Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 15, 2017, 04:40:31 PM
-
Good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41981909
-
Good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41981909
Quick check.
Does it affect the price of my favourite tipples?
No.
Good.
-
"The aim is to hit consumption of strong alcohol which is sold at low prices."
It will be measured a success / failure on that basis?
-
Good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41981909
Hopefully the rest of the UK will do the same.
-
"The aim is to hit consumption of strong alcohol which is sold at low prices."
It will be measured a success / failure on that basis?
It will, according to the proposed legislation be based on several factors. Proven reduction of related deaths/health issues for example.
-
"The aim is to hit consumption of strong alcohol which is sold at low prices."
It will be measured a success / failure on that basis?
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.
-
Hopefully the rest of the UK will do the same.
Why?
Problem drinkers are a minority of the set of all drinkers (72% of the population, IIRC) so minimum pricing financially penalises the responsible-drinking majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority. That's probably your definition of a just and fair move; it isn't mine.
What it is is state-sanctioned intrusion into an individual's choice of pleasures.
-
Why?
Problem drinkers are a minority of the set of all drinkers (72% of the population, IIRC) so minimum pricing financially penalises the responsible-drinking majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority. That's probably your definition of a just and fair move; it isn't mine.
What it is is state-sanctioned intrusion into an individual's choice of pleasures.
Because the level set is in line with historic costs and the high alcohol unit low price model is a deliberate attempt by capitalism to prey on those who are desperate, or young.
-
Why?
Problem drinkers are a minority of the set of all drinkers (72% of the population, IIRC) so minimum pricing financially penalises the responsible-drinking majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority. That's probably your definition of a just and fair move; it isn't mine.
What it is is state-sanctioned intrusion into an individual's choice of pleasures.
too right ! well said
-
Because the level set is in line with historic costs and the high alcohol unit low price model is a deliberate attempt by capitalism to prey on those who are desperate, or young.
I couldn't give a fuck about them . I've seen them late at night in A&E they are scum
-
Those who are addicted to booze will continue to find it, one way or another.
The stuff I drink costs more than the minumum anyway, so NO it will not affect me.
-
Those who are addicted to booze will continue to find it, one way or another.
The stuff I drink costs more than the minumum anyway, so NO it will not affect me.
Except the Sheffield studies inducate it will have an effect.
Should govts ignore studies for personal anecdotes?
-
I couldn't give a fuck about them . I've seen them late at night in A&E they are scum
And if they have kids you want to punish children. Loverly!
-
Those who are addicted to booze will continue to find it, one way or another.
The stuff I drink costs more than the minumum anyway, so NO it will not affect me.
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.
-
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.
Looking at the beer and wine in our fridge right now the cost will be unchanged (if 50p per unit is the figure used) since it already costs more than that, and although I can't stand cider it looks as if the cider brands that are comparable in price to the likes of cans/bottles of, say, Guinness, Sol or Stella etc are already more expensive than what the minimum unit price would be based on alcohol content.
There is a problem here in Scotland with cheap booze and its various consequences and that is what this policy is about - I support it since I think it will, over time, improve matters where I live.
-
Why?
Problem drinkers are a minority of the set of all drinkers (72% of the population, IIRC) so minimum pricing financially penalises the responsible-drinking majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority. That's probably your definition of a just and fair move; it isn't mine.
What it is is state-sanctioned intrusion into an individual's choice of pleasures.
So many kids are drinking these days because the price of alcohol is too low.
-
Good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41981909
Definately.
-
So many kids are drinking these days because the price of alcohol is too low.
Most indications are that drinking amongst the young is down, and as someone who vaguely remembers being young, it wasn't the price that led me to drink. That said if some drink is signifucantly cheaper, it might lead me to buy that.
-
And if they have kids you want to punish children. Loverly!
I am not responsible for their irresponsibility (see what I did there?) and their kids will be tear arsing and terrorising old folk round the shit hole of a shopping centre by the time they're 5 anyway , scum already ! see you Jimmy?
-
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.
Looking at the beer and wine in our fridge right now the cost will be unchanged (if 50p per unit is the figure used) since it already costs more than that, and although I can't stand cider it looks as if the cider brands that are comparable in price to the likes of cans/bottles of, say, Guinness, Sol or Stella etc are already more expensive than what the minimum unit price would be based on alcohol content.
There is a problem here in Scotland with cheap booze and its various consequences and that is what this policy is about - I support it since I think it will, over time, improve matters where I live.
Gordon, move . Problem solved ;)
-
I am not responsible for their irresponsibility (see what I did there?) and their kids will be tear arsing and terrorising old folk round the shit hole of a shopping centre by the time they're 5 anyway , scum already ! see you Jimmy?
When your knee jerks that much all the time, is it problematic for the hip surgery?
-
Gordon, move . Problem solved ;)
No thanks - this is the place to be for me.
-
When your knee jerks that much all the time, is it problematic for the hip surgery?
too right mate , anyway I'm trying to hide from nursery now , she's got something big and sharp and it looks a bit scary.
she's been on the gin since half past two this afternoon and she takes no prisoners when she's in that state. Mind you , she doesn't mind where you grab hold of her for balance either ;D
-
No thanks - this is the place to be for me.
have you got music to go with that Gordon ? I'm pretty sure I can hear it , or is it in my head?
Il have another one with ya, cheers
-
too right mate , anyway I'm trying to hide from nursery now , she's got something big and sharp and it looks a bit scary.
she's been on the gin since half past two this afternoon and she takes no prisoners when she's in that state. Mind you , she doesn't mind where you grab hold of her for balance either ;D
They need to stop your clicker
-
If this nonsense becomes law in England - it's been knocked back once already but Nanny never gives up - it'll be a crash course in distilling for me and a good many others I suspect.
-
If this nonsense becomes law in England - it's been knocked back once already but Nanny never gives up - it'll be a crash course in distilling for me and a good many others I suspect.
d'ya fancy going into business , I've got a shed ?
-
So have I.
We could be onto something here Wal.
-
They need to stop your clicker
I've hidden it. She'll never think of looking there ! oooph ,too late , now she wants me to give it a good wipe down.
-
If this nonsense becomes law in England - it's been knocked back once already but Nanny never gives up - it'll be a crash course in distilling for me and a good many others I suspect.
Your love of capitalism is almost moving.
-
So have I.
We could be onto something here Wal.
but do you have somebody who wants to know where you are and what you're doing all the time? it could be a deal breaker :o
-
Your love of capitalism is alnost moving.
I too am alnost moved 8)
-
I too am alnost moved 8)
Anyway I'n alnost hone.
-
Why?
Problem drinkers are a minority of the set of all drinkers (72% of the population, IIRC) so minimum pricing financially penalises the responsible-drinking majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority. That's probably your definition of a just and fair move; it isn't mine.
What it is is state-sanctioned intrusion into an individual's choice of pleasures.
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.
-
Anyway I'n alnost hone.
hick........hick :-X
-
Your love of capitalism is almost moving.
No, it's my love of being a fucking adult and drinking what I damned well please, not capitalism.
-
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.
Am I the world's nanny?
No.
-
Those who are addicted to booze will continue to find it, one way or another.
Yeah, this is a fallacy. Some of the more desperate will, but for some others, raising the bar will make a difference.
Furthermore, all the addicts started out as non-addicts for whole getting a drink at any cost was not an issue.
-
No, it's my love of being a fucking adult and drinking what I damned well please, not capitalism.
Keep telling yourself that while you defend a specific capitalist approach.
-
Keep telling yourself that while you defend a specific capitalist approach.
It's you who apparently needs to keep being told as it doesn't seem to be sinking in yet.
-
Am I the world's nanny?
No.
Nobody is asking you to be a nanny.
-
Am I the world's nanny?
No.
Straw, and hypocrisy, if you add some cheese it might be tasty.
-
Nobody is asking you to be a nanny.
So why am I supposed to be interested in the contents of #33?
-
It's you who apparently needs to keep being told as it doesn't seem to be sinking in yet.
What isn't sinking in? Your support for the alcohol manufacturers and their profits?
-
What isn't sinking in? Your support for the alcohol manufacturers and their profits?
I certainly support the manufacturers, and it's my will and pleasure to add my humble contribution to said profits. Problem?
-
Straw, and hypocrisy, if you add some cheese it might be tasty.
when Shakes and I have made our first brew, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY !
-
I certainly support the manufacturers, and it's my will and pleasure to add my humble contribution to said profits. Problem?
By your own words...
-
when Shakes and I have made our first brew, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY !
When we've made the first brew he won't be seeing any.
Although to be fair after the first few glasses probably neither will we.
-
when Shakes and I have made our first brew, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY !
are you calling it Shakeswalter?
-
Shakes will certainly be involved at some stage in the process.
-
By your own words...
Have you been drinking?
if yes....... stop
if no.........start
flippin eck
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
My children would have been grounded for a very long time if they had been found consuming alcohol when they were young.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Everything in moderation. Especially moderation.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is a health improvement measure that is specific to Scotland [...]
Not, I suspect and fully expect, for all that long.
-
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.
laugh-a-minute round your house eh?
-
Not, I suspect and fully expect, for all that long.
Leaving aside the slippery slope worry, that surely depends on the other legislatures in rUK.
From what I can see the Scottish contingent here on R&E support this measure, as do others here in Scotland I've spoken about this. I see it, as do others of my acquaintance here in Scotland, as being essentially a health improvement measure and Scotland does have/has had its issues with alcohol use and abuse.
What the view is elsewhere in rUK I'm not in a position to comment on.
-
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. :o
oh FFS!
-
Leaving aside the slippery slope worry, that surely depends on the other legislatures in rUK.
From what I can see the Scottish contingent here on R&E support this measure, as do others here in Scotland I've spoken about this. I see it, as do others of my acquaintance here in Scotland, as being essentially a health improvement measure and Scotland does have/has had its issues with alcohol use and abuse.
What the view is elsewhere in rUK I'm not in a position to comment on.
If I were to happen upon one of these 'unfortunate' people in a shop doorway late at night I'd probably buy them a bottle of cheep scotch and watch as they drifted off into everlasting oblivion and congratulate myself on my civic duty to rid the town of another piece of scum
you're welcome, Scotland
-
Not, I suspect and fully expect, for all that long.
And so? If that's what is wanted? Tbh I suspect introducing it to a country where the govt can also raise excise duty may be more problematic but were it to reduce alcohol deaths and hospital stays what is the problem with the measure?
-
If I were to happen upon one of these 'unfortunate' people in a shop doorway late at night I'd probably buy them a bottle of cheep scotch and watch as they drifted off into everlasting oblivion and congratulate myself on my civic duty to rid the town of another piece of scum
you're welcome, Scotland
and as you help murder someone's mother, someone's daughter you must feel so proud.
-
and as you help murder someone's mother, someone's daughter you must feel so proud.
fortunately I have no snowflake tendencies , therefore am able to sleep untroubled at night (apart from my new hip of course)
-
If I were to happen upon one of these 'unfortunate' people in a shop doorway late at night I'd probably buy them a bottle of cheep scotch and watch as they drifted off into everlasting oblivion and congratulate myself on my civic duty to rid the town of another piece of scum
you're welcome, Scotland
Why thank you: fortunately some of us here have a different view, and one which doesn't involve making it easy for some people to damage themselves via cheap booze.
Unless you plan to visit Scotland (and buy cheap booze) I can't see why you are remotely troubled by this.
-
fortunately I have no snowflake tendencies , therefore am able to sleep untroubled at night (apart from my new hip of course)
Ah snowflake = not willing to murder someone's daughter.
-
And so? If that's what is wanted?
Wanted by whom?
Who will be asked and how?
Tbh I suspect introducing it to a country where the govt can also raise excise duty may be more problematic but were it to reduce alcohol deaths and hospital stays what is the problem with the measure?
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.
-
Unless you plan to visit Scotland (and buy cheap booze) I can't see why you are remotely troubled by this.
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
-
Why thank you: fortunately some of us here have a different view, and one which doesn't involve making it easy for some people to damage themselves via cheap booze.
Unless you plan to visit Scotland (and buy cheap booze) I can't see why you are remotely troubled by this.
actually over the summer I spent 2 months travelling around Scotland and thoroughly enjoyed the experience , especially mixing with the locals of an evening having a great time in some fantasic pubs , hotels and bars. And to be honest some of them hotels should be charged with robbery with the prices of the beer!
-
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.
Thing is - this measure targets just cheap booze sold in Scotland whereas a rise in alcohol duty would raise prices for all forms of alcohol. In addition, alcohol duty is reserved to Westminster so Holyrood cannot use that approach.
This is very much a local measure to tackle a local issue: surprised that those of you outwith Scotland are even bothered by it.
-
If I were to happen upon one of these 'unfortunate' people in a shop doorway late at night I'd probably buy them a bottle of cheep scotch and watch as they drifted off into everlasting oblivion and congratulate myself on my civic duty to rid the town of another piece of scum
you're welcome, Scotland
Without a moment's thought for what put them in that doorway in the first place.
-
This is very much a local measure to tackle a local issue: surprised that those of you outwith Scotland are even bothered by it.
See #87.
Alcohol Health Alliance UK, which includes the British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs, is drafting a joint letter to the UK government formally urging ministers to reinstate plans for similar measures in England [...] Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, a group of more than 50 medical colleges, health charities and academic bodies, said: “The spotlight should now fall on England, where cheap alcohol is also causing considerable damage.
“Over 23,000 people in England die every year from alcohol-related causes, many of them coming from the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. We urge the Westminster government to act now and introduce the measure in England. A failure to do so will needlessly cost more lives."
That took 24 hours.
-
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
ive got a few quid put by , are you ready to start brewin'
-
Without a moment's thought for what put them in that doorway in the first place.
I am not their keeper
-
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
Well the sensible thing to do would be to wait and see if there is any measurable effect on alcoholism in Scotland. If there is, we should consider a similar law, if not then we shouldn't.
-
ive got a few quid put by , are you ready to start brewin'
It's not necessary yet Wal but it's coming.
-
It's not necessary yet Wal but it's coming.
give me the nod and ill be ready 8)
-
I am not their keeper
No, you've established already you would be their murderer.
-
Well the sensible thing to do would be to wait and see if there is any measurable effect on alcoholism in Scotland. If there is, we should consider a similar law, if not then we shouldn't.
I assume you'll be telling this to
Alcohol Health Alliance UK, which includes the British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs
who are
drafting a joint letter to the UK government formally urging ministers to reinstate plans for similar measures in England
already. None of this airy fairy wait and see nonsense for these chaps.
-
No, you've established already you would be their murderer.
I would not force them to drink it, however I might present it on a shiny silver tray with a lead crystal glass and a bowl of nuts . It would be up to them what they did with it .
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
you do realise those studies are highly suspect don't you?
That depends on the provenance of the study.
-
That depends on the provenance of the study.
yes it does
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
Tell you what my problem is ; WHY DO YOU FREEKIN CARE ?
Empathy.
-
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 8)
-
Empathy.
Some sort of American rapper fellow I believe.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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..
-
Except alcohol is so rarely just about ones own good alone.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Weeeeeeel......
There's always the idea of searching vehicles for contraband Buckfast as they cross the border......
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
Have to say this sounds like a slippery slope argument to me
That's #87 again.
-
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.
-
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.
-
#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.
-
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.
-
Fair enough - so the situations are not comparable.
Ah, the old "It's not a valid analogy because I say it isn't."
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Way too early to tell if any good effect but interesting nonetheless
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48675313
-
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.
-
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
-
Steve H , I agree with you
On which part? I think he's dead wrong about the price.