Alcohol minimum pricing given go ahead in Scotland by Supreme Court

[Aruntraveller]

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

I don't understand your comment about a 'low tolerance' I disagree with some posters over some things. So do you. Have you got a low tolerance over my stance on the EU? Seems to me to be part of the way the board works

 I have already stated earlier on in the thread that I am not sure there is an ideal solution to this problem. MUP can be tried - a raising of tobacco prices along with other measures has paid health dividends, even with contraband ciggies. I see no reason why the same approach wouldn't work with alcohol.

[jakswan]

I don't understand your comment about a 'low tolerance' I disagree with some posters over some things. So do you. Have you got a low tolerance over my stance on the EU? Seems to me to be part of the way the board works

Its the way some of the board works. Disagreement is good, I'm not sure where I stand on MUP, it might work it might not.  However if you disagree and then start labeling those you disagree with as 'despicables' then you seem to be unable to even tolerate those you disagree with.

I have already stated earlier on in the thread that I am not sure there is an ideal solution to this problem. MUP can be tried - a raising of tobacco prices along with other measures has paid health dividends, even with contraband ciggies. I see no reason why the same approach wouldn't work with alcohol.

You see no reason yet I gave you some reasons.

[Aruntraveller]

I didn't label anyone on this thread as despicable. I did label the Tories as despicables on another thread and I see no reason to retract that particular statement.

As to reasons you stated that there might be an increase in illegal booze. Yes there might as there was with ciggies. As I pointed out notwithstanding that illegal trade the effect on tobacco consumption was positive in that fewer people now smoke.

Now, I appreciate that alcohol and nicotine aren't entirely comparable - but I don't see there being that much of a difference if you are trying to persuade people to stop or moderate their behaviour. If you aren't interested in doing that, fine - don't try anything as is Shakers preferred option; or at least he's unsure that there is an option, but at least say so.

[Gordon]

Was interested to see in the Budget yesterday the intention of increasing duty on 'white cider' from 2019 - this is one of the cheap/high alcohol products that the MUP in Scotland is targeted at, so clearly there must be concern about cheap booze elsewhere in rUK too and not just here in Scotland.

[Robbie]

There's plenty of cheap booze on sale down here, the big supermarkets, even second tier ones like Nisa and Costcutter, are always advertising offers.

[Harrowby Hall]

Now, I appreciate that alcohol and nicotine aren't entirely comparable

Indeed.

One significant difference between the supply of alcohol and nicotine is that the conversion of sugars into alcohol is a normal, simple and everyday process - fermentation. Not only that but it is an activity which is entirely legal to practise privately. Anyone may make their own beer or wine or cider - they are just not allowed to sell it. (Concentrating the original alcohol content by distillation, however, is not legal.)

It is therefore possible for people to make their own alcoholic drinks. Making their own tobacco-based smoking products is rather more difficult.

[Nearly Sane]

And Minimum Unit Pricing comes into effect today. Be interested to see what happens but needs to be part of an overall strategy in alcohol.

[SteveH]

Why can't the do-gooders just give people accurate information about the health pros and cons, and then leave adults to make their own decisions? Ditto tobacco.

[Nearly Sane]

Why can't the do-gooders just give people accurate information about the health pros and cons, and then leave adults to make their own decisions? Ditto tobacco.

And drugs as well?

[jeremyp]

Why can't the do-gooders just give people accurate information about the health pros and cons, and then leave adults to make their own decisions? Ditto tobacco.

Because adults often make bad decisions.

I'm not sure that is necessarily a good reason but it is a reason.

[SteveH]

Because adults often make bad decisions.

I'm not sure that is necessarily a good reason but it is a reason.

It's a very bad reason. Adults - mentally competent ones, anyway - have the right to make bad decisions. NS - drugs other than alcohol and tobacco are already illegal. Cannabis shouldn't be, but the others probably should. I think you are committing the "slippery slope" fallacy.

[jeremyp]

It's a very bad reason. Adults - mentally competent ones, anyway - have the right to make bad decisions.

The trouble is that your decisions have consequences for other people too. For example, if cheap booze leads you to alcoholism, your family will suffer.

[SteveH]

The trouble is that your decisions have consequences for other people too. For example, if cheap booze leads you to alcoholism, your family will suffer.

That's why people should be given accurate information. Anyway, if you're an alcoholic, booze being more expensive isn't going to stop you.

[Nearly Sane]

Way too early to tell if any good effect but interesting nonetheless


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48675313

[jeremyp]

if you're an alcoholic, booze being more expensive isn't going to stop you.

I would dispute that.

If alcohol is more expensive, it reduces the number of people who will become alcoholics in the first place.

Furthermore, it makes it harder for alcoholics to obtain alcohol and at the margins there will be some for whom it is the tipping point for getting help.

[Walter]

That's why people should be given accurate information. Anyway, if you're an alcoholic, booze being more expensive isn't going to stop you.

Steve H , I agree with you

[jeremyp]

Steve H , I agree with you

On which part? I think he's dead wrong about the price.