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?
If the aim is to improve health and well-being then the notion that policies which encourage people to die young and reduce demands on resources are clearly mutually exclusive then I support health and well-being.
I think legislation that both improves public health and reduces demands on health services is generally a good thing, and cost is certainly a factor if a reduction in alcohol admissions in Scottish hospitals due to alcohol relating issues can be achieved, since this helps free resources for other health-care conditions. For the same reason I support measures to lower the profile of tobacco products in an effort stop people killing themselves (and others) by smoking, such as display restrictions and to prevent people smoking in cars containing children.
This is a health improvement measure that is specific to Scotland - so unless you plan to spend time here buying cheap booze it won't affect you: it won't affect me and I live here.