50p per unit

[gdevoy]

IMO supermarket alcohol had become too cheap due to the price being set by "market forces".

However, I'm not sure with the Scottish Government now legally just jacking the price up will have a good outcome.

a) I may be wrong but I do not anticipate the change in pricing policy will have any effect on my own personal consumption. The amount I drink is not dictated by price but by hangovers and excess weight.

b) Probably across the population there will be a measurable "alcohol related harm reduction" less liver disease, less violent crime, less working days lost, etc. etc. But I'm not sure this will represent a true overall picture and include all of the unintended consequences.

c) I don't think higher prices will deter real problem drinkers and all it will do is leave them less money for life's real essentials and probably increase the trouble they cause in the families and communities they live in. It could increase crime to obtain money for alcohol and the market for illegal and potentially unsafe alcohol.

d) Finally, like jacking up prices on fags, it send a message that the penalty for an "unhealthy" lifestyle is proportionately that much higher if you are on a low income. If you are poor we will kick the s**t out of you is you do anything we don't approve of. If you are rich you can do what you want. I'm not sure this is a message that will get the SNP many extra votes come the next election.    

[Squirrelhumper]

I'm not convinced it will work but given the stats on alcohol abuse and the burden on the health service, then they had to do something. There is no easy fix.

Folk seem to have a fixation on it not deterring problem drinkers, which is fine as it will have minimal impact. However, like fags, I think it'll deter folk from getting into that habit in the first place.

Folk said the smoking ban/cost of fags would have no positive affect, and it has. Barely any of my mates smoke and event those who did have either cut down, gone to vapes or canned it all together.

When you have senior medical experts saying it's a serious issue then I don't think any government can stand back and do nothing. That said, I don't know if this will work. Time will tell.

There's no easy answer.

[Squirrelhumper]

34 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

 

 If you are poor we will kick the s**t out of you is you do anything we don't approve of. If you are rich you can do what you want.

I don't think at any point this has been the message, that's just daft.

It's killing people, it's a strain on the NHS, it's a major, major problem in the UK as a whole and particularly up here. To stand back and do nothing would be idiotic. I'd be of the same option had it been Labour, Tories, Lib Dem's or whoever that introduced it. Exactly as I was when I was delighted to see the smoking ban when Labour brought it in.

[killie billies pal]

It won't make any difference to my lifestyle, but i do have a couple of concerns about any government using price to dictate how people live.

Scotland has a considerable alcohol problem, upping the price of the hi alcohol drinks, which, in many cases are used by those with the greatest issues may lead to a greater strain on NHS resources, especially at a time where resources are stretched to the limit already. My other fear is an increase in crime, either stealing from stores to get alcohol to fuel addictions or general violence to get money. Or worst of all, drink supplies going underground, cheap alternatives from abroad.

Whilst I wouldn't word it the same as the OP last sentence, I sort of agree with the sentiment in that those comfortable in life will see no recognisable difference, whereas the poorer areas may be affected to a greater extent.

[Merk]

A potential problem caused by the increase is that people with an alcohol dependency on a low income could then turn to alternatives such as street valium.  If that happens then the strain on services remains the same and it could be argued death rates increase.

As 'humper says to stand by and do nothing is crazy but how you address the overriding addiction issue, I don't have a clue.

[gdevoy]

36 minutes ago, killie billies pal said:

Whilst I wouldn't word it the same as the OP last sentence, I sort of agree with the sentiment in that those comfortable in life will see no recognisable difference, whereas the poorer areas may be affected to a greater extent.

Probably got a wee bit emotional with the last sentence. Maybe I'm just raging against a basic fact of life, s**t rolls downhill. 

[skygod]

Interesting that such an overtly political topic wasn't posted on the Political Arena!

SH makes a good point about the effect of the ban and price hikes on smoking habits. Public health education campaigns had nowhere near as much success in reducing the number of smokers.

The same price strategy might work with alcohol but I reckon it will take many years to find out. Talk of it saving 400 lives or whatever this year is purely symbolic.

The NHS is collapsing and so, so many of the ailments affecting people are self-inflicted, or "lifestyle-related" if you want to pussyfoot around it. Smoking, drinking to excess and obesity. What a difference it would make if the effects of these could be eradicated or just reduced!

Here's another idea: why not subsidise gym and swimming pool memberships? Instead of just using a stick approach, why not some carrot in the way of making it easier and more affordable to exercise?

Some long-term thinking needs to be done to change people's habits. It's working with smoking but still much to be done with alcohol, diet and drugs.

 

 

[Bhamkillieken]

it obviously doesnt affect me, but I am against the idea. people with alcohol problems will go without other items so they can drink, so i dont see it sovling any problems.

i see it as different to smoking, as even smoking in moderation increases strain on the NHS which isnt the same with alcohol.

[gdevoy]

3 minutes ago, skygod said:

Interesting that such an overtly political topic wasn't posted on the Political Arena!

I considered the Political Forum but there seems to be cross party support. I would not be at all put out if Mods think this is the wrong place. 

6 minutes ago, skygod said:

The NHS is collapsing and so, so many of the ailments affecting people are self-inflicted, or "lifestyle-related" if you want to pussyfoot around it. Smoking, drinking to excess and obesity. What a difference it would make if the effects of these could be eradicated or just reduced!

It is possible that, just like giving up fags leads to people putting on weight, giving up alcohol might simply incline folks towards other poor health choices as a substitute. There is a bit of a "making a balloon smaller" challenge here in that the more you squeeze in somewhere, the more it pops out elsewhere. I think eradicating peoples poor lifestyle choices is a bit more complex. Making kids focus on their homework is more tricky than just just taking away some of their toys.

[Squirrelhumper]

10 minutes ago, Bhamkillieken said:

 

i see it as different to smoking, as even smoking in moderation increases strain on the NHS which isnt the same with alcohol.

Drinking in moderation won't have much, if any impact on your bank balance either.

[Beaker71]

The other issue with drinking to excess is the social harm it does.  Crime, violence, etc are often directly linked to alcohol consumption.  Cut down alcohol excess hopefully cut down the effects.  Yes it’s a simplified comment,  but something has to give.  Scotland’s attitude to alcohol has to change.

[skygod]

13 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

It is possible that, just like giving up fags leads to people putting on weight, giving up alcohol might simply incline folks towards other poor health choices as a substitute.

If somebody is addicted to nicotine, why should stopping smoking lead to putting on weight? 

Even if they are weak-willed or have addictive personalities, former smokers could choose to become addicted to something healthy.

There's never been so many available alternatives to smoking, such as nicotine patches, chewing gum and vaping. Becoming addicted to another harmful habit would be, as you say, a poor lifestyle choice. 

 

[Zorro]

The only issue I have with this policy is that it should never have been required. The Uk government should have revised alcohol taxation rates long ago so that the increased tax take could have been reinvested in healthcare and “carrot” type interventions, like those mentioned by Skydog. Instead the money just goes to the supermarkets.

Unfortunately, being “better together” doesn’t extend to healthcare when there’s the interests of apple farmers in Kent to consider. 

[bute-killiefan]

Crime will rise....people who are addicted will still do it..... All the same arguments I seen when the ciggie bans came in.

 

No one is suggesting this increase will solve all the problems, but it is a start. This, along with proper education will help.

[Zorro]

Go to most parks on Friday or Saturday nights or A&E and you’ll find the drinkers this intervention is targeted at. Mostly underage, with little disposable income, drinking high strength ciders. The price increase will have a negligible effect on responsible drinkers. However, it’s not the only plank in the Scottish governments strategy for tackling substance misuse. Lowering the drink driving limits, educating young people on the dangers of substance misuse, improved treatment, supporting rehabilitation, banning multi-buy promotions. Getting on with the day job while other parties are grandstanding about constitutional issues. 

[Squirrelhumper]

45 minutes ago, bute-killiefan said:

 

 

No one is suggesting this increase will solve all the problems, but it is a start. This, along with proper education will help.

Agreed. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I'd rather we did something than just accepted it as never going to change.

The SG know folk will use this as a stick to beat them with but did it anyway as they think it's right. Hopefully like with the Labour introduced smoking ban, it's seen as being progressive and adopted UK wide.

[DrewWylie]

Well it will bloody well effect me and the camper loyal ,putting the price of T up another wee burnie f**k up,and as for the low income etc if they can't afford it they will just steal it 

[gdevoy]

1 hour ago, bute-killiefan said:

No one is suggesting this increase will solve all the problems, but it is a start. This, along with proper education will help.

My first statement was alcohol is too cheap and making it more expensive is the right direction of travel. However while everybody seems to agree it is not the "whole answer" I have seen few credible "other parts" of the answer put forward so far.

Regarding "education", most people, unless they are totally infantile, know alcohol is a poison and lots of it over a long period is not good. The thing is, people with alcohol problems just don't care. So I see no traction whatever in the "education" argument.

This policy will predominantly impact the young, and that should be a good thing. Now what is society going to do in tandem with telling them not to drink, because the silence will, IMO, just encourage them to "make their own entertainment" and, noting some of the suggestions of DrewWylie above, that may not be such a desirable outcome.

Finally this policy will impact most directly on those on low incomes. Hopefully they will be more mature than the young when it comes to making their own entertainment. Skygod suggested subsidised gym and swimming pool memberships. This is the most constructive idea I have seen so far and perhaps the Scottish Government should have set up a fund with the extra revenue to fund this.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by gdevoy

[Squirrelhumper]

17 minutes ago, DrewWylie said:

Well it will bloody well effect me and the camper loyal ,putting the price of T up another wee burnie f**k up,and as for the low income etc if they can't afford it they will just steal it 

I'm sure a man of your wealth can afford £1 a can!

[Zorro]

17 minutes ago, DrewWylie said:

Well it will bloody well effect me and the camper loyal ,putting the price of T up another wee burnie f**k up,and as for the low income etc if they can't afford it they will just steal it 

Cross party support for it in the Scottish Parliament so trying to pin it on “Wee Burnie” is a non-starter. And the £3.6 billion alcohol misuse is estimated to cost Scotland each year is actually what put the price of T up. 670 hospital admissions per week for alcohol misuse don’t pay for themselves and something had to be done. Unfortunately the UK government didn’t have the plums to do it. They were too busy trying to send black pensioners “home”.

 

[bute-killiefan]

8 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

My first statement was alcohol is too cheap and making it more expensive is the right direction of travel. However while everybody seems to agree it is not the "whole answer" I have seen few credible "other parts" of the answer put forward so far.

Regarding "education", most people, unless they are totally infantile, know alcohol is a poison and lots of it over a long period is not good. The thing is, people with alcohol problems just don't care. So I see no traction whatever in the "education" argument.

This policy will predominantly impact the young, and that should be a good thing. Now what is society going to do in tandem with telling them not to drink, because the silence will, IMO, just encourage them to "make their own entertainment" and, noting some of the suggestions of DrewWylie above, that may not be such a desirable outcome.

Finally this policy will impact most directly on those on low incomes. Hopefully they will be more mature than the young when it comes to making their own entertainment. Skygod suggested subsidised gym and swimming pool memberships. This is the most constructive idea I have seen so far and perhaps the Scottish Government should have set up a fund with the extra revenue to fund this.

 

 

Perhaps 'education' was too broad a term. I think investment in mental health is the next step, perhaps the extra revenue created with MP can be reinvested in mental health initiatives. Like you said, the information is there, people know what alcohol can do to you, but they still drink themselves to oblivion.

[Zorro]

15 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

My first statement was alcohol is too cheap and making it more expensive is the right direction of travel. However while everybody seems to agree it is not the "whole answer" I have seen few credible "other parts" of the answer put forward so far.

Regarding "education", most people, unless they are totally infantile, know alcohol is a poison and lots of it over a long period is not good. The thing is, people with alcohol problems just don't care. So I see no traction whatever in the "education" argument.

This policy will predominantly impact the young, and that should be a good thing. Now what is society going to do in tandem with telling them not to drink, because the silence will, IMO, just encourage them to "make their own entertainment" and, noting some of the suggestions of DrewWylie above, that may not be such a desirable outcome.

Finally this policy will impact most directly on those on low incomes. Hopefully they will be more mature than the young when it comes to making their own entertainment. Skygod suggested subsidised gym and swimming pool memberships. This is the most constructive idea I have seen so far and perhaps the Scottish Government should have set up a fund with the extra revenue to fund this.

 

 

Doing nothing because it may drive some people to crime is a pretty infantile argument imo. It could be applied to almost everything on the statute books. 

[Zorro]

5 minutes ago, bute-killiefan said:

Perhaps 'education' was too broad a term. I think investment in mental health is the next step, perhaps the extra revenue created with MP can be reinvested in mental health initiatives. Like you said, the information is there, people know what alcohol can do to you, but they still drink themselves to oblivion.

There isn’t any increased income for the Scottish government to reinvest, unless I’ve misunderstood you and you think the supermarkets are going to pony up for mental health initiatives. If so, good luck with that, but I think you’re being naive. It’s more likely they’ll invest it in expensive lawyers, to find creative ways to avoid paying tax. 

[gdevoy]

3 minutes ago, bute-killiefan said:

Perhaps 'education' was too broad a term. I think investment in mental health is the next step, perhaps the extra revenue created with MP can be reinvested in mental health initiatives. Like you said, the information is there, people know what alcohol can do to you, but they still drink themselves to oblivion.

I agree, mental health is a big factor. People drink to self medicate issues they should tackle directly and end up making them worse. I can think of lots of ways the extra revenue from MP could have been used +vely but probably the hassle of collecting it and re-distributing it was just too much hassle.

4 minutes ago, Zorro said:

Doing nothing because it may drive some people to crime is a pretty infantile argument imo. It could be applied to almost everything on the statute books. 

I agree, but being aware of the 2nd order effects of some new piece of legislation can be helpful.  

[RAG]

The Scottish government don't have the tax regime to implement this without unfair criticism.

The problem is unsupervised drinking with booze bought in off sales, supermarkets and consumed at home.  However to blame shop availability is a simplistic argument.

By reducing the tax on a pint in pubs, encouraging people to drink in supervised situations, would improve the booze problem. Going on 1960s prices a pint should set you back about £1.80 - rest is the UK Treasury beer tax escalator.

There's been a two fold move away from drinking in pubs to the home, allied to changes in how alcohol is retailed and consumed.

Unfortunately using price barriers impacts the poor more than the rich.  But we all know that's how life works in 2018..  The nanny state may know better, but this could easily be construed as an attack on the working poor.  

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by RAG