Scots to bring in minimum price booze

[crankedup]

Supreme court find in favour of the Scottish Government and it is now to bring into law the minimum price unit of alcohol.
Announcement on price is awaited however it is generally understood that most but the very cheapest of alcohols will be unaffected at introduction. Thin end of wedge maybe?
This opens the door for our Government to follow the Scots and then perhaps we will see rises in alcohol prices every budget, just like the old days.
Only the lowest income individuals will be affected and this will do nothing to arrest the increase in alcohol abuse (or enjoyment)

[crankedup]

As in fish’n chips.
Can’t beat Northern variety still fried in proper fat.
As for booze price, I agree it will not make a jot of difference to drinking habits wherever one happens to live in the UK. What it could do is drive those dependant on booze to forgo other essentials to feed the habit perhaps.
Just another case of a nannying Government who pretends to be doing the right thing for Society.?

[crankedup]

^^^^^^^^
But it misses the point entirely, although the sentiment and logic might fit. How many people who drink to excess rely on the lowest priced end of booze. Those wealthy bored housewife’s as an example, living in thier surburban smart middle class homes knocking back bottles of wine. Drinking problems are not confined to those with the least money and that is where this nanny policy falls flat.

[crankedup]

Sheepshanks said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I think people are getting far too worried about the effect this will have on 'normal' people.

I quote from the BBC:

"The 50p-per-unit minimum outlined by the legislation would raise the price of the cheapest bottle of red wine (9.4 units of alcohol) to £4.69, a four-pack of 500ml cans of 4% lager (8 units) would cost at least £4 and a 70cl bottle of whisky (28 units of alcohol) could not be sold for less than £14"

£4.69 for a bottle of red wine and £1 per can of 500ml Carlsberg/Fosters etc seems dirt cheap to me?

The prices are pretty much that as we stand right now.

On the BBC news last night they had a 4-pack of beer at £1 and said it would go up to £4. It's surely never 25p/tin?

Likely some sort of promotional give-away linked to other product(s). There was plenty of talk earlier regarding cheap promotional booze in supermarkets. How long before the regulations stop that I wonder?

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

The Surveyor said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I suppose the big question is:

Why do the Scottish have such a problem with alcohol?

They don't. The Office for national Statistics survey of Alcohol use confirmed:-

"•In 2016, similar patterns of drinking were observed in England, Scotland and Wales; of the English regions, binge drinking was more common in the north"

Given the health problems associated with heavy drinking, it's sensible to try and impose a control on the worse drinkers so you can't knock Scotland for trying whether you think minimum pricing is the answer or not.

According to the Scottish NHS, they have a serious problem.

Some facts:

24 people in Scotland die of alcohol related issues per week - 54% more than England and Wales.

On average, enough alcohol is sold to enable every single Scot over the age of 18 to consume 44% more alcohol than the recommended limit every single week.

Alcohol sales per person in Scotland are 20% higher than England and Wales. Equivalent to 477 pints of beer per year, for every single person 18 years or older.

Alcohol abuse costs the Scottish economy £3.56 Billion per year and is responsible for 96 hospital admissions every day.

You been googling?

[crankedup]

Sa Calobra said:

grumbledoak said:

So why don't you go tell the Scots how to do it? Then they won't need the minimum pricing.

Just because you don't have the latest iPhone or lease Audi doesnt make things bad. Many people get by.

Nanny state politics, the worst of the worst. Easy target for the do-gooders to pat themselves on the back whilst feeling superior. They need to tackle the root causes within Society not take the easy road to stardom

[crankedup]

Young people, whatever constitutes young? no longer drink to excess as demonstrated previously.
Guessing young people find other forms of activity that is classed as ‘a laugh’ , knitting for instance.

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

Young people, whatever constitutes young? no longer drink to excess as demonstrated previously.
Guessing young people find other forms of activity that is classed as ‘a laugh’ , knitting for instance.

A lot of younger people have given up drink completely. However, loads still go out to get wrecked every weekend.


You could ask them to join CAMRA? That's halfway between giving up alcohol and knitting.

CAMRA campaign for real ale to be readily available in every outlet licensed to sell beer. If you are trying to cut down or cut out beer drinking then membership of CAMRA is still welcomed, but you would have to ask why join.

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

Young people, whatever constitutes young? no longer drink to excess as demonstrated previously.
Guessing young people find other forms of activity that is classed as ‘a laugh’ , knitting for instance.

A lot of younger people have given up drink completely. However, loads still go out to get wrecked every weekend.


You could ask them to join CAMRA? That's halfway between giving up alcohol and knitting.

CAMRA campaign for real ale to be readily available in every outlet licensed to sell beer. If you are trying to cut down or cut out beer drinking then membership of CAMRA is still welcomed, but you would have to ask why join.

Yeah, but the young ones are giving up quantity for quality.

That's why 73% of CAMRA members voted for change.

Did you get banned from the other thread? I was surprised you went quiet.
Stalking me here?

No, I wanted to move on, felt we had taken our discussion as far as was reasonable with nothing to be gained or lost. I’m passionate about debate regarding ale and wine, that’s why I have decided to join in this thread, if that’s OK with you of course!
Stalking you? seriously? You may not have noticed this, but I am the OP of this thread some while back now. So it could be suggested that it is you that could be questioned regarding stalking!
I should add that I do agree that quality over quantity is a good thing, hell it is one of the founding principles of CAMRA.
In the bad old days of pubs offering DD or Bass offerings not a real ale was available, hence along comes CAMRA. It is largely that is to this campaign that beer drinkers can once again be assured that real ales are available to enjoy.

Edited by crankedup on Friday 27th September 00:49

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

No, I wanted to move on, felt we had taken our discussion as far as was reasonable with nothing to be gained or lost. I’m passionate about debate regarding ale and wine, that’s why I have decided to join in this thread, if that’s OK with you of course!
Stalking you? seriously? You may not have noticed this, but I am the OP of this thread some while back now. So it could be suggested that it is you that could be questioned regarding stalking!

You just embarrassed yourself. I shouldn't have lowered myself for some of it though.

Did the minimum pricing hit ale at the supermarket ? I can't think of any that were hit.

Embarrassed myself? erm not sure how you arrive at that one, can’t see or imagine why you feel that way! Lowered myself? In what way ? OK I have enjoyed a few beers tonight but I honestly do not see where your criticism is coming from?
Did the MUP hit ale at the supermarket you ask me. Not that I know of, but then I don’t follow supermarket price points. I just buy what I enjoy

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

Did the MUP hit ale at the supermarket you ask me. Not that I know of, but then I don’t follow supermarket price points. I just buy what I enjoy

I genuinely don't think it even affected one. I don't see any real ales at the supermarket for £1.12 for a 500ml bottle of 4.5% ABV.

If anything as a CAMRA supporter I'd have thought you'd be for minimum pricing. If the prices of mass produced lager are pushed up towards better drinks then surely people will just buy the better rather than the cheapest?

I don’t support taxation of any description on food and drink, however I do support freedom of choice. Not everybody wants to choose quality over price in everyday purchase decisions for countless reasons. Freedom of choice, and I feel we in the U.K. are fortunate to be able to enjoy that freedom.

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

crankedup said:

I don’t support taxation of any description on food and drink, however I do support freedom of choice. Not everybody wants to choose quality over price in everyday purchase decisions for countless reasons. Freedom of choice, and I feel we in the U.K. are fortunate to be able to enjoy that freedom.

The problem is, you cannot trust the public to treat all things sensibly. This most certainly includes food and alcohol consumption, and the types of food and alcohol that people decide to consume.

Unfortunately one of the the best ways to control the consumption of products that are likely to damage the health of, or even kill, is to intrude minimum pricing or significantly increased levels of taxation on those items.

You have to force the price of certain things to a level where they cannot be afforded in quantities that may be potentially dangerous. They may be afforded in quantities by those who have notably higher incomes, but then those people will likely be paying into systems like the NHS in greater amounts too.

It is controversial, but I would support even higher taxes on tobacco, nicotine containing vape products, and alcohol. I would also support the introduction of increased taxes on high calorie takeaway or drive-thru food.

My points are all overly simplistic of course, and there should be far more logic put into them than I can mange in two minutes, but my overall concept is something that I see can happening more and more in future.

I absolutely love delicious calorie-laden greasy take away food. Dish & Chips, McDonalds, Pizzas, Chinese, Kebabs etc and I also love an alcoholic drink. These things are also very easy. They involve no cooking, effort, and alcohol makes you feel good.

But I try hard to regulate my intake of alcohol and unhealthy food, and I force myself to go to the gym several times a week in an effort to remain fit, healthy, and in reasonably slim shape.

Not everyone will want to do that, and if left unchecked, many people will slide into a routine of unhealthy yet tasty food, and drinking far too much.

Much quicker if you just say that the State knows better than the individual, which I fundamentally disagree with. Nanny State call it what you will.Freedom of choice is a basic understand of a democratic Society. Don’t tax, educate.

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

crankedup said:

Much quicker if you just say that the State knows better than the individual, which I fundamentally disagree with. Nanny State call it what you will.Freedom of choice is a basic understand of a democratic Society. Don’t tax, educate.

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

The state often does know better than many individuals. I don't think that is deniable

I would like to say that I would prefer a world where state interference is not necessary, but unfortunately the real world doesn't function like that.

Look at the % of fatties involved and measure that growth (no pun) time durations, pressure the manufacturers through subtle shaming. State interference in the U.K. on the issue of food and drink via taxation is lazyand divisive, will not solve the problems. I say education begins at primary school learning, all the stuff we were taught about cooking, eating your greens, the we used to call it was scrapped.
Because some people refuse to be educated to introduce taxation on that basis is, imo, just wrong U.K. has the highest percentage of obese people in the World, Go ernment inaction and plain wrong actions d to be addressed, club hammer approach will not work, people will always find ways around
tax. Add to that tax hurts the poor more than the wealthy. Its a higher percentage of obese in the poor than wealthy, some poor do not have a choice other than cheap unhealthy food.

From day one our grandchild was offered fresh fruit instead of sweets. Things like grapes, oranges, bananas, he will chose fruit every time now as a snack over sweets. His six years old. Education works.
Likely it will be a mixture though, education and tax. It certainly needs to be sorted.

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

Then you accept that it's their choice. Whether the pleasure to an individual of alcohol and/or takeaway food (or mountaineering or potholing or avoiding the gym) outweighs the health risk is a decision only the individual can make.

Then what would you do when the avoidable problems caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol begin to impose huge strain and expensive on our NHS and other care systems?

What would be the solution?

We are human, nothing can be perfect, trying to introduce sanctions into unhealthy lifestyles will only serve to create further Social problems. Even if Government introduced free gymnasium we would still see people who would refuse to indulge.

[crankedup]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

I don't think the link between minimum pricing and drug deaths is directly related.

I don't think you can assert that with any certainty. The extreme end of the alcohol consumption scale is addiction and addicts will turn to the cheapest, most easily available method they can to get whatever they need.

Price alcohol above something else that will satisfy them and the result is obvious. If the stuff they turn to carries a greater risk of death because of impurity the result is even more obvious.

This is not about rational decisions after all.

It was not so many years ago that meths was the choice of consumption for those living on the streets.
Since the relaxation or the lack of police , begging in the streets seems to have had the effect of a better class of booze for these unfortunate people.

Edited by crankedup on Sunday 29th September 16:23

[crankedup]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

Why is the conclusion false? If you're going to call something false you could at least offer evidence why it is false.

I did. The data set is incomplete because the research said sale of alcohol was down but at the same time admits it wasn't counting sales in pubs, plus it didn't take into account a possible increase in the personal import of alcohol purchased outside Scotland but consumed in Scotland.

You either don't understand the significance of those variables or you are an SNP apologist and will ignore or play-down critical factors that undermine your argument.

Driver101 said:

You're the man that says the links to drug deaths is directly linked to the price of alcohol.

For the second time now I didn't say that, and my explanation of your inexplicable misinterpretation of what I did say is still a couple of pages back so you can go read it again and save me retyping it.

crankedup said:

It was not so many years ago that meths was the choice of consumption for those living on the streets.....

...and before that it was milk and hairspray, which kind of proves the point that addicts will take their hit whichever way they can get it at the cheapest rate going. Price out one option and others become more attractive.

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 29th September 16:10

Yup, alcohol addition is a sorry road to be on, it’s an easy road to take as well.Its been documented
and publicised many times before the dangers of alcohol. Personally I used to enjoy ale with a whiskey chaser, within less than a year that chaser was getting to be the main tipple. I knocked it on the head and so pleased I did whilst I could without to much pain.
I hadn’t heard of the milk & hairspray route, shocking state. to end up in.

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

If MUP pushed people to the pubs that would be a positive in the fact their budget won't buy anywhere near the amount of alcohol.

I suspect it won't make any difference.

Do you mean if supermarket pints cost an equivalent to the price of a pub pint?

[crankedup]

Driver101 said:

crankedup said:

Driver101 said:

If MUP pushed people to the pubs that would be a positive in the fact their budget won't buy anywhere near the amount of alcohol.

I suspect it won't make any difference.

Do you mean if supermarket pints cost an equivalent to the price of a pub pint?

Evercross was saying the reports he read didn't take into account the potential of people drinking more in pubs due to MUP.

I don't think 50p per unit is anywhere near enough to push people back to pubs. The average pint is now £3.70 and it'd be £1.14 at MUP at the supermarket for a pint of 4% ABV.

The gap is still too big to push people back to the pub.

Which brings us back to our debate in this and other threads, pubs and clubs need to offer more than cheap beer as a service, which they do.