Alcohol minimum pricing given go ahead in Scotland by Supreme Court

[Nearly Sane]

Except alcohol is so rarely just about ones own good alone.

[Aruntraveller]

people can and should be left alone to do whatever they wish according to their own lights.

Except that the corollary to that is that they should leave others alone too. And I know it says that in the stuff quoted. Unfortunately some drunk people don't take the time to read things in the way that you do my learned friend.

So in my limited experience they do affect other people. Whether it be harassing people in the streets or getting into cars and driving them, or assaulting staff in ED or mistreating members of their own family.

Sorry Shaker, doesn't hold for me.

[Shaker]

Except alcohol is so rarely just about ones own good alone.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But there's a saying about hard cases, isn't there?

[Shaker]

Except that the corollary to that is that they should leave others alone too. And I know it says that in the stuff quoted. Unfortunately some drunk people don't take the time to read things in the way that you do my learned friend.

So in my limited experience they do affect other people. Whether it be harassing people in the streets or getting into cars and driving them, or assaulting staff in ED or mistreating members of their own family.

These are a minuscule minority of the majority of the population who drink alcohol in some form or other; which brings me back to the opening point that the responsible majority shouldn't be penalised for the actions of an irresponsible minority.

That's even before we get onto the fact - and it is one - that these measures, in targetting lower-priced alcohol, disproportionately affect the poor. Who is this going to hit - somebody buying some super-strength beer or cider that doubles as paint stripper, or somebody laying down in his cellar a 1947 Rivesaltes 1947 Domaine La Sobilane?* This is Gin Lane all over again, essentially.

* £240.00 a pop.

[Nearly Sane]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But there's a saying about hard cases, isn't there?

Which would apply whatever is done. Did you mean to say that you say no MUP as bad law?

[Aruntraveller]

It is not an ideal solution - but I'm not sure there is one of those available. But I think you underestimate the effects alcohol has on the nation as a whole.

It would perhaps be instructive to go into ED on a Friday and Saturday night and at least realise the effect that cheap alcohol has on our health system. From memory over half of admissions on a Friday & Saturday night are due to alcohol poisoning. That doesn't even take into account patients admitted suffering from the long term effects of alcohol consumption - heart, liver, kidney complaints; all of which can have alcohol as a major or contributory cause. Now take a look at ED's running at more than double the capacity they were designed for and tell me what the solution is?

Perhaps we should just turn the conspicuous consumers of alcohol away. After all they chose to do this, and if they truly "do not attempt to deprive others of theirs," (own good) then they should be happy to languish in the gutter from the effects of their own over consumption. At least there would be more capacity to treat other cases.

[Shaker]

It is not an ideal solution - but I'm not sure there is one of those available. But I think you underestimate the effects alcohol has on the nation as a whole.

It would perhaps be instructive to go into ED on a Friday and Saturday night

I have been - many a time, either for myself or with others, the most recent being last Saturday night/Sunday morning.

Perhaps we should just turn the conspicuous consumers of alcohol away. After all they chose to do this, and if they truly "do not attempt to deprive others of theirs," (own good) then they should be happy to languish in the gutter from the effects of their own over consumption. At least there would be more capacity to treat other cases.

Maybe. I don't know what the solution is: only what I think the solution isn't.

[Anchorman]

Weeeeeeel......
There's always the idea of searching vehicles for contraband Buckfast as they cross the border......

[Nearly Sane]

I have been - many a time, either for myself or with others, the most recent being last Saturday night/Sunday morning.
Maybe. I don't know what the solution is: only what I think the solution isn't.

The question is surely what you define as the problem. If one thinks that the abuse of alcohol is a major problem and the deaths and suffering of others that it causes is to be solved, then the Sheffield studies are indicative that thus might form part of a solution.

[Walter]

The question is surely what you define as the problem. If one thinks that the abuse of alcohol is a major problem and the deaths and suffering of others that it causes is to be solved, then the Sheffield studies are indicative that thus might form part of a solution.

I always look for positives in any situation. And as someone who derives pleasure in despising certain members of our population I'm am well catered for with these types, so for me , I don't see a problem

you're welcome 

[Shaker]

The question is surely what you define as the problem. If one thinks that the abuse of alcohol is a major problem and the deaths and suffering of others that it causes is to be solved, then the Sheffield studies are indicative that thus might form part of a solution.

Is there a problem? Yes. Who seriously doubts it.

Is the problem severe enough or on a large enough scale to warrant the sort of measures being proposed? That's where people differ.

Some years ago the government of the day wanted to introduce compulsory national ID cards and their associated database. The reasons behind this were a perpetually moving target: benefit fraud; terrorism; immigration, and a whole lot more. Some of these so-called justifications were shown to be spurious; of the rest, none of the problems were so huge as to justify the massive encroachment of the surveillance society onto the privacy of the individual.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a problem? Yes. Who seriously doubts it.

Is the problem severe enough or on a large enough scale to warrant the sort of measures being proposed? That's where people differ.

Some years ago the government of the day wanted to introduce compulsory national ID cards and their associated database. The reasons behind this were a perpetually moving target: benefit fraud; terrorism; immigration, and a whole lot more. Some of these so-called justifications were shown to be spurious; of the rest, none of the problems were so huge as to justify the massive encroachment of the surveillance society onto the privacy of the individual.

Yes because having a MUP is like identity cards. Were there studies about  identity cards that indicated lives might be saved?

[Shaker]

Yes because having a MUP is like identity cards.

It's an analogy. If you don't know what an analogy is, it's like ...

Were there studies about  identity cards that indicated lives might be saved?

No idea. Given that one of the reasons touted was to prevent acts of terrorism, possibly.

[Gordon]

I'm struggling to see why some see a slippery slope problem with MUP since it is a health improvement measure that is local to Scotland only, is targeted at a known alcohol abuse problem (cheap but high alcohol content products) here in Scotland, is supported by credible evidence and where it is intended that the legislation with have a 'sunset clause' so that the legislation will automatically expire and if it is to continue it will require further legislation. It is something that Holyrood can do since rates of alcohol duty are reserved to Westminster.

As far as I can see it has general support here in Scotland, as is seen even from the views expressed in this thread by those of us in Scotland. If MUP was to be considered elsewhere in rUK surely this would require similar evidence (of problems with cheap but high alcohol products) and I've no idea if anywhere else in rUK has a similar picture of alcohol abuse or is actively looking at implementing MUP. Even then I'd imagine they would await the outcomes of the what happens once the policy is introduced here.

It seems to me that MUP is comparable to changes in tobacco legislation aimed at both protecting the general public and reducing tobacco consumption as a health improvement measure: for example, the introduction not so many years ago of restrictions on where people can smoke in public, and more recently on the display of tobacco products by shops. I'm not aware of any consensus that these   

[Shaker]

I'm struggling to see why some see a slippery slope problem with MUP since it is a health improvement measure that is local to Scotland only

#87 and #91.

I've no idea if anywhere else in rUK has a similar picture of alcohol abuse or is actively looking at implementing MUP. Even then I'd imagine they would await the outcomes of the what happens once the policy is introduced here.

#98.

[Gordon]

Is there a problem? Yes. Who seriously doubts it.

Is the problem severe enough or on a large enough scale to warrant the sort of measures being proposed? That's where people differ.

Some years ago the government of the day wanted to introduce compulsory national ID cards and their associated database. The reasons behind this were a perpetually moving target: benefit fraud; terrorism; immigration, and a whole lot more. Some of these so-called justifications were shown to be spurious; of the rest, none of the problems were so huge as to justify the massive encroachment of the surveillance society onto the privacy of the individual.

Have to say this sounds like a slippery slope argument to me: MUP is justified as a health improvement measure (as were changes to tobacco legislation) and whatever justifications might be ascribed to identity cards it seems unlikely to include health improvement.

[Shaker]

Have to say this sounds like a slippery slope argument to me

That's #87 again.

[Nearly Sane]

It's an analogy. If you don't know what an analogy is, it's like ...
No idea. Given that one of the reasons touted was to prevent acts of terrorism, possibly.

ah the old it's a valid analigy because I say so argument. It's lovely to see that.


And the second answer would normally be phrased as No.

[Shaker]

the second answer would normally be phrased as No.

It would be if I knew for certain that the answer to the question "Were there studies about  identity cards that indicated lives might be saved?" was "Definitely not." As that's not the case, "I don't know" is the best I can do.

[Gordon]

#87 and #91.
#98.

Even so, surely if rUK were to actually progress this beyond the reaction of some agencies who support what is happening here in Scotland it would need wide political support in order for it to be delivered in England and Wales - and since the previous government legislated to exclude Scottish MPs from legislation that had no impact on Scotland then I'm imagine that MUP would be a local matter for England and Wales.

Have to say though that the Scottish government are pursuing a policy that has electoral support here and using policies that they can implement, which is what devolution is supposed to be for (albeit some of us would like to go further). If it is a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem I'm struggling to see that should be an issue in rUK unless; a) they have a similar problem, and b) there is political support to tackle it via MUP.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be if I knew for certain that the answer to the question "Were there studies about  identity cards that indicated lives might be saved?" was "Definitely not." As that's not the case, "I don't know" is the best I can do.

Fair enough - so the situations are not comparable.

[Shaker]

Fair enough - so the situations are not comparable.

Ah, the old "It's not a valid analogy because I say it isn't."

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, the old "It's not a valid analogy because I say it isn't."

I was just taking your position that they aren't comparable in a relevant fashion.

[Walter]

I'm struggling to see why some see a slippery slope problem with MUP since it is a health improvement measure that is local to Scotland only, is targeted at a known alcohol abuse problem (cheap but high alcohol content products) here in Scotland, is supported by credible evidence and where it is intended that the legislation with have a 'sunset clause' so that the legislation will automatically expire and if it is to continue it will require further legislation. It is something that Holyrood can do since rates of alcohol duty are reserved to Westminster.

As far as I can see it has general support here in Scotland, as is seen even from the views expressed in this thread by those of us in Scotland. If MUP was to be considered elsewhere in rUK surely this would require similar evidence (of problems with cheap but high alcohol products) and I've no idea if anywhere else in rUK has a similar picture of alcohol abuse or is actively looking at implementing MUP. Even then I'd imagine they would await the outcomes of the what happens once the policy is introduced here.

It seems to me that MUP is comparable to changes in tobacco legislation aimed at both protecting the general public and reducing tobacco consumption as a health improvement measure: for example, the introduction not so many years ago of restrictions on where people can smoke in public, and more recently on the display of tobacco products by shops. I'm not aware of any consensus that these   

I would suggest that the most simple solutions are always the most effective

If a ginger haired person with a Scottish accent tried to buy booze in an offy ; DON'T SERVE 'EM 

[jakswan]

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 agree but there are limits, why not just ban alcohol altogether?

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.

Really?

There have been studies suggesting that the effect of this will be X, however that is a study, introduced on wider scale you might have effects Y  and Z, e.g. black market sales increase.

How many people buy 70cl bottles @ £11 it will become £14 in Scotland, I would pay be paying more tax a year in Scotland, these things start to add up.

Its targeted at the cheap end of the market for very heavy drinkers, addicts I suppose, they might have families, if money runs out then other family members could suffer.

Some will be ideologically opposed to it on the basis of the state should not get involved in managing ones health to this degree and individuals should be free to take the decisions they make.

I understand your low tolerance for other opinions but in a democracy you need to account for it.

If it works I'll be writing to local AM to get it introduced in Wales if it doesn't, the opposite.