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

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...