Jmothecat2 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Everyone who has researched this issue up to and including the WHO agrees that this will help in reducing consumption among heavy drinkers. Of course, all the experts might be wrong and 1320Lichtie might be right, but it seems a slightly remote prospect.It's a mistake to view this as a measure aimed at the most severely alcoholic members of society - much more targeted intervention is required to help them. Measures like this are about shifting the mean in the right direction, which it almost certainly will - price elasticity of demand. There are reasons (few good ones, imo) to oppose this, but 'it won't make any difference' is not one. My argument is that I don't want to spend more money on booze. Nothing more complicated than that. I am opposed to minimum pricing for alcohol for similar reasons I'm opposed to targeted taxes on sugar or fat or VAT. They will disproportionately impact on people with lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on what they buy. It's not a liberal opposition for me, it's an opposition because it feels unfair. I don't have a problem with the government targeting alcoholics, or spending money on education etc on how unhealthy alcohol is, but it feels like the government are overstepping the mark with this one. It sort of feels like the government with tobacco and alcohol are trying to demonise it to an extent. Tobacco is far worse, it's got to a point where if you walk into a shop and just ask for the cheapest cigarettes the till person legally can't tell you, they have to hand you a book with the prices written on them. It just all seems a bit much, I say that as someone who doesn't smoke. I worry alcohol is going the same way. Being unable to buy alcohol before 10am, not being allowed to have 'irresponsible' alcohol deals (such as BOGOF deals or similar) and now a minimum price. It smells like the government saying drinking is not OK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Everyone who has researched this issue up to and including the WHO agrees that this will help in reducing consumption among heavy drinkers. Of course, all the experts might be wrong and 1320Lichtie might be right, but it seems a slightly remote prospect.It's a mistake to view this as a measure aimed at the most severely alcoholic members of society - much more targeted intervention is required to help them. Measures like this are about shifting the mean in the right direction, which it almost certainly will - price elasticity of demand. There are reasons (few good ones, imo) to oppose this, but 'it won't make any difference' is not one. There was a guy on the other side of the fence on the radio today saying the research they’ve done/seen show it is a waste of time. These ‘experts’ all get wheeled out by different sides of the argument in every single issue that comes up. You’ve got to take what they say at face value. The costs of a lot of different drinks won’t even change btw. Buckfast for example, sure there are others. What kind of intervention will this have on any potential heavy drinkers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Mad that Rangers fans think Scotland is on the cusp of direct rule from Rome when you have policy like this blatantly influenced by those damn Presbyterians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said: Everyone who has researched this issue up to and including the WHO agrees that this will help in reducing consumption among heavy drinkers. Of course, all the experts might be wrong and 1320Lichtie might be right, but it seems a slightly remote prospect. It's a mistake to view this as a measure aimed at the most severely alcoholic members of society - much more targeted intervention is required to help them. Measures like this are about shifting the mean in the right direction, which it almost certainly will - price elasticity of demand. There are reasons (few good ones, imo) to oppose this, but 'it won't make any difference' is not one. The WHO who thought that Ebola wasn't a big deal, until it was. When science, sociology, health and politics get together you get a perfect storm of bias. Alcohol and smoking are proven to be bad things, so who would publish a paper saying that they found very little effect to non smokers consuming second hand smoke? The whole point is to dissuade the population from doing bad things to themselves. I see the same effect in the minimum pricing conclusions from very sparse data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 There was a guy on the other side of the fence on the radio today saying the research they’ve done/seen show it is a waste of time. These ‘experts’ all get wheeled out by different sides of the argument in every single issue that comes up. You’ve got to take what they say at face value. The costs of a lot of different drinks won’t even change btw. Buckfast for example, sure there are others. What kind of intervention will this have on any potential heavy drinkers? Denying evidence and criticising so-called experts are the tell-tale signs of a numpty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Should minimum pricing happen along with proposed income tax rises the SNP will be in danger of alienating two key sections of their support. Struggling to see how the voters will continue to back them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Denying evidence and criticising so-called experts are the tell-tale signs of a numpty. So.... because I don’t agree. I’m a numpty? Sound logic. You obviously don’t agree with so called experts on the other side of the fence, does that make you a numpty? Someone has just pointed out that the World Health Organisation didn’t think Ebola was a big deal ffs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 'People have had enough of experts' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Genuine question, is there objective data to say scotland has more or less of a drink problem than other countries in the UK/ other countries elsewhere? I suspect much of the evidence on this is anecdotal. For example, the way Buckfast is talked about you'd think everyone in Scotland drinks bottles of it every night, but it represents only 2% of the alcohol bought in Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 So.... because I don’t agree. I’m a numpty? Sound logic. You obviously don’t agree with so called experts on the other side of the fence, does that make you a numpty? Someone has just pointed out that the World Health Organisation didn’t think Ebola was a big deal ffs. Dismissing the opinion of the world health organisation for that reason is pretty irrational. That criticism was of how they handled a crisis point. They weren't wrong - but instead just slow to react. I didn't say people were numpties because they disagree with me. I said that dismissing experts and denying evidence are signs of numpty-like behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Dismissing the opinion of the world health organisation for that reason is pretty irrational. That criticism was of how they handled a crisis point. They weren't wrong - but instead just slow to react. I didn't say people were numpties because they disagree with me. I said that dismissing experts and denying evidence are signs of numpty-like behaviour. I’m not doing that or saying that. What I’m saying is that there’s experts/professors/evidence on both sides of this argument. Just like there is on every other single issue. So no matter what side of the fence you’re on you are going to be dismissing these people, therefore that must make everyone a numpty??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I’m not doing that or saying that. What I’m saying is that there’s experts/professors/evidence on both sides of this argument. Just like there is on every other single issue. So no matter what side of the fence you’re on you are going to be dismissing these people, therefore that must make everyone a numpty??? Jeezo. It doesn't take too long to work out where the science is on most issues. The tobacco industry used to hire doctors to write favourable reports that suited their agendas. Seeing through this stuff isn't too difficult nowadays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Jeezo. It doesn't take too long to work out where the science is on most issues. The tobacco industry used to hire doctors to write favourable reports that suited their agendas. Seeing through this stuff isn't too difficult nowadays. There’s no right or wrong answer here. It’s never been done before. Everyone isn’t unanimously agreeing with this. There are people providing evidence on one side, people dismissing it on the other. I don’t agree with the thought behind it and I don’t think it’ll work. If you do then fair enough, I’ll not call you a numpty for that though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 How long have they been trying to get this passed? It seems like ages. They've finally managed it despite the alcohol industry trying to block it and the sniping from some other parties. If nothing else it shows dogged determination to make some inroads on Scotland's alcohol problems. Aye, it's a sensible move from a health perspective. But ‘Scotland leading the World’ is a bit over the top no? It's hardly a major medical breakthrough of scientific importance to bang a few quid on a bottle of park bench pickle is it? It's the toe curling cringing parochialism that dresses up everything the Scottish Government says and does. 'World Leaders' in tackling alcohol abuse problems of our own making!? Hmmmm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Jmothecat2 said: My argument is that I don't want to spend more money on booze. Nothing more complicated than that. I am opposed to minimum pricing for alcohol for similar reasons I'm opposed to targeted taxes on sugar or fat or VAT. They will disproportionately impact on people with lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on what they buy. It's not a liberal opposition for me, it's an opposition because it feels unfair. I don't have a problem with the government targeting alcoholics, or spending money on education etc on how unhealthy alcohol is, but it feels like the government are overstepping the mark with this one. It sort of feels like the government with tobacco and alcohol are trying to demonise it to an extent. Tobacco is far worse, it's got to a point where if you walk into a shop and just ask for the cheapest cigarettes the till person legally can't tell you, they have to hand you a book with the prices written on them. It just all seems a bit much, I say that as someone who doesn't smoke. I worry alcohol is going the same way. Being unable to buy alcohol before 10am, not being allowed to have 'irresponsible' alcohol deals (such as BOGOF deals or similar) and now a minimum price. It smells like the government saying drinking is not OK. It doesn't help your argument when you cite an urban myth as your example of government excess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Genuine question, is there objective data to say scotland has more or less of a drink problem than other countries in the UK/ other countries elsewhere? I suspect much of the evidence on this is anecdotal. For example, the way Buckfast is talked about you'd think everyone in Scotland drinks bottles of it every night, but it represents only 2% of the alcohol bought in Scotland. UK Comparison only(Independent 2016)http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/scotland-revealed-as-the-country-in-the-uk-with-the-most-alcohol-related-deaths-a6861226.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, RedRob72 said: Aye, it's a sensible move from a health perspective. But ‘Scotland leading the World’ is a bit over the top no? It's hardly a major medical breakthrough of scientific importance to bang a few quid on a bottle of park bench pickle is it. It's the toe curling cringing parochialism that dresses up everything the Scottish Government says and does. 'World Leaders' in tackling alcohol abuse problems of our own making!? Hmmmm ^^^ Would rather follow (follow) than lead. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 'Minimum alcohol pricing, you say?' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 5 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said: Neither is adding an extra few quid on to a bottle. Look at the cost of smoking. How many people try giving that up and fail? People will become addicted regardless of costs. I have a feeling that a lot of SNP supporters deep down know that this is a nonsense but don’t want to be critical. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/20/number-of-uk-smokers-falls-to-lowest-level The number of smokers in England has fallen to its lowest level, with just one in six adults now lighting up, according to new official figures, which also show a recent collapse in sales of cigarettes. Just 16.9% of adults in England now smoke, according to the latest data from Public Health England. Its health experts also revealed that widespread use of e-cigarettes, nicotine patches and gum helped 500,000 smokers last year kick the habit – the highest number on record. The statistics show that, bar two small blips, smoking prevalence has declined continuously and dramatically over the past 50 years by about two-thirds. In 1974, over 50% of men in Britain were smokers; that had fallen to just 19.1% in England in 2015. Similarly, just over 40% of women smoked back then; last year it was only 14.9%. There are now just 7.2 million adults in England who smoke. They are far outnumbered by 14.6 million ex-smokers. It is the first time that under 17% of the population are smokers and is down from the 19.3% seen as recently as 2012. Health campaigners said that smoking’s continuing fall in popularity is due to a combination of tough measures, such as price rises and the introduction of plain packaging, and mass media campaigns urging people to quit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmothecat2 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 It doesn't help your argument when you cite an urban myth as your example of government excess. It's not an urban myth, it's the law.From the Scottish government website:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00412868.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.