Minimum alcohol pricing Scotland.



mackem35 said:
"Inside Out" tonight on BBC1, mentioned on Look North, £4 for a bottle of cider in England, £11.25 in Scotland when minimum pricing comes in.

Interesting what Morrisons at Berwick will be like - vans full of Rab C. lookalikes. Will need a proper border crossing.
Click to expand...

How much would my morning can of special x be at 9%

Currently a pund
 
What the fuck? I honestly think booze is one of those things were if your drinking the really hard stuff at drain on society levels you're probably willing to nick it if you can't afford it.
 
I can see the reason for it but I'm not a fan. I've read on here that it's only for 6 years, @Frijj will be better than me at knowing about stats and the likes but surely 6 years won't be long enough to give meaningful data about whether it is being effective in reducing admissions to hospital since it can take years for alcohol to affect you?

Equally, whilst I'm in favour of preventing the frosty jack type drinks that exist solely to get people wankered, I think it's a shame that the minimum pricing will naturally make other drinks they aren't affected put their prices up. They'll want to maintain the price difference between their product and the cheap shite, so everyone will pay more just for a few cans
 
Frijj said:
Depends what they’re drinking. Middle income doesn’t necessarily mean they’re drinking middle-priced drinks.

I say middle income because alcoholic liver disease (or at least dying from it) is traditionally a poor person’s disease but mortality from liver disease as I understand it is rising amongst middle income people.
Click to expand...
I read a study about this a while back, can't remember where. It was something to do with drinks being so variable and tasty nowadays people with more income are open to drinking every night as opposed to the occasional treat on a weekend.

My family are working/lower class and if there's one lesson in life I've learned from watching all of them is that there is absolutely no need to be drinking on a school night. Just leads to health problems, depression and aggro.
 
Frijj said:
If I could answer that I’d be earning about four times what I do now.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with basing it on price. Similar to the congestion charge in London, it was never intended to make everybody drive less in London, only to stop a certain amount of people.
Minimum pricing at 50p per unit wouldn't have an impact as I mainly drink in pubs,
£1 a unit would.
Problem drinkers are a concern, but this proposal will only punish the poor.
 
Qwerty said:
That's the problem with basing it on price. Similar to the congestion charge in London, it was never intended to make everybody drive less in London, only to stop a certain amount of people.
Minimum pricing at 50p per unit wouldn't have an impact as I mainly drink in pubs,
£1 a unit would.
Problem drinkers are a concern, but this proposal will only punish the poor.
Click to expand...

By putting it into terms like 'punishing the poor' it makes it sound like the government are wanting to have to do this. I'm sure they're not.

Unfortunately, and this is demonstrable fact, I posted the chart earlier, it's poor people who have poor health outcomes from booze. Poor people should drink less, simple as. They're the ones ending up in hospital at a greater rate, through liver disease, through alcohol-related fights, through alcohol poisoning etc.

Not to say middle or higher income drinkers aren't either, but low income people are doing so at a far higher rate.

Guinness Guzzler said:
I can see the reason for it but I'm not a fan. I've read on here that it's only for 6 years, @Frijj will be better than me at knowing about stats and the likes but surely 6 years won't be long enough to give meaningful data about whether it is being effective in reducing admissions to hospital since it can take years for alcohol to affect you?

Equally, whilst I'm in favour of preventing the frosty jack type drinks that exist solely to get people wankered, I think it's a shame that the minimum pricing will naturally make other drinks they aren't affected put their prices up. They'll want to maintain the price difference between their product and the cheap shite, so everyone will pay more just for a few cans
Click to expand...

Depends what people are being admitted for. Anything that arises sharply will be seen quickly. They'll be looking more at reduced consumption, quit rates in substance misuse services, A&E attendances through acute alcohol toxicity, drink driving, etc. Studies elsewhere have found benefits and reduced costs to society but whether they can be replicated in Scotland remains to be seen.

I hope so, but I fear if this fails it'll be seen as a victory for drinkers, when drinkers are drinking themselves to death and it is everyone else who picks up the tab.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
By putting it into terms like 'punishing the poor' it makes it sound like the government are wanting to have to do this. I'm sure they're not.

Unfortunately, and this is demonstrable fact, I posted the chart earlier, it's poor people who have poor health outcomes from booze. Poor people should drink less, simple as. They're the ones ending up in hospital at a greater rate, through liver disease, through alcohol-related fights, through alcohol poisoning etc.

Not to say middle or higher income drinkers aren't either, but low income people are doing so at a far higher rate.



Depends what people are being admitted for. Anything that arises sharply will be seen quickly. They'll be looking more at reduced consumption, quit rates in substance misuse services, A&E attendances through acute alcohol toxicity, drink driving, etc. Studies elsewhere have found benefits and reduced costs to society but whether they can be replicated in Scotland remains to be seen.

I hope so, but I fear if this fails it'll be seen as a victory for drinkers, when drinkers are drinking themselves to death and it is everyone else who picks up the tab.
Click to expand...

Don't want to sound like John Lennon here but I just wish more could be done to tackle the reasons why (some) poor people keep drinking themselves to death, rather than simply trying to ensure that they can't afford to do so and can instead endure their lives without the alcohol to numb it
 
Frijj said:
By putting it into terms like 'punishing the poor' it makes it sound like the government are wanting to have to do this. I'm sure they're not.

Unfortunately, and this is demonstrable fact, I posted the chart earlier, it's poor people who have poor health outcomes from booze. Poor people should drink less, simple as. They're the ones ending up in hospital at a greater rate, through liver disease, through alcohol-related fights, through alcohol poisoning etc.

Not to say middle or higher income drinkers aren't either, but low income people are doing so at a far higher rate.



Depends what people are being admitted for. Anything that arises sharply will be seen quickly. They'll be looking more at reduced consumption, quit rates in substance misuse services, A&E attendances through acute alcohol toxicity, drink driving, etc. Studies elsewhere have found benefits and reduced costs to society but whether they can be replicated in Scotland remains to be seen.

I hope so, but I fear if this fails it'll be seen as a victory for drinkers, when drinkers are drinking themselves to death and it is everyone else who picks up the tab.
Click to expand...

What's the point of charging them more for cheap booze if we're gonna give them cheaper energy. Surely what they save on fuel they'll spend on booze.
 

Back
Top