Minimum alcohol pricing

[Dark Energy]

Totally and utterly pointless! It will not reduce anyones consumption of alcohol, no matter how financially embarrassed they might be.

Although I do recall that in May 1975 the price of Newcastle Brown Ale increased from a handy 20p to a grossly inconvenient 21p, it sticks in my mind not because of the resulting increase in the copper content of my pockets, but because I was having a swift one before catching the train to London to see Led Zeppelin at Earls Court the following day, isn't it strange the things we remember.

 

[stevec67]

Wanna bet? Of course it will reduce alcohol sales.

 

[Dark Energy]

You appear to be rationalising life through simplistic stereotypes.
The issue is harm reduction for problem drinkers.



The MUP figures are fact. The trials info' I link to further up thread is an academic document.



You still haven't understood MUP, as it will have no effect on those fortunate enough to have £100k incomes.



I'm detecting anger. Do you need a drink?

Silly Still, or should that be Still silly? Jez is right on the money here, in everything he says, it will not effect the alcohol consumption of problem drinkers at all, it will have a negative impact upon their health though, for exactly the reasons stated. Ripoff Britain strikes again, the last two packages I've imported from Japan and USA have cost me in excess of 100% in duty tax and "handling charges", I remember feeling sorry for Koreans (the south, it wouldn't affect the slaves in the north) in the 90s as 100% is what they were paying, we just seem to get shafted in every possible way, I must watch V for Vendetta again.

PS No idea why this reply is quoting this particular section I assumed it would be the entire message, I must be drunk, it is nearly 1PM after all.

 

[Mr Cat]

Higher alcohol pricing of the 'cheap' stuff will not stop alcohol purchases. But if the people who were buying this cheap alcohol now buy a little less, well, you will have made a public health impact. A little difference across a lot of people will have a noticeable affect on health (and maybe police, social) services. That has got to be worthwhile.

There is a risk that smuggling will take place, but I am not sure that buying a van load of cheap whatever from Bargain Booze in Carlisle and driving it to Glasgow and selling it from the back of a van to undercut the new pricing is going to profitable.

i reckon a fair few sellers will make some kind of living from it...not sure how many exist already from sales of contraband from places like france etc, but someone somewhere will be checking this out...

 

[Mr Cat]

For the proprietors of Buckfast Abbey, Devon, the poor and alcohol dependent in Glasgow and elsewhwere have been a most lucrative market segment.

Daily Record-


Sobering, isn't it?

any idea how much is cost in scotland..? i saw a bottle ages ago (in a supermarket?) in the northeast england and it was nearly 8 quid..!

 

[Dark Energy]

Wanna bet? Of course it will reduce alcohol sales.

I realise I should have qualified what I said, I was thinking of problem drinkers and meant problem drinkers, I just didn't write problem drinkers, so I've mentioned problem drinkers six times to compensate. Yes it will impact those (and hence sales) who are not problem drinkers, as Jez points out those who can least afford it will have what little pleasure they have in life reduced even further, courtesy of Rip Off Britain Ltd, that is the real crime here, the health of those problem drinkers will be degraded even further which is not good for them or the NHS and therefore the general public who foot the bill, if this becomes law it will be right up there with a delightfully stupid piece of outdated legislation that still requires taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay in the boot.

 

[Still]

According to Brave New World, it's govt policy to want it citizens happy and drugged beyond care. And it makes sense to quietly encourage that whilst finding every excuse to tax the habit AND pretend that you're doing that, and hiking prices, for the good of our health.
Win win, esp if 'we' are so drugged that we cannot work this out.

Occasional rumours that govt is considering the 'wink wink, blind eye' approval of canabis are for exactly those reasons.
If you're smashed, you make less trouble. Only reason they don't go the full Monty and legalise it full stop is because they haven't yet worked out how to save face with the middle class daily mail reading canabis haters, whilst collecting large amounts of tax on it's production.

Occam's razor/conspiracy theory alert!
Do you believe prohibition of alcohol ended to stupefy the population?

Decriminalisation of cannabis has many positives e.g. harm reduction due to curtailing criminal activity, standardising of t'jazz tobacco (no adulterated product), generating tax revenue, keeping users out of the cjs, etc.

Silly Still, or should that be Still silly? Jez is right on the money here, in everything he says, it will not effect the alcohol consumption of problem drinkers at all, it will have a negative impact upon their health though, for exactly the reasons stated.

The evidence is MUP works. Do you have any evidence to the contrary to cite?
It's basic logic that underage drinkers won't be able to buy as many units of alcohol if the cost per unit goes up.

I must be drunk, it is nearly 1PM after all.

stet

 

[stevec67]

I realise I should have qualified what I said, I was thinking of problem drinkers and meant problem drinkers.

It's another example of the 3 class triage that I mentioned on the austerity thread.
(a)Some people are going to have an alcohol problem regardless of price.
(b) Some people will reduce their consumption, frequency of consumption, or age of starting, if prices go up, and the opposite if it's cheap. Some of these people may be on the edge of having a problem, or not, depending on which way the seesaw tips.
(c) Some people will drink moderately and are at very low riskof having a problem regardless of price.

You're concentrating on Group A and saying it won't stop them. Yep. The premise of MAP is that the reduced number of people in Group B having an alcohol problem outweighs the cost to those in Group A and the small financial hit to those of us in Group C who will stop buying the cheapest booze and buy better stuff because the price differential has disappeared. You disagree? Let's see your working then.

 

[gassor]

On the unintended consequences side of the arrangement I think we will see a number of shops and even supermarkets on the Scottish side of the border close. People will nip over the border (hello Carlisle) to buy their weekly carry out and stock up with groceries as well. Then there's the guys who will pick up 100 cases of Frosty Jack cider to 'redistribute' around the youth clubs of Weegieland at half price.

"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley" as someone once said.

 

[gassor]

(b) Some people will reduce their consumption, frequency of consumption, or age of starting, if prices go up, and the opposite if it's cheap. Some of these people may be on the edge of having a problem, or not, depending on .

Most people will probably reduce their consumption as the price rises. There is a fairly linear relationship in the UK showing that as low income levels means less booze and at higher income levels more booze is drunk.
(Percentage of those who had drank at least 5 days in the last week, by income, 2014 ONS)

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Most people will probably reduce their consumption as the price rises. There is a fairly linear relationship in the UK showing that as low income levels means less booze and at higher income levels more booze is drunk.
(Percentage of those who had drank at least 5 days in the last week, by income, 2014 ONS)

Which is precisely why this is so wrong!!

 

[Still]

Most people will probably reduce their consumption as the price rises. There is a fairly linear relationship in the UK showing that as low income levels means less booze and at higher income levels more booze is drunk.
(Percentage of those who had drank at least 5 days in the last week, by income, 2014 ONS)

Which is precisely why this is so right!!

 

[Dark Energy]

It's another example of the 3 class triage that I mentioned on the austerity thread.
(a)Some people are going to have an alcohol problem regardless of price.
(b) Some people will reduce their consumption, frequency of consumption, or age of starting, if prices go up, and the opposite if it's cheap. Some of these people may be on the edge of having a problem, or not, depending on which way the seesaw tips.
(c) Some people will drink moderately and are at very low riskof having a problem regardless of price.

You're concentrating on Group A and saying it won't stop them. Yep. The premise of MAP is that the reduced number of people in Group B having an alcohol problem outweighs the cost to those in Group A and the small financial hit to those of us in Group C who will stop buying the cheapest booze and buy better stuff because the price differential has disappeared. You disagree? Let's see your working then.

That doesn't seem logical to me and I strongly doubt that this would be correct, but perhaps it is so. I cannot agree with your statement "Some of these people may be on the edge of having a problem" if you imagine this to be correct you can imagine all manner of things. I just cannot foresee much of a reduction in cost to the NHS from group B, from people who are not problem drinkers so much so that they will reduce their consumption, this is exactly the group that would not cost the NHS much at all from as far as alcohol is concerned, some will actually derive a health benefit if they drink red wine. I think I should be in group D as cost doesn't enter in to the equation, I drink whatever I want, I'm certainly not wealthy though, I'm no longer a regular drinker either although I was for many years.
This is just a stealth tax, nothing more, it's clothed in sheepskin but we know what's underneath.

 

[richardg]

Wanna bet? Of course it will reduce alcohol sales.

Also my observation. I used to work on TNS consumer panel, analysing supermarket purchase behaviour, if you like. Tiny price increases make a difference. Admittedly I never worked on booze but price was important in the categories I did work on: crispy snacks, ice cream, shampoo, toothpaste, fabric conditioner etcczzz.

Therefore, I'd also bet a price increase will reduce alcohol consumption and then reduce alcohol-related problems.

I am not sure people that cry 'won't make a blind bit of difference!' etc have thought it through at all. Most likely you will still have plebs at the end of your street drinking it in gangs and you might personally not notice a difference. But that is a narrow view.

However, I don't have a very good track record making bets on here, so I might keep quiet!

 

[gassor]

Which is precisely why this is so wrong!!

Which is precisely why this is so right!!

We have now entered the quantum level of pfm, where two opposing interpretations can exist simultaneously at the same time. Matter - antimatter symmetry no less, but does any of this really matter?

No I have not been consuming bottles of cheap cider this afternoon before the price goes up

 

[TheDecameron]

The Dept for Population Health in Scotland have only been working on the evidence for this for the best part of a decade. They've engaged considerable public health expertise and analysis of the relationship between cheap alcohol and alcohol related deaths in that time and came to the conclusion (along with their counterparts in many other countries) that lives will be saved by placing a minimum price on alcohol. That's right, it only took this long for experts to be listened to -and while I accept experts are regarded in the same way as second hand car salesmen in some quarters- there's the inconvenient reality of needless premature deaths to be dealing with now. I was going to say write in to register your objections, but that opportunity was available for years. The booze industry are last man down on this one and they had the best lawyers on it.

 

[monkfish]

My usual tipple is Morrisons savers bitter, there are various reasons for this, it's 25p a can, it's about 60 cals per can as it's only 2 per cent alcohol, can't drink anything sweet, the drink-drive limit in Scotland is so low it makes sense, it is fizzy piss-water but convenient.
This has 1 unit per can, so will double in price, not so good for me but the same rule makes a 3l bottle of Frosty Jack about £12, which is a good thing, swings and roundabouts, they could have made weaker strength brews exempt to encourage people to drink them.

 

[stevec67]

That doesn't seem logical to me and I strongly doubt that this would be correct,

Why not? It's hardly contentious. Pretty well everything in life settles down to 3 classes, A are shagged whatever happens, B could go either way, C are sorted whatever happens. There isn't much point in spending lots of time working on A and C because very few of them will change groups, B is where it's at. All life is like that.

I cannot agree with your statement "Some of these people may be on the edge of having a problem" if you imagine this to be correct you can imagine all manner of things.

Whyever not? Populations are a continuum. There will always be people who can go either way - alcoholic vs not alcoholic, drug addict vs not, gay, bi or straight, pass 5 GCSEs or not, criminal or not, depending on the way life takes them. That's why Group B are so important, it's the old battlefield medical tent problem. A are dying regardless, so don't waste your time, give them morphine and a priest and wait for the inevitable, Group C are lightly wounded and they'll be fine regardless, so don't waste your time on them, the ones you are bothered about are Group B, the ones that might die or not depending upon what happens to them in the next half hour. These are your "might be on the edge" crowd.

"it's just a stealth tax". If it were about taxation then they'd just up duty. Duty on a bottle of wine is about £2.50, so the cheapest crap out there at £3 and £3.50 is actually worth 50p-£1. Up duty to £4.50 a bottle, the cheapest wines go to (say) £5-6, so the price basically doubles. The better wines at £10 and £20 go up to £12 and £22, a rise of sod-all. People buying those don't care about the £2, tax revenues would be greater, cheap wines would go up by the same amount as min alcohol pricing. Raising duty is easier than passing a new law anyway, the Chancellor just waits for the budget and says "2p on beer, 10p on Scotch, 20p on a packet of fags, STFU".

 

[Rockmeister]

Rumour has it that supermarkets in Berwick and Carlisle are currently bulk bulk buying cheapest cider deals, ready for the rush of profiteers (sry, traders) with unmarked trucks coming southwards (and northwards again, to a city carpark shortly afterwards). Meanwhile on the other side of the border, all booze sales vanish, and more high street for sale signs appear.

and

'Do you believe prohibition of alcohol ended to stupefy the population?'

of course it did.
Some nit wit was commenting on the radio that cigarette consumption fell when the price went up. Seemed not to have noticed the govt campaign mentioning DEATH...might of had some small part to play?

 

[stevec67]

My usual tipple is Morrisons savers bitter, there are various reasons for this, it's 25p a can, it's about 60 cals per can as it's only 2 per cent alcohol, can't drink anything sweet, the drink-drive limit in Scotland is so low it makes sense, it is fizzy piss-water but convenient.
This has 1 unit per can, so will double in price, not so good for me but the same rule makes a 3l bottle of Frosty Jack about £12, which is a good thing, swings and roundabouts, they could have made weaker strength brews exempt to encourage people to drink them.

This requires joined-up thinking and is a sensible solution. Alcoholics won't drink your Savers Bitter bats'-piss because they can't get enough of it down them to get to where they want to be. If you need 2 litres of 9% cider to make life bearable, you need 4.5x as much bats' piss bitter. That's 9 litres. 2 gallons in old money. That's going to take you all day and the chances are that you just can't pour it down your throat quickly enough. So it's not attractive to problem drinkers, any more than they would wade through a crate of Shandy Bass. The French have introduced differential duty, they tax spirits heavily and wine hardly at all. Now the cynics will say that that is to prop up their indigenous wine producing industry while heavily taxing spirits, of which they manufacture relatively few, but they justify it as taxing spirits, which they associate with alcohol abuse, and not taxing wine, which they associate with dining and normal, responsible alcohol use. (Brexiters please note - the French can manage to pass their own laws that just happen to favour their own interests, so much for "the EU make all the rules, you lose the ability to self-govern". They can do it, do you think that we couldn't?)