Alcohol minimum pricing given go ahead in Scotland by Supreme Court

[Walter]

By your own words...

Have you been drinking?
if yes....... stop
if no.........start

flippin eck

[Nearly Sane]

Have you been drinking?
if yes....... stop
if no.........start

flippin eck

The blend Shakeswalter is a bit dull. It needs more flavour and thought.

[Walter]

The blend Shakeswalter is a bit dull. It needs more flavour and thought.

its actually going to be called Glen Shalter : the taste of the privileged few

get it up yaes !

[jeremyp]

So why am I supposed to be interested in the contents of #33?

OK, I give up. Why are you supposed to bet interested in the contents of #33.

I mean, you clearly haven't read it because you have now accused it of saying two things that it does not say. There's no reason at all you should be interested in something you haven't read.

On the other hand, since you havre now put up two wholly irrelevant answers to it, I'm quite inclined to believe you can't refute it.

[Shaker]

OK, I give up. Why are you supposed to bet interested in the contents of #33.

I mean, you clearly haven't read it because you have now accused it of saying two things that it does not say. There's no reason at all you should be interested in something you haven't read.

On the other hand, since you havre now put up two wholly irrelevant answers to it, I'm quite inclined to believe you can't refute it.

You posted #33 (viz.: "It doesn't matter how much you charge for alcohol, if you charge more than 0p, you are penalising some responsible drinker who doesn't have the necessary money") for some reason best known to yourself, presumably? Or perhaps not.

[jakswan]

A tad narrow in taking a single criterion. I see it rather than a single policy, even one backed up by some studies, as a part of an attempt to deal with a complex issue as a part of an overall strategy. At least, that's how it should be approached, imo.

So if it does not reduce consumption then by what measure is it a success?

What is the mechanism for keeping this price low? Is a tax imposed or is it that retailers have to charge a minimum? If the latter quite lucrative for retailers removes competitive pricing.

[jakswan]

This policy, as opposed to a general duty increase, is targeted at low cost/high alcohol products which, as I understand it, are most associated with anti-social and health consequences, which are issues here. In Scotland it is the case already that alcohol can't be sold before 10am, which was another measure intended to curb the impulse purchase of cheap booze.

Do you follow the evidence to bring those consequences about? If so you must support making weed legal?

[Gordon]

Do you follow the evidence to bring those consequences about? If so you must support making weed legal?

Was just reading a summary of the evidence on the MUP as regards Scotland: the Sheffield University study suggests it will reduce annual hospital admissions annually by 2,000 and there would 120 fewer deaths annually. There were 1265 alcohol related deaths in Scotland last year, which is up 10% on the previous year, and it is estimated alcohol abuse costs £3.5 billion a year in Scotland - and of course this measure just affects Scotland.

I've no idea about legalising cannabis in Scotland since I don't know what the details of a case for this that would be comparable to the case for MUP pricing for alcohol in Scotland - for example the costs and consequences of cannabis abuse in Scotland.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Except the Sheffield studies inducate it will have an effect.
Should govts ignore studies for personal anecdotes?

I make up my own mind as to whether I drink or not, puritans can go kiss my boot (cos I don't want their serpentine mouths anywhere near my bottom)

[Humph Warden Bennett]

True, it may not help those already addicted, but as with the rise in cigarette prices, it will hopefully prevent young people from becoming addicted at an age when they are naive enough to join in drinking games etc thinking it won't harm them. So it's a good thing for the next generation.

In the summer of 1975, my friends and I spend many happy afternoons on Tugmutton Common, Locks Bottom, Kent, drinking cider that we had purchased from the local Safeways. Nobody cared provided that we behaved ourselves, and disposed of the bottles carefully. We were fifteen.

I am so glad that I am not a teenager today , being considered by puritan killjoys to be kids who are just out of diapers.

[Shaker]

I make up my own mind as to whether I drink or not, puritans can go kiss my boot (cos I don't want their serpentine mouths anywhere near my bottom)

I'll raise one to that.

In the summer of 1975, my friends and I spend many happy afternoons on Tugmutton Common, Locks Bottom, Kent, drinking cider that we had purchased from the local Safeways. Nobody cared provided that we behaved ourselves, and disposed of the bottles carefully. We were fifteen.

I am so glad that I am not a teenager today , being considered by puritan killjoys to be kids who are just out of diapers.

And a second one to that.

[floo]

My children would have been grounded for a very long time if they had been found consuming  alcohol when they were young.

[Sebastian Toe]

My children would have been grounded for a very long time if they had been found consuming  alcohol when they were young.

Lucky that you didn't catch them then!

[Shaker]

My children would have been grounded for a very long time if they had been found consuming  alcohol when they were young.

I'm sure they had far more sense than that.

To let you find out, I mean.

[floo]

Lucky that you didn't catch them then!

We knew what they were up to. The eldest girl dislikes the taste of alcohol, which is a bit awkward as she is a vicar, the other two girls drink in strict moderation, as do my husband and I.

[Shaker]

Everything in moderation. Especially moderation.

[Nearly Sane]

So if it does not reduce consumption then by what measure is it a success?

What is the mechanism for keeping this price low? Is a tax imposed or is it that retailers have to charge a minimum? If the latter quite lucrative for retailers removes competitive pricing.

Deaths due to alcohol, hospital stays due to alcohol? You know the things that are driving the idea.


I presume you mean high rather than low? It isn't a tax, excise duty isn't devolved and yes, the money will go the retailers,though if there is a significant reduction as the Sheffield studies have indicated, then it is questionable how much. The idea is that it is a problem where competitive pricing of certain drinks have contributed to the problem.

[jeremyp]

You posted #33 (viz.: "It doesn't matter how much you charge for alcohol, if you charge more than 0p, you are penalising some responsible drinker who doesn't have the necessary money") for some reason best known to yourself, presumably? Or perhaps not.

No I posted it because as a rebuttal to your previous post where you whined that responsible drinkers were being penalised. Pretending it says things it doesn't or says nothing at all - which seems to be your new tactic - just makes it look like you can't refute it.

[Shaker]

No I posted it because as a rebuttal to your previous post where you whined that responsible drinkers were being penalised. Pretending it says things it doesn't or says nothing at all - which seems to be your new tactic - just makes it look like you can't refute it.

Well you didn't refute my statement that minimum pricing penalises the vast majority of responsible drinkers for the actions of a tiny minority of irresponsible ones, did you? All we got was some irrelevant fanny about alcohol not being given away free, which unfortunately we were already aware of.

[jeremyp]

Well you didn't refute my statement that minimum pricing penalises the vast majority of responsible drinkers for the actions of a tiny minority of irresponsible ones,

Any price level penalises the responsible drinkers that can't afford alcohol at that price point.

Any government imposed price increase (e.g. VAT) penalises the responsible users of the product.

Your point was technically correct, but you failed to make a case for why anybody should care.

[Walter]

Any price level penalises the responsible drinkers that can't afford alcohol at that price point.

Any government imposed price increase (e.g. VAT) penalises the responsible users of the product.

Your point was technically correct, but you failed to make a case for why anybody should care.

jesus !

didn't realise it was an exam and you were marking it . I would have put more jokes into my posts otherwise

[Nearly Sane]

In the summer of 1975, my friends and I spend many happy afternoons on Tugmutton Common, Locks Bottom, Kent, drinking cider that we had purchased from the local Safeways. Nobody cared provided that we behaved ourselves, and disposed of the bottles carefully. We were fifteen.

I am so glad that I am not a teenager today , being considered by puritan killjoys to be kids who are just out of diapers.

Meanwhile as you tout your idyllic Cider with Humph days, people and families suffer in pain and degradation.  That many have a good relationship with alcohol is a truism but it ignores the real social issues. I don't see that there is a huge loss to social life here, given that it would still be as cheap to drink cider as it was when you were growing up. Is it a whole solution, no. Could it form part of one? Perhaps - at least that is what the studies indicate.

[floo]

What I don't get is why anyone would wish to drink so much they are not in control of their actions, so they get into risky situations? They are likely to have an unpleasant headache the next day, which means they are unable to function efficiently. Of course the damage they do to their liver if they drink too much on a regular basis, is likely to have life threatening consequences. My middle daughter has worked as a street pastor rescuing, usually girls, who have too much to drink and have put their lives in danger.

[jakswan]

Was just reading a summary of the evidence on the MUP as regards Scotland: the Sheffield University study suggests it will reduce annual hospital admissions annually by 2,000 and there would 120 fewer deaths annually. There were 1265 alcohol related deaths in Scotland last year, which is up 10% on the previous year, and it is estimated alcohol abuse costs £3.5 billion a year in Scotland - and of course this measure just affects Scotland.

120 deaths fewer deaths a year in the short term, eventually they will all die regardless.

I think people living longer and having a healthier lifestyle is enough reason to do things. If you introduce cost into the equation then you have to follow that argument where it may lead you, e.g. it might actually be cheaper to get people back on the fags, they die younger, often of a cheap heart attack.

I've no idea about legalising cannabis in Scotland since I don't know what the details of a case for this that would be comparable to the case for MUP pricing for alcohol in Scotland - for example the costs and consequences of cannabis abuse in Scotland.

So you would support this if the evidence lead that way?

[Nearly Sane]

120 deaths fewer deaths a year in the short term, eventually they will all die regardless.

I think people living longer and having a healthier lifestyle is enough reason to do things. If you introduce cost into the equation then you have to follow that argument where it may lead you, e.g. it might actually be cheaper to get people back on the fags, they die younger, often of a cheap heart attack.

So you would support this if the evidence lead that way?

Really not sure where you get the idea that cost questions lead a particular way without an objective. I would say you were misrepresenting the argument but it doesn't read as if it has anything to do with the idea of using cost to affect behaviour. It feels like you've missed out a couple of steps here in what you were trying to say.