Don't know how much coverage this got elsewhere, but last week Scotland introduced a minimum alcohol pricing of 50p per unit. Took years to come to fruition due to court challenges by the drinks trade.
It won't affect me too much, my standard case of beer might go up a pound or so but the main targets are the cheap ciders like Frosty Jack, whose price was around £3.50 for a 2 litre bottle of 7.5% cider. Now it has been increased to nearer £13.
Makes total sense to me, backed up by an interview on the radio today with a group of hardened street drinking alcoholics who said that it won't make any difference to them. It will, eventually, but this is not something for a quick fix. This is to prevent the schoolkids taking it up in the first place.
Wonder if it will be adopted elsewhere in UK like smoking ban, carrier bag charges did?
|
It's an interesting concept with a long history - the theory that a government can influence the consumption of something by forcing either a price rise or a price fall.
Putting a tax on beer and spirits was presumably successful in reducing consumption during the first world war amongst workers.
The recent trend towards the shunning of alcohol by the young appears to have been a recent social pressure thing - hardly the culmination of a 100-year campaign to make it more expensive.
No one has, I think, suggested that the drug problem could be tackled by imposing a minimum price?
In general, a higher price of an addictive substance appears only to have the effect of making it more desirable, and increasing crime in order to make it affordable.
With an open border between England and Scotland, one predictable consequence will surely be an increased trade in low-priced drinks, exactly as happened with Europe and alcohol and cigarettes?
|
>> In general, a higher price of an addictive substance appears only to have the effect
>> of making it more desirable, and increasing crime in order to make it affordable.
Exactly what I think will happen.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 May 18 at 10:11
|
>> Makes total sense to me, backed up by an interview on the radio today with
>> a group of hardened street drinking alcoholics who said that it won't make any difference
>> to them. It will, eventually, but this is not something for a quick fix. This
>> is to prevent the schoolkids taking it up in the first place.
>>
>> Wonder if it will be adopted elsewhere in UK like smoking ban, carrier bag charges
>> did?
>>
Makes sense to me too, unfortunate that it is necessary because some people have no control over alcohol use even though most consume it sensibly.
Other big thing up there of course is the lower drink drive limit, I will be going up for a wedding at the end of May and expect to see the same as the last Scottish wedding I went to when most of the guests were on soft drinks and cups of tea most of the evening.
People seemed to be enjoying it anyway.
|
I don't see why Frosty Jack is £13 a bottle. A 'unit' of alcohol is 10ml, and at 7.5% 2 litres contains 150ml or 15 units. 15 x £0.50 = £7.50.
Even if the £7.50 was added on to the old price, it would still only be £11. I don't see why it doesn't sell for £7.50.
I'd seen a story about the £13 for strong cider and assumed it must therefore be well over 10%ABV.
Misguided approach IMO. It will affect mainly poor people and is as likely to increase poverty to the same extent as it reduces drinking. Put another way, it's telling poor people what they can and can't do in a way that doesn't affect the better off.
I suppose the same could be said of tobacco taxes, although smoking is probably more annoying and damaging to others.
Who gets the extra money BTW? I'm not aware that it is a tax?
|
|
Of course it will reduce consumption of cheap alcohol. Price goes up sales go down, it’s a basic law of economics. There is no excuse for selling cheap alcoholic drinks designed for only one reason: to get drunk as quickly as possible. I would double the minimum price.
|
Of course it will reduce consumption of cheap alcohol
I agree. There won't be any cheap alcohol.
I also agree it will reduce on average the amount the customers drink, but some of them will spend more on alcohol.
One thing is certain - there will be unintended consequences. That could include more theft, and increased use of other intoxicants, legal & illegal. Perhaps even some illegal distilling. No doubt some will also set up illegal businesses running it from England, should be good for Asda in Carlisle.
San fairy Ann to me, I now drink very little and what I do drink is well above 50p per unit.
|
>>There is no excuse for selling cheap alcoholic drinks designed for only one reason: to get drunk as quickly as possible.
No, there is no excuse. Nor should there be a law against it.
Don't sell alcohol to minors, drunk in a public place etc. etc. I some adult wants to get plastered in his own back yard, who are we to comment>
Plenty of existing laws addressing the problem.
|
Price goes up sales go down, it’s a basic law of economics.
>>
Not always. Some things are shunned because cheapness is assumed to be synonymous with poor quality. As tastes change rebranding with more up-market labelling and a higher price can sometimes increase sales.
Some products can sell at both prices with different labels, to maximise total sales.
I've never tried Frosty Jacks, I'm put off by the price. But I might give it a go now . :)
|
>> Price goes up sales go down, it’s a basic law of economics.
>> >>
>>
>> Not always. Some things are shunned because cheapness is assumed to be synonymous with poor
>> quality.
Many years ago, before the advent of Aunt Bessie and ready made Yorkshire puddings, I came across a case study on this phenomenon.
Somebody had launched a dry Yorkshire pudding mix. Add water, whisk and bake. Ridiculous of course, because YPs are just flour, egg, milk/water and a pinch of salt. But 4oz of this stuff cost nothing to make, and went on the shelf at 6d. It didn't sell until somebody tried it at something like 1/9.
Actually somebody still makes the stuff. I think most of their sales are to expats.
www.goldenfry.co.uk/products/goldenfry-yorkshire-pudding-pancake-mix-142g/
|
> Who gets the extra money BTW? I'm not aware that it is a tax?
>>
The shop that sells it.
|
Because high prices have done a great job on controlling drugs, so it's bound to work.
After years of campaigning against the level of tax on booze we now want to increase it?
As far as I know some kids in the UK smoke. How much a pack is it now? How's that working out?
Utterly ridiculous idea, it will fail, and the unintended consequences will be far reaching.
|
>> Because high prices have done a great job on controlling drugs, so it's bound to
>> work.
Are drugs at a high price? I don't know, but I though they were fairly cheap?
|
Typically outside the pocket of the poorer and younger hence the resulting crime.
And no, not cheap. But that is dependent on your readily disposable income of course.
|
>>Typically outside the pocket of the poorer and younger addicted hence the resulting crime.
For those without a habit, getting stoned on weed or heroin will cost less than a tenner.
|
|
Yes they are comparatively cheap, and “entry level†type drugs are sold at pocket money prices to attract a new market
|
I do not think it is the "Nanny State's" business to poke its nose into people's lives to the extent of trying to control the minutae of their existence,
Sugar tax, minimum alcohol pricing - what next - forcing folk to eat their five-a-day veggies?
In any event, have the Scots Red Party (aka the SNP) forgotten when the USA tried, albeit more forcefully, to enforce Prohibition?
More crime and a complete failure to control people's behaviour, vis-a-vis alcohol demand and consumption, was the result.
Less Government is better Government.
|
>> Less Government is better Government.
>>
Somalia must be a paradise then.
|
>>
>>
>> Somalia must be a paradise then.
>>
There is a difference between less government and no government.
|
Will be an interesting few years.
I like the concept of minimum pricing as opposed to massive tax hike.
I expect there will be plenty of transit vans of white cider making their way from Berwick and Carlisle to be sold in dodgy markets, but the same happened with cheap European fags.
If it improves the health of Scots hopefully England will do likewise.
The harms caused by hard drugs are miniscule compared to those caused by alcohol.
|
Does a person have the right to commit suicide?
|
|
No, but I believe that a person should have that right.
|
|
You have every right to commit suicide if you so wish. There is no law against it.
|
>> You have every right to commit suicide if you so wish. There is no law
>> against it.
>>
But alcohol abuse and tobacco are particularly messy ways to do it and in many cases ruin several lives in the process rather than one
|
>>
>> >>
>> But alcohol abuse and tobacco are particularly messy ways to do it and in many
>> cases ruin several lives in the process rather than one
>>
But that begs the question, what right does the state have to interfere in how we live our lives if we are not harming others?
And should they be able to stop us doing things on the basis that the outcome may at some point cause distress to our families?
|
Agreed.
And yet some of us are praising The State's interference in people's drinking with a ridiculous law more founded in vote winning and newspaper headlines than in doing anything about an area already thoroughly dealt with by existing laws.
It is a step too far.
Banning smoking was on the edge of too far, but was just about justifiable by the health impact it allegedly has on the health of those around, but interfering in people's right to drink themselves unhealthy is too far.
It is a law driven by the sanctimonious nature of those who like nothing more than to legislate against things that other people are doing simply, because of an opinion that those others shouldn't be doing it.
|
>>
>> And should they be able to stop us doing things on the basis that the
>> outcome may at some point cause distress to our families?
>>
Like suicide?
|
Like dangerous sports?
Like unhealthy eating?
etc. etc.
I think it is a basic human right to be an idiot and a fool to yourself.
|
>> I think it is a basic human right to be an idiot and a fool
>> to yourself.
Not when the rest of the populous has to finance the stupidity and the fallout of such.
|
>>
>> >>
>>
>> Like suicide?
>>
Now that's an interesting point. If someone's life is so miserable that they want to end it prematurely (And "Prematurely" is an important word here as all our lives are going to end at some point anyway) who really has the moral right to prevent them from doing so?
Now I know we'd all try and stop a friend or family member from jumping off a bridge, but would it be a noble kindness or cruelty if the other person really wished to end it all?
|
>> Now I know we'd all try and stop a friend or family member from jumping
>> off a bridge, but would it be a noble kindness or cruelty if the other
>> person really wished to end it all?
Who knows, but it is for sure a sad indictment of the friendship/family support.
|
>>
>> Who knows, but it is for sure a sad indictment of the friendship/family support.
>>
It's a sad indication of the evident inability of that support to be sufficient, but I don't think it follows that anyone was necessarily to blame for that.
|
>> But that begs the question, what right does the state have to interfere in how
>> we live our lives if we are not harming others?
Both smokers and heavy drinkers harm others.
>> And should they be able to stop us doing things on the basis that the
>> outcome may at some point cause distress to our families?
As the state will have to pick up the pieces, yes.
|
>> Both smokers and heavy drinkers harm others.
So do car drivers with the pollution they cause.
>> As the state will have to pick up the pieces, yes.
Ditto car drivers.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 9 May 18 at 09:24
|
>> Ditto car drivers.
Hence the movie to force you to electric cars.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 9 May 18 at 09:24
|
Attempting suicide used to be illegal (obvious if you succeeded it was a moot point).
Aiding/assisting a suicide is still illegal.
|
Scotland - minimum alcohol pricing - Cliff Pope
