Alcohol minimum pricing given go ahead in Scotland by Supreme Court

[Walter]

I assume you'll be telling this to who are
already. None of this airy fairy wait and see nonsense for these chaps.

I prefer mine from a Shaker, not stirred . thanks 

[jeremyp]

I assume you'll be telling this to who are
already. None of this airy fairy wait and see nonsense for these chaps.

Yes. I hope their demands are ignored in the short term. I think a minimum price will almost certainly work to some extent, but since somebody is already trying it out, it would be sensible to see how it goes before committing to the same thing.

[Gordon]

Because it will happen here.

The slope isn't tremendously slippery: it's been floated before. That Scotland has done it will be a shot in the arm to those who want to see it in England and Wales. Scotland will be the example they point at when trying to foist it upon the populace.

You know - like this ... twenty-four hours ago: http://tinyurl.com/ybbyrhzz

This is clearly a local measure though using powers held by Holyrood and has no impact on Westminster - and it does have support here since, I'd imagine, few Scots are blind to the problems of alcohol abuse in Scotland over decades. The 'drunken Scot' is a known stereotype, such as Will Fyffe's 'when I have a couple of drinks on a Saturday Glasgow belongs to me' - but the reality really isn't quite as jolly (especially of you've experience of Glasgow on a Saturday night).
 

[jakswan]

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.

OK think I agree, surely a more equitable solution would have been to raise all alcohol prices not just the cheap end of the market.

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.

If it successful it will be adopted by other parts of the rUK, the nanny Labour State of Wales a prime candidate!

I'm not against, if it works

[Nearly Sane]

Wanted by whom?

Who will be asked and how?It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut - too much (of yet another) state intrusion into the rights of the individual compared to the size of the problem it purports to address.

So against the studies that indicate lives would be saved your argument is clichè and assertion.

[Walter]

So against the studies that indicate lives would be saved your argument is clichè and assertion.

you do realise those studies are highly suspect don't you?

[Gordon]

OK think I agree, surely a more equitable solution would have been to raise all alcohol prices not just the cheap end of the market.

Holyrood don't have that power though, since duty rates are reserved to Westminster. So they have used the powers they do have to target an aspect of alcohol policy on the basis of work that suggest this may be part of an effective strategy to reduce alcohol abuse. It will be interesting to see what effects the policy has.

If it successful it will be adopted by other parts of the rUK, the nanny Labour State of Wales a prime candidate!

That is surely up to them, and I'd imagine they'd wait to see the impact in Scotland first.

I'm not against, if it works

If it is effective then it is at least an option.

[Shaker]

So against the studies that indicate lives would be saved your argument is clichè and assertion.

Only - predictably - according to you.

Feel free to ignore the question about who this would be wanted by (other than the usual nannying suspects of course) and how their opinion would be canvassed, though.

[Gordon]

you do realise those studies are highly suspect don't you?

That depends on the provenance of the study.

[Walter]

That depends on the provenance of the study.

yes it does

[Nearly Sane]

Only - predictably - according to you.

Feel free to ignore the question about who this would be wanted by (other than the usual nannying suspects of course) and how their opinion would be canvassed, though.

Didn't ignore it, just misrepresented what was said.


However  'sledgehammer to crack a nut' is a cliché


And 'too much (of yet another) state intrusion into the rights of the individual compared to the size of the problem it purports to address.' Is assertion

[Shaker]

However  'sledgehammer to crack a nut' is a cliché

Then replace the offending idiom with another phrase less distressing to your sensibilities: the point will still stand.

And 'too much (of yet another) state intrusion into the rights of the individual compared to the size of the problem it purports to address.' Is assertion

Yes, and I've just asserted it.

[Nearly Sane]

Then replace the offending idiom with another phrase less distressing to your sensibilities: the point will still stand.Yes, and I've just asserted it.

Didn't say it was offending or distressing, just as cliché and therefore useless as an argument, so it isn't a point, and you have admitted the assertion.

To try and help you out of this little loop you have got stuck in, what, if any, measures would you take to deal with the problem of alcohol related deaths and illness

[Shaker]

Didn't say it was offending or distressing, just as cliché and therefore useless as an argument, so it isn't a point, and you have admitted the assertion.

So a cliché equals an invalid argument now does it? Since when?

To try and help you out of this little loop you have got stuck in, what, if any, measures would you take to deal with the problem of alcohol related deaths and illness

I wouldn't.

[Walter]

Didn't say it was offending or distressing, just as cliché and therefore useless as an argument, so it isn't a point, and you have admitted the assertion.

To try and help you out of this little loop you have got stuck in, what, if any, measures would you take to deal with the problem of alcohol related deaths and illness

Tell you what my problem is ; WHY DO YOU FREEKIN CARE ?

[Nearly Sane]

So a cliché equals an invalid argument now does it? Since when?
I wouldn't.

No, not an invalid argument just not an argument .   

And given you think that people dying in pain destroying themselves and families is not worth you doing anything then I will leave you to that 'enlightened' position.   

[Nearly Sane]

Tell you what my problem is ; WHY DO YOU FREEKIN CARE ?

Empathy.

[Walter]

Empathy.

I too have empathy , I use it , make an evaluation , then decide what to do with it . You should try it then you wont waste any 

[Shaker]

Empathy.

Some sort of American rapper fellow I believe.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Not, I suspect and fully expect, for all that long.

Of course not, soon England will be targeted region by region, I expect in the near future to see some patronising gonk on BBC London whining about "the number of alcohol related deaths in "London" ", as if those in our green and pleasant borough give a fart about what people miles away on the other side of the Thames may or may get up to.

[Gordon]

Update on plans for MUP introduction here in Scotland: looks like May next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42066394

[Aruntraveller]

Really surprised at some of the views on here.

Tobacco as has been established is bad for you. Various measures including price increases (although admittedly there were other motives in play for this) have been put into place to persuade people to change their habits.

Alcohol in large quantities is also bad for you. That we should adopt the same approach to help people manage their health seems entirely consistent and sensible to me.

I'm not sure I see or even think there are counter arguments to this - other than 'you are entirely free to mess up your own life to the detriment of others'. Which simply seems an irresponsible approach.

[Nearly Sane]

Really surprised at some of the views on here.

Tobacco as has been established is bad for you. Various measures including price increases (although admittedly there were other motives in play for this) have been put into place to persuade people to change their habits.

Alcohol in large quantities is also bad for you. That we should adopt the same approach to help people manage their health seems entirely consistent and sensible to me.

I'm not sure I see or even think there are counter arguments to this - other than 'you are entirely free to mess up your own life to the detriment of others'. Which simply seems an irresponsible approach.

Cos anyone who drinks too much is 'scum'! They and their parents/partners/children deserve it for being associated with 'scum'! Some of them might even be London 'scum'.

[Anchorman]

Really surprised at some of the views on here.

Tobacco as has been established is bad for you. Various measures including price increases (although admittedly there were other motives in play for this) have been put into place to persuade people to change their habits.

Alcohol in large quantities is also bad for you. That we should adopt the same approach to help people manage their health seems entirely consistent and sensible to me.

I'm not sure I see or even think there are counter arguments to this - other than 'you are entirely free to mess up your own life to the detriment of others'. Which simply seems an irresponsible approach.

Wot TV said.
Incidentally, it is the view, not only of the Scots Government, but og the Scots Greens, Scots Lib Dems, Scots Labour, Scots TUC, Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, etc, etc, etc.
This move is not controversial in Scotland....even some of the Tories up here are in favour.

[Shaker]

Really surprised at some of the views on here.

Tobacco as has been established is bad for you. Various measures including price increases (although admittedly there were other motives in play for this) have been put into place to persuade people to change their habits.

Alcohol in large quantities is also bad for you. That we should adopt the same approach to help people manage their health seems entirely consistent and sensible to me.

I'm not sure I see or even think there are counter arguments to this - other than 'you are entirely free to mess up your own life to the detriment of others'. Which simply seems an irresponsible approach.

Happy to be in the ranks of the irresponsible, as ever - it's my natural home.

As someone who read On Liberty at an impressionable age and never recovered my counter-argument comes from John Stuart Mill (he of the aforementioned book) and St Francis of Zappa - not natural bedfellows at first sight but two people who vocally expressed the same idea: namely, that people own themselves and that in the absence of some very serious contraindication (florid psychosis or something of the sort) people can and should be left alone to do whatever they wish according to their own lights.

The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, [which is] that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign [...] The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest..