Jump to content

Minimum price alcohol... The myth


stlucifer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a thought.

So the over pricing of alcohol has reduced the Sales of drink in Scotland?

Let's look at the facts.

There are other ways of getting your fill of the demon.

I know of a few who have invested in home brew and small stills. The latter can actually create drink with  far more alcoholic content, as much as 60% on average which has to be watered down to reduce it to the normal 40%.

The other thing is the comparative rise of sales in England. Is this a coincidence? Have the English really increased their intake by as much  as we have reduced?

I think not.

It's more likely that the increase is, at least in part, due to people finding it worthwhile buying in bulk and transporting it north, in some cases for profit.

While this might seem fanciful why isn't it less fanciful to assume the English are sitting at Hadrian's wall sipping our whisky at 75% of the price consuming more just to say, "Get it right up ya Jock"!?

I am, of course, exaggerating, (and a little tongue in cheek), the extent that some might go to get their hands on drink but I am simply emphasising that the Scottish government using end of line sales in such a triumphant manner is wrong. It will take years for any proof of benefits or change of habits to be seen.

the overbearing, dominating, non beneficial increase might have been more palatable if the Scottish government had had the balls to make it a revenue generating tax which could have went towards helping those already down the rabbit hole.

I do know that the pricing regime has NOT changed my habits. It won't have changed that of any who have a reasonable income. I just hate this form of state intervention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

Just a thought.

So the over pricing of alcohol has reduced the Sales of drink in Scotland?

Let's look at the facts.

There are other ways of getting your fill of the demon.

I know of a few who have invested in home brew and small stills. The latter can actually create drink with  far more alcoholic content, as much as 60% on average which has to be watered down to reduce it to the normal 40%.

The other thing is the comparative rise of sales in England. Is this a coincidence? Have the English really increased their intake by as much  as we have reduced?

I think not.

It's more likely that the increase is, at least in part, due to people finding it worthwhile buying in bulk and transporting it north, in some cases for profit.

While this might seem fanciful why isn't it less fanciful to assume the English are sitting at Hadrian's wall sipping our whisky at 75% of the price consuming more just to say, "Get it right up ya Jock"!?

I am, of course, exaggerating, (and a little tongue in cheek), the extent that some might go to get their hands on drink but I am simply emphasising that the Scottish government using end of line sales in such a triumphant manner is wrong. It will take years for any proof of benefits or change of habits to be seen.

the overbearing, dominating, non beneficial increase might have been more palatable if the Scottish government had had the balls to make it a revenue generating tax which could have went towards helping those already down the rabbit hole.

I do know that the pricing regime has NOT changed my habits. It won't have changed that of any who have a reasonable income. I just hate this form of state intervention. 

The last sentence suggests that the government should have no role in leading a health agenda. Farcical 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

The last sentence suggests that the government should have no role in leading a health agenda. Farcical 

Don't be such a moron. Oh. Wait.

It does no such thing. It states that I don't believe in using the poor's short pockets as a weapon. In a free society  the government should only concern itself with revenue as far as our cash is concerned. Hence why I said they should have had the balls to make it a tax so at least society would benefit financially from the intrusion.

Instead they merely increased the profits of business and HOPED they would give the excess to charity while possibly pushing the poorer down the road of uncontrolled, unregulated, illicit alcohol. It's one step removed from prohibition and how did that work out for the Americans?

AFAIC though, Education is the way to try to improve our relationship with drink. Other countries manage to NOT have the problem without the excessive financial method of control.

ETA: Why I'm engaging with you I don't know as you claim to not drink. Though I have my doubts given your  propensity to post piffle.

 

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Just a thought.
So the over pricing of alcohol has reduced the Sales of drink in Scotland?
Let's look at the facts.
There are other ways of getting your fill of the demon.
I know of a few who have invested in home brew and small stills. The latter can actually create drink with  far more alcoholic content, as much as 60% on average which has to be watered down to reduce it to the normal 40%.
The other thing is the comparative rise of sales in England. Is this a coincidence? Have the English really increased their intake by as much  as we have reduced?
I think not.
It's more likely that the increase is, at least in part, due to people finding it worthwhile buying in bulk and transporting it north, in some cases for profit.
While this might seem fanciful why isn't it less fanciful to assume the English are sitting at Hadrian's wall sipping our whisky at 75% of the price consuming more just to say, "Get it right up ya Jock"!?
I am, of course, exaggerating, (and a little tongue in cheek), the extent that some might go to get their hands on drink but I am simply emphasising that the Scottish government using end of line sales in such a triumphant manner is wrong. It will take years for any proof of benefits or change of habits to be seen.
the overbearing, dominating, non beneficial increase might have been more palatable if the Scottish government had had the balls to make it a revenue generating tax which could have went towards helping those already down the rabbit hole.
I do know that the pricing regime has NOT changed my habits. It won't have changed that of any who have a reasonable income. I just hate this form of state intervention. 
Yes you can't move on the M74 as its full of transit vans ferrying cheap booze from England to Scotland.
Seriously, get a f**king grip.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Don't be such a moron. Oh. Wait.

It does no such thing. It states that I don't believe in using the poor's short pockets as a weapon. In a free society  the government should only concern itself with revenue as far as our cash is concerned. Hence why I said they should have had the balls to make it a tax so at least society would benefit financially from the intrusion.

Instead they merely increased the profits of business and HOPED they would give the excess to charity while possibly pushing the poorer down the road of uncontrolled, unregulated, illicit alcohol. It's one step removed from prohibition and how did that work out for the Americans?

AFAIC though, Education is the way to try to improve our relationship with drink. Other countries manage to NOT have the problem without the excessive financial method of control.

ETA: Why I'm engaging with you I don't know as you claim to not drink. Though I have my doubts given your  propensity to post piffle.

 

Lucy 

Your arguments are not sound. Imo

We disagree.. Nothing new there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

Don't be such a moron. Oh. Wait.

It does no such thing. It states that I don't believe in using the poor's short pockets as a weapon. In a free society  the government should only concern itself with revenue as far as our cash is concerned. Hence why I said they should have had the balls to make it a tax so at least society would benefit financially from the intrusion.

Instead they merely increased the profits of business and HOPED they would give the excess to charity while possibly pushing the poorer down the road of uncontrolled, unregulated, illicit alcohol. It's one step removed from prohibition and how did that work out for the Americans?

AFAIC though, Education is the way to try to improve our relationship with drink. Other countries manage to NOT have the problem without the excessive financial method of control.

ETA: Why I'm engaging with you I don't know as you claim to not drink. Though I have my doubts given your  propensity to post piffle.

 

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stlucifer said:

Just a thought.

So the over pricing of alcohol has reduced the Sales of drink in Scotland?

Let's look at the facts.

There are other ways of getting your fill of the demon.

I know of a few who have invested in home brew and small stills. The latter can actually create drink with  far more alcoholic content, as much as 60% on average which has to be watered down to reduce it to the normal 40%.

The other thing is the comparative rise of sales in England. Is this a coincidence? Have the English really increased their intake by as much  as we have reduced?

I think not.

It's more likely that the increase is, at least in part, due to people finding it worthwhile buying in bulk and transporting it north, in some cases for profit.

While this might seem fanciful why isn't it less fanciful to assume the English are sitting at Hadrian's wall sipping our whisky at 75% of the price consuming more just to say, "Get it right up ya Jock"!?

I am, of course, exaggerating, (and a little tongue in cheek), the extent that some might go to get their hands on drink but I am simply emphasising that the Scottish government using end of line sales in such a triumphant manner is wrong. It will take years for any proof of benefits or change of habits to be seen.

the overbearing, dominating, non beneficial increase might have been more palatable if the Scottish government had had the balls to make it a revenue generating tax which could have went towards helping those already down the rabbit hole.

I do know that the pricing regime has NOT changed my habits. It won't have changed that of any who have a reasonable income. I just hate this form of state intervention. 

 

8 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Yes you can't move on the M74 as its full of transit vans ferrying cheap booze from England to Scotland.
Seriously, get a f**king grip.

Please read ALL of the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stlucifer said:

Pricky. No surprise.

 

You're quite often wrong.

Aren't we all, But I'm more often right. And in this case I am. Your problem is that you believe that you are always right. By all means have a view of the policy, its effectiveness or otherwise. Perfectly fine to do so. To suggest that government has no role in what is a health improvent measure is just plain wrong. As for suggestions of cross channel type booze runs to and from England. Fanciful. Tb bring in home made distilleries and to compare prohibition to the present policy shows a desperation to make a point, any point. But its your view and that's OK with me. 

 

Edited by St.Ricky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, stlucifer said:

Don't be such a moron. Oh. Wait.

It does no such thing. It states that I don't believe in using the poor's short pockets as a weapon. In a free society  the government should only concern itself with revenue as far as our cash is concerned. Hence why I said they should have had the balls to make it a tax so at least society would benefit financially from the intrusion.

Instead they merely increased the profits of business and HOPED they would give the excess to charity while possibly pushing the poorer down the road of uncontrolled, unregulated, illicit alcohol. It's one step removed from prohibition and how did that work out for the Americans?

AFAIC though, Education is the way to try to improve our relationship with drink. Other countries manage to NOT have the problem without the excessive financial method of control.

ETA: Why I'm engaging with you I don't know as you claim to not drink. Though I have my doubts given your  propensity to post piffle.

 

The government also have to pick up the tab for the resulting problems which hit the NHS.

Between smoking, alcohol, drugs and obesity, Scots certainly know how to strain our public services, complain about how those services are strained and then complain when the government tries to do something about it. We are a nation of whiners.

It's hardly close to prohibition. :lol: Come on. Surely you can see that is a ridiculous thing to say.

They don't collect it as a tax presumably because it wouldn't pay for itself in terms of administration and compliance. Same as the bag tax.

BTW, genuinely poor people should have a lot more to worry about than buying alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think the average drinker is affected by 50p per unit rule.

For example I like a can of draft Guinness - min price £0.90

Price in Tesco in England £1.18 each  (4 pack)

A big bottle of Stella - minimum £1.58- Tesco England £1.66 (3 for a fiver deal)

12% wine min price is £4.50 - no many wines cheaper anyway

But when you come to cheap cider the minimum is now £2.50 a litre for 5% and £4.00 a litre for 8% in Scotland.

E.g. Frosty Jacks is £3.59 for 2.5 litre bottle in England - minimum in Scotland £6.25

So I see this as targeting young and problem drinkers in an effort to reduce their intake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Please read ALL of the post.
The rest of the post isn't any better, I just went with that bit.
Claiming it, then kidding on you don't really mean it, doesn't make your post any better
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

So the minimum price has made NO difference to the folk the Scottish government claimed they were trying to help. What a surprise.

I said from the outset that people who really wanted/needed to drink would forego other things to ensure they could afford their "fix", no matter the cost. The latest survey proves this to be the case.

Now they suddenly claim that they weren't targeting those who drank to excess. If that was the case, and I am sure they claimed they were, then WTF were they trying to stop? The poorest among us? 

But hey, never mind. The positive they now are spouting is that at least it didn't turn those who now starve themselves or sit freezing in their homes to afford the drink didn't turn to crime or alternatives like drugs.

What a crock of sh!t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

So the minimum price has made NO difference to the folk the Scottish government claimed they were trying to help. What a surprise.

I said from the outset that people who really wanted/needed to drink would forego other things to ensure they could afford their "fix", no matter the cost. The latest survey proves this to be the case.

Now they suddenly claim that they weren't targeting those who drank to excess. If that was the case, and I am sure they claimed they were, then WTF were they trying to stop? The poorest among us? 

But hey, never mind. The positive they now are spouting is that at least it didn't turn those who now starve themselves or sit freezing in their homes to afford the drink didn't turn to crime or alternatives like drugs.

What a crock of sh!t.

Surely you agree that No single policy initiative could deal with those who drink to excess just as no single policy can deal with other drug addictions.  Pricing has a part to play but, IMO, is likely to deter some from becoming addicted but certainly won’t act as a cure and was never meant to do so and in that, I agree with you. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cynic in me says that these laws are to try and show devolved government has power. It's the same as the different covid rules and the deposit return scheme that will be more severe in Scotland than England and Wales with every bottle having a 20 p deposit "to reduce carbon footprint". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, exiledfan said:

The cynic in me says that these laws are to try and show devolved government has power. It's the same as the different covid rules and the deposit return scheme that will be more severe in Scotland than England and Wales with every bottle having a 20 p deposit "to reduce carbon footprint". 

Be as cynical as you like, Scotland has an unhappy relationship with alcohol. A small step. More needed. We need to create a culture where having a bevvy is seen as uncool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rascal said:

Surely you agree that No single policy initiative could deal with those who drink to excess just as no single policy can deal with other drug addictions.  Pricing has a part to play but, IMO, is likely to deter some from becoming addicted but certainly won’t act as a cure and was never meant to do so and in that, I agree with you. 

 

 

But that was the reason given at the putset. As for deterring some from being addicts. When has this EVER been the case? Look at drug culture. People who want to do drugs, do drugs. They get the money from wherever they can. I agree that THIS policy won't work. I said at the outset that education was the ONLY way.

There are many countries around the world who sell drink at far lower prices and don't have the same problem. The culture needs to change. Not the price. Stop making drink taboo. It may sound counter intuitive but it has been seen to work elsewhere. Stop punishing those who partake in moderation but aren't as affluent as others.

I feel the same about the attempt to stop BOGOF. It may stop the poorer in society with two kids from getting them a treat. Perhaps we should add an initiative that the poorer in society be limited to having one kid so they don't need that initiative?

Education, education, education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

But that was the reason given at the putset. As for deterring some from being addicts. When has this EVER been the case? Look at drug culture. People who want to do drugs, do drugs. They get the money from wherever they can. I agree that THIS policy won't work. I said at the outset that education was the ONLY way.

There are many countries around the world who sell drink at far lower prices and don't have the same problem. The culture needs to change. Not the price. Stop making drink taboo. It may sound counter intuitive but it has been seen to work elsewhere. Stop punishing those who partake in moderation but aren't as affluent as others.

I feel the same about the attempt to stop BOGOF. It may stop the poorer in society with two kids from getting them a treat. Perhaps we should add an initiative that the poorer in society be limited to having one kid so they don't need that initiative?

Education, education, education.

Two parts of what you write I agree with. Education, Education, Education and Change The Culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interacting….

 

As someone who bevvies, but uses no other “drugs” and never tobacco, I see no reason for targeting beer.

(my sole drug of choice).

Create a culture where booze/bevvy is uncool and you kill a huge tranche of Scottish tradition, socialisation and society.  (It has to said that people not from working class will find this incredible.)
 

Pubs have been/ARE a central tenet of UK society for centuries, but I suppose cheap supermarket bevvying at home is a step towards A future.  It would keep the hoi-polloi off the streets… and not thinking about how f**ked up society is for most people… and how to change it!

 

A non-pub society:  one that I’d be glad to miss, being long gone, deid and avoided it.  🍻

 

(just in from a “pub”, btw… j

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, antrin said:

Interacting….

 

As someone who bevvies, but uses no other “drugs” and never tobacco, I see no reason for targeting beer.

(my sole drug of choice).

Create a culture where booze/bevvy is uncool and you kill a huge tranche of Scottish tradition, socialisation and society.  (It has to said that people not from working class will find this incredible.)
 

Pubs have been/ARE a central tenet of UK society for centuries, but I suppose cheap supermarket bevvying at home is a step towards A future.  It would keep the hoi-polloi off the streets… and not thinking about how f**ked up society is for most people… and how to change it!

 

A non-pub society:  one that I’d be glad to miss, being long gone, deid and avoided it.  🍻

 

(just in from a “pub”, btw… j

Eloquent as always Antrin. Like you I was in the local pub last night and drank my drug of choice - Coca Cola. I enjoy my visits. A chance to meet others and ,on football nights, to meet fans from a number of clubs and none. 

Unlike the Miners Welfare in the village I grew up in or the pubs in nearby towns there were a wide mix of men , women and some children. Food as well as a variety of drinks were served mainly to people who were seated. There are designated drivers in groups but most people have walked. These pubs are much more European and our culture has and continues to change and adapt.

In my visits over the past 5 years I have yet to see anyone severely intoxicated and only one act of violence - a young woman threw a drink over an other young woman before being asked to leave. 

Jimmy Reid recognised the impact of Bevying when he made the “There will be no Bevying “ speech during the Upper  Clyde Sit In. In the main our society has moved on from then and being drunk when driving e.g. is socially and legally unacceptable.  
 

The cost of alcohol (and beer - my father in law liked a pint or two but swore blind that he didn’t drink alcohol) is lower compared to income than in the past and home consumption is rising. This comes without the social benefits of the pub and self and legal restraints on behaviour that attending licensed premises brings and at a much cheaper cost. It is easier to slip from enjoying a drink to needing a drink with the health implications the latter brings.

Pricing has a part to play in arresting the number of people who make that slide to over use and to addiction. Is it the sole action needed? Of course not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rascal said:

 

Pricing has a part to play in arresting the number of people who make that slide to over use and to addiction.

 

I've removed the pointl;ess waffling and left the pertinent part of your post.

As to that, where is your evidence? 

For instance.

Norway has taken extreme measures, excessive price hikes, banning sales after certain times, age restrictions and more but, due in the main to historical culture, the biggest "culprits" of drink excess tend to be young, unemployed people. Where does that fit into your theory of taking drink out of the reach of those with less money?  And make no mistake. That is all you're advocating.

There sre no easy answers but I certainly don't believe overpricing is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...