General Politics Thread

[welshbairn]

Had a brief look at the evidence for minimum alcohol pricing reducing harm and it seems marginally less flaky than the second hand smoke stuff. Still not very convincing though. Loads of small studies looking for different data and effects, with an absence of direct cause and effect correlation. Like crime falls in parts of Canada so it must have been due to minimum pricing.

[Jmothecat2]

Closest Waitrose to me is Stirling or Edinburgh.

It's worth the journey.

[Granny Danger]

28 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Fuckwit neatly summed up in one short post.

FTFY

[Jmothecat2]

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.

[1320Lichtie]

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?

[NotThePars]

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.

[welshbairn]

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. 

[pandarilla]

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.

[AyrExile]

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.

[1320Lichtie]

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.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

'People have had enough of experts'

[sparky88]

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. 

[pandarilla]

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.

[1320Lichtie]

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???

[pandarilla]

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.

[1320Lichtie]

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.

[RedRob72]

 

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

[lichtgilphead]

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. 

[RedRob72]

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

[D Angelo Barksdale]

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.