Scotland to establish minimum unit price for alcohol

[Pickman's model]

Anecdotally I think the plain packaging and no displaying of fags has made a massive difference to kids taking up smoking. My partner is 51 and started smoking aged 9. I am 40 and started when I was 14. My eldest is 14 and none of her pals smoke and you don't see kids hanging about smoking at lunchtime anymore.

might have something to do with the cheapest pack of fags being round a tenner.

tobacco advertising's non-existent: except where so many characters smoke, for example in 'i know who you are' there's people smoking almost constantly. in peaky blinders there's people smoking almost constantly. in sons of anarchy... the cigarettes are there.

 

[Celyn]

yeah. On some estates theres a paucity of shops entirely and plenty of places, including my local shop have taken in the post office role as well, its not just beer fags and food they do the essentials you really don't want to make a trip to town for. Loo roll, dogfood, nappies, sannies, et...

Yes, exactly! And how can I have forgotten loo roll in my list of localshoppery? And biro pens! And horrible birthday cards for the emergency nearly-forgotten birthday!

... But if you shut these places down by making the produce out of peoples price range then it all goes, the post office, the where to buy you metered leccy/gas, phone credit etc.

That too. I had forgotten about the pre-pay electricity/gas thing.

 

[redsquirrel]

But this minimum price thing won't produce extra funding.

Yes, that's (part of) my point. Why are the only "options" either a regressive increase to VAT or this even more regressive tax. Why not get the extra funding my txsing the fuck out of the rich and using that to deal with alcohol issues.

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.

Totally agree with you w.r.t. the racist alcohol laws in Australia. But I would emphasis the clear difference between alcohol restrictions imposed by governments and those constructed by the community.

 

[Celyn]

Yes, that's (part of) my point. Why are the only "options" either a regressive increase to VAT or this even more regressive tax. Why not get the extra funding my txsing the fuck out of the rich and using that to deal with alcohol issues...

The Scottish government doesn't have the power to do that. It cannot raise the tax rate in one tax band without raising it for everybody, so taxing the fuck out of the rich would also mean higher tax for everyone who isn't rich.

 

[redsquirrel]

The Scottish government doesn't have the power to do that. It cannot raise the tax rate in one tax band without raising it for everybody, so taxing the fuck out of the rich would also mean higher tax for everyone who isn't rich.

No offence but you're rather missing the point. First, I'm taking about the general case. Second, why is it permitted that the Scottish government can apply a regressive tax such as this but not use progressive taxation measures to tackle alcohol abuse. Because this measure sits comfortably within the neo-liberal framework in a way that increased taxation on the rich doesn't.

 

[SpookyFrank]

No offence but you're rather missing the point. First, I'm taking about the general case. Second, why is it permitted that the Scottish government can apply a regressive tax such as this but not use progressive taxation measures to tackle alcohol abuse. Because this measure sits comfortably within the neo-liberal framework in a way that increased taxation on the rich doesn't.

It's not a tax. The extra cash goes to retailers, not the government.

 

[pogofish]

Do you disagree with the methods or results of that research?

The results speak for themselves - Since the original publication, drink consumption and deaths have already dropped by a far greater level without MUP than their most optimistic predictions for with. Except for one exception - 2016, a high on deaths despite being the year of lowest consumption in twenty years and their most current predictions for lives saved are statistically unmeasurable because they are well within normal fluctuation levels.

That spells - fucked to me..?

 

[redsquirrel]

It's not a tax. The extra cash goes to retailers, not the government.

Yes, ok. Regressive price increase.

 

[phillm]

If this goes ahead I predict there will be discount booze warehouses just across the border where canny lowland Scots can fill their boot with cheap alcohol. I remember cycling through an native American reservation in the 80 s where booze is banned and there were a proliferation of bottle shops just across the line sadly peopled with a load of native Americans lying in a stupour all around them.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

might have something to do with the cheapest pack of fags being round a tenner.

tobacco advertising's non-existent: except where so many characters smoke, for example in 'i know who you are' there's people smoking almost constantly. in peaky blinders there's people smoking almost constantly. in sons of anarchy... the cigarettes are there.

I don't think so. Even as a smoking, young teenager myself, a packet of 10 was only just in the pocket money range (or, weeks school meal tickets range). Raising the cost of alcohol isn't going to make a difference either. Not, unless it is seriously expensive and seriously regulated.

Fewer teenagers take up smoking now simply because fewer parents smoke and they are educated about the harm of smoking from a very early age. Education has quite literally scared kids away from smoking. It is no longer "don't smoke - it is disgusting and bad for you", it is this is what it does, this is how it kills you, look at this woman dying from smoking etc.

Alcohol is a very different drug, and a totally different issue. It isn't nearly as addictive for a start. No teenager is going to get hooked on Diamond White after a couple of evenings partying.

I just cannot see any good point in this 'non tax tax' with no purpose. What, and how is it supposed to achieve anything other than giving another Tenner a week to Tesco from the average household?

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Will there be a minimum price for Aldi apple juice. Because it's piss easy to make stuff stronger then white lightening for not much more. If you make booze to expensive then people will just churn out more homebrew.

 

[Celyn]

No offence but you're rather missing the point.

Well, I rather think you were at first, with your mentions of regressive "taxation".

First, I'm taking about the general case.

Ah, so all in theory and not about these Scottish measures then. OK.

Second, why is it permitted that the Scottish government can apply a regressive tax such as this but not use progressive taxation measures to tackle alcohol abuse.

It's not a tax. As to why the Scottish governments powers are limited in this way, I don't know. Ask the Prime Minister or something.

Because this measure sits comfortably within the neo-liberal framework in a way that increased taxation on the rich doesn't.

Yes, agreed.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Will there be a minimum price for Aldi apple juice. Because it's piss easy to make stuff stronger then white lightening for not much more. If you make booze to expensive then people will just churn out more homebrew.

Better to get apple juice concentrate in bulk if you're making homemade gutrot.

 

[nogojones]

Will there be a minimum price for Aldi apple juice. Because it's piss easy to make stuff stronger then white lightening for not much more. If you make booze to expensive then people will just churn out more homebrew.

I've heard of folks paying £15 for a g of bud, so price ain't turning everyone into a grower.

Yes, a few people will brew their own, maybe a small black market will start to emerge, Maybe the most desperate will start to drink more hand sanitizer. All these will generally be the exceptions though, as most folks can't be arsed faffing about. It will be important to keep an eye on the price point so health outcomes are maximized, without causing too much damage to a minority.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Better to get apple juice concentrate in bulk if you're making homemade gutrot.

Either way the point stands. Make it to expensive and people will just knock out their own.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I've heard of folks paying £15 for a g of bud, so price ain't turning everyone into a grower.

Yes, a few people will brew their own, maybe a small black market will start to emerge, Maybe the most desperate will start to drink more hand sanitizer. All these will generally be the exceptions though, as most folks can't be arsed faffing about. It will be important to keep an eye on the price point so health outcomes are maximized, without causing too much damage to a minority.

It's more space and faff. And the very real possibility of doing time. Which you don't get for 20l Brewing under the worktop.

 

[Sunset Tree]

I honestly can't imagine too many people doing that. Surely not the guys you see in the newsagent buying a big bottle of frosty at 10am.

 

[DotCommunist]

plenty who can and will fill a vacuum where there is profit tho. People who generally don't adhere to guidelines and licensing. if there is a need and a space it will get filled

 

[Raheem]

I honestly can't imagine too many people doing that. Surely not the guys you see in the newsagent buying a big bottle of frosty at 10am.

For one thing, the demijohn shop doesn't open til eleven.

 

[Sunset Tree]

plenty who can and will fill a vacuum where there is profit tho. People who generally don't adhere to guidelines and licensing. if there is a need and a space it will get filled

I could see that I guess.

There's a part of me that feels kind of bad about this. I remember the relief of being able to get a big bottle of strong cider for a few quid, how it can make all the difference when you have nothing else. In a public health mindset I think it's positive but partly I'd like to think if I ever want to get smashed for £3 the option is still out there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

*throws 2 quid out the window*

Moar please. I really do have too much money. I'd just spend it on lottery tickets.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

For one thing, the demijohn shop doesn't open til eleven.

No need for a demijohn. Just get a large food grade plastic container/bucket with a lid (Indian takeaways use lots of them), collect a load of 2l PET bottles (fizzy drinks, fizzy water, cheap cider), a bottle of thin bleach (for sterilization of bucket and bottles), a packet of yeast (Wilko is the best price at the moment) and you're good to go. That is of curse once you've bought the value fruit juice and some sugar for extra umph.

Have fun - Louis MacNeice

 

[phillm]

Booze is cheap though relatively speaking - I remember when at Uni in 1980 my favourite tipple was 1 litre brown glass bottles of Sainsbury Cider which if I remember rightly was 79p a pop for 5%. That's 40 years ago nearly and the price has only doubled.

 

[killer b]

I just saw this literature review of papers relating to MUP schemes, if anyone has the inclination to read: Evidence for the effectiveness of minimum pricing of alcohol: a systematic review and assessment using the Bradford Hill criteria for causality (is this what mrs quoad was talking about earlier?)

The conclusion suggests price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

 

[NoXion]

I just saw this literature review of papers relating to MUP schemes, if anyone has the inclination to read: Evidence for the effectiveness of minimum pricing of alcohol: a systematic review and assessment using the Bradford Hill criteria for causality (is this what mrs quoad was talking about earlier?)

The conclusion suggests price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

Weird, I thought people on this site hated the technocratic approach to governance. Well I guess since the evidence is in, we have no choice as a society but to follow where it leads.

 

[killer b]

I'm not people on this site, just a person on this site. We're having a discussion about minimum unit pricing so I posted some relevant info I just found to help inform the discussion. Isn't that how it works?

 

[killer b]

There has to be a balance between an individual's right to get wrecked at he pleases, and society's responsibility to protect people from damaging themselves and each other through getting wrecked. This is an imperfect solution, and I'd rather see more radical ways of dealing with it (and I'd certainly prefer not to see the extra money end up in the pockets of the breweries). But it's something at least.

 

[extra dry]

I honestly can't imagine too many people doing that. Surely not the guys you see in the newsagent buying a big bottle of frosty at 10am.

You see a whole different world in the offlicences of the UK

 

[Pickman's model]

society's responsibility to protect people from damaging themselves

not sure there is such a responsibility

 

[NoXion]

There has to be a balance between an individual's right to get wrecked at he pleases, and society's responsibility to protect people from damaging themselves and each through getting wrecked. This is an imperfect solution, and I'd rather see more radical ways of dealing with it (and I'd certainly prefer not to see the extra money end up in the pockets of the breweries). But it's something at least.

Consumption of alcohol has been decreasing without MUP, so I'm not convinced that it is "something" that needs to be done in the first place. If problem drinking is an issue, then MUP is the wrong solution because out of the entire drinking population, addicts are far less likely to change their habits due to price increases than non-addicts.

One can justify all sorts of crappy policies because it's doing something rather than nothing.