Not much of an objection, really.

The point being would it actually achieve anything? Personally I don't think plain packaging in tabs will do much. It fucks off the tobacco companies because they want their brand to stand out but does it actually stop anyone smoking? I honestly doubt it.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Special brew can be sold in green cans, brandy and champagne in green bottles. Bottles for sparkling wine might have a larger punt and an appropriate cork. Not much of an objection, really.

Tis possible, but you'd still know the difference between a beer/cider and a wine/spirit then, which gives one cache over the other (which way depends on your point of view). Plus unless you drink from the can/bottle you decant in to a glass. In a pub or restaurant it is decanted before you see it, so you'd never see the green packaging...

 

[Teaboy]

The more I think about it the less value or worth there is to applying the same approach that they have taken with tabs to booze. There are just too many differentials involved. That's not to say there shouldn't be controls around booze but just blanket applying the same strategy seems pretty useless to me and there should be a tailored one.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The point being would it actually achieve anything? Personally I don't think plain packaging in tabs will do much. It fucks off the tobacco companies because they want their brand to stand out but does it actually stop anyone smoking? I honestly doubt it.

I think it may stop some younger people from taking it up; as a kid I was fascinated by the ritual of smoking and part of that was the being a Rothaman's man, a Silk Cut woman and so on. But in those days the packets were on the pub or restaurant tables for all to see, so they could be part of your identity, now they are in your pocket/bag cos you have to go outside to smoke, so people won't be put off from smoking cos of the lack of glamour as the only people who see the packets are already smoking, but it may, possibly stop kids associating smoking with glamour.