scottsdad Posted Thursday at 14:58 Author Share Posted Thursday at 14:58 Intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: a natural experiment Quote In absolute terms, we estimated that minimum unit pricing was associated with 258 more alcohol-related emergency department visits (95% confidence interval –191 to 707) across Scotland than would have been the case had minimum unit pricing not been implemented. You don't hear the prohibitionists celebrating this statistic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:08 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:08 Is minimum unit pricing for alcohol having the intended effects on alcohol consumption in Scotland? @I Clavdivs has (quite rightly) asked for more evidence for my scepticism of this policy. Happy to put more in here, though across this thread I have done so. Quote Further studies identified no clear evidence of reduced alcohol consumption among those with alcohol dependence or those presenting to emergency departments and sexual health clinics, some evidence of increased financial strain among people with dependence and no evidence of wider negative outcomes arising from changes in alcohol consumption behaviours. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted Thursday at 15:11 Share Posted Thursday at 15:11 11 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: a natural experiment You don't hear the prohibitionists celebrating this statistic From that same study Our study may have suffered from a failure to include those most likely to consume low-cost alcohol. We think that the reason that we found no effect either way from minimum unit pricing could be that the minimum price was too low to make a difference, that people did not notice it or that too few people who buy low-cost alcohol were included in our study. According to the World Health Organization, the price needs to keep pace with cost increases; however, it was unchanged in Scotland since being agreed in 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted Thursday at 15:16 Share Posted Thursday at 15:16 3 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: From that same study Our study may have suffered from a failure to include those most likely to consume low-cost alcohol. We think that the reason that we found no effect either way from minimum unit pricing could be that the minimum price was too low to make a difference, that people did not notice it or that too few people who buy low-cost alcohol were included in our study. According to the World Health Organization, the price needs to keep pace with cost increases; however, it was unchanged in Scotland since being agreed in 2012 Would that not infer that they have underestimated the number? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:19 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:19 An investigation into patterns of Alcohol drinking in Scotland after the introduction of minimum unit pricing Quote The overall amount of drinking fell by about 8% after 2012 and 12% after 2018 (as compared to 2008-2011 level), with a significant decline seen in moderate drinkers but not of those who drank at hazardous or harmful levels. The DID analyses confirmed the reduction in current drinking in Scotland starting since 2012 and continued post-MUP in 2018. The target of MUP was, of course, the heavy drinkers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:22 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:22 The effect of a minimum price per unit of alcohol in Scotland on alcohol-related ambulance call-outs: A controlled interrupted time-series analysis Quote There appears to be no statistically significant association between the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland and the volume of alcohol-related ambulance call-outs. This was observed overall, across subpopulations and at night-time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:24 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:24 Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on road traffic accidents in Scotland after 20 months: An interrupted time series study Quote There is no evidence of an association between the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland and a reduction in fatal and nighttime road traffic accidents, these being outcome measure categories that are proxies of outcomes that directly relate alcohol consumption to road traffic accidents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted Thursday at 15:26 Share Posted Thursday at 15:26 (edited) 14 minutes ago, scottsdad said: An investigation into patterns of Alcohol drinking in Scotland after the introduction of minimum unit pricing The target of MUP was, of course, the heavy drinkers. The target was Problem Drinkers, which failed IMO to consider that addiction doesn't care about the price and necessitates feeding said addiction by any means possible. In this case, at the expense of spending money on other life essentials. It's bad policy, which anyone willing to be objective about it would be able to see. "It didn't fail, we just needed to do it harder" isn't a valid response to criticism. They would argue, i'm sure, that making alcohol increasingly prohibitively expensive means young people are less likely to try it in the first place, thus then being unable to become addicted, but i'm not sure that increasingly squeezing the purse of the average person is a fair way to approach this. There is no appetite or mandate for de facto prohibition, as far as I can see anyway. Edited Thursday at 15:33 by Todd_is_God 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:26 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:26 The Effect of Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol on Prescriptions for Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: A Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis Quote There was no evidence of an association between MUP implementation and the volume of prescriptions for alcohol dependence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Thursday at 15:32 Author Share Posted Thursday at 15:32 Last one for today: The impact of minimum unit pricing on traumatic brain injury in Scotland: a retrospective cohort study of routine national data Quote MUP has not resulted in a change in alcohol-related TBI nor in the mechanism and severity of TBI. Limitations in two-point analysis mean that findings should be interpreted with caution and further studies investigating the clinical outcomes of MUP must be conducted. Just...lots of studies showing no changes to things since MUP. And variable information on the harms and benefits. On its own terms it hasn't worked. The problem drinkers haven't stopped drinking. Drinking was already on a downward trajectory before MUP, the fact that it has continued downward doesn't make it a success. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted Thursday at 16:01 Share Posted Thursday at 16:01 8 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Quote There appears to be no statistically significant association between the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland and the volume of alcohol-related ambulance call-outs. This was observed overall, across subpopulations and at night-time. 6 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Quote There is no evidence of an association between the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland and a reduction in fatal and nighttime road traffic accidents, these being outcome measure categories that are proxies of outcomes that directly relate alcohol consumption to road traffic accidents. My only comment about these findings is do they take into account where the alcohol was consumed? Is pub drinking going to have proportionally more cases of ambulance call outs and drink driving than home drinking? Ambulances are more likely to be called out when other people are involved which might mean ambulances attend drunks in pubs more than home drinking ones, as concerned 3rd parties may be likely to call an ambulance. Similarly, will there may be more drink drivers associated with pub drinking than home drinking, as there is no reason to drive home when drunk. Given the MUP affects shop bought/home drunk alcohol rather than pub stuff, as the cost was already above the MUP, it might be that these findings may need to be taken with a pinch of salt if they doesn't take into account here the alcohol was consumed. I'm not taking sides on this as I don't have a strong opinion either way given it doesn't impact me due to the small amount I normally drink (yes on this it's a case of I'm alright Jack). But I think it's worth raising the point that the statistics will be presented as absolute by both sides, when that may not be the case when, as is always the case, they need nuanced interpretation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted Thursday at 16:06 Share Posted Thursday at 16:06 44 minutes ago, strichener said: Would that not infer that they have underestimated the number? Basically it means that they've got a problem with numbers for both sides of the border so they're not too confident on how well their "natural experiment" has worked in practice. Which probably goes some way to explaining the wide confidence intervals they've attached to their findings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted Thursday at 16:26 Share Posted Thursday at 16:26 1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: I'm not convinced that "the average cost of a bottle of cider will cost double than south of the border." is any more factually correct than it is grammatically I looked for a deal where I could buy cider at 32.5p a unit and the closest I could find was Asda who had 10 can packs of strongbow at £10 each (51p/unit) .There's a special offer of 3 packs for £23 right now) but even that extreme case is still only 39p a unit. Strongbow is the UK's second most popular brand. The most popular is kopparberg you can get 10 x 330ml cans for £9 at Asda (reduced from £10) which equates to a Scotland legal 68p/unit Of course they're cans not bottles Asda's only bottled ciders were at £2.50 each Even with a 4 for 3 on Inch's that's still MUP compliant I'm not going to rule out the possibility that were I to look beyond Britain's most downmarket supermarket I could find something on sale in England that's cheap enough and strong enough to satisfy the criteria but it's hardly going to be representative of the "average bottle of cider" Maybe so, it was more the content of the video I was highlighting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Friday at 07:09 Author Share Posted Friday at 07:09 15 hours ago, Soapy FFC said: My only comment about these findings is do they take into account where the alcohol was consumed? Is pub drinking going to have proportionally more cases of ambulance call outs and drink driving than home drinking? Ambulances are more likely to be called out when other people are involved which might mean ambulances attend drunks in pubs more than home drinking ones, as concerned 3rd parties may be likely to call an ambulance. Similarly, will there may be more drink drivers associated with pub drinking than home drinking, as there is no reason to drive home when drunk. Given the MUP affects shop bought/home drunk alcohol rather than pub stuff, as the cost was already above the MUP, it might be that these findings may need to be taken with a pinch of salt if they doesn't take into account here the alcohol was consumed. I'm not taking sides on this as I don't have a strong opinion either way given it doesn't impact me due to the small amount I normally drink (yes on this it's a case of I'm alright Jack). But I think it's worth raising the point that the statistics will be presented as absolute by both sides, when that may not be the case when, as is always the case, they need nuanced interpretation. I agree - both sides present absolute statistics, and the pro-MUP side trot out one statistic over and over again. And these take simple Scotland wide statistics; I don't think data on the nuance (pub v house) was available to the researchers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted yesterday at 11:12 Share Posted yesterday at 11:12 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/05/england-urged-to-bring-in-minimum-unit-price-on-alcohol-as-deaths-rise-10-a-year "Greg Fell, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, said England needed to follow Scotland and Wales by introducing minimum unit pricing: “The evidence is crystal clear. It saves lives.” "A report by the Lancet last year found minimum unit pricing in Scotland was associated with a 13.4% reduction in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol consumption. Public Health Scotland said there was no clear evidence of substantial negative impacts on the alcoholic drinks industry. Wales introduced minimum unit pricing in March 2020." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Pele Posted 11 hours ago Share Posted 11 hours ago On 03/10/2024 at 16:19, scottsdad said: An investigation into patterns of Alcohol drinking in Scotland after the introduction of minimum unit pricing The target of MUP was, of course, the heavy drinkers. Surely there’s a way of making even the 15p increase a straight up tax, and sending it straight to NHS Scotland’s Drug and Alcohol Service in order to tackle it from the other side? As it stands, it’s just lining retailers’ pockets and the extra VAT goes straight to Westminster? I would LOVE to be corrected on this because I really want to be wrong 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 6 hours ago, Derry Pele said: Surely there’s a way of making even the 15p increase a straight up tax, and sending it straight to NHS Scotland’s Drug and Alcohol Service in order to tackle it from the other side? As it stands, it’s just lining retailers’ pockets and the extra VAT goes straight to Westminster? I would LOVE to be corrected on this because I really want to be wrong As I understand it, the Scottish Govt can impose a MUP under their devolved health responsibilities. They cannot amend alcohol duties. To make the 15p increase a straight up tax, rhey would need permission from Westminster. As always, independence is the solution to the limitations of devolution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 8 hours ago, Derry Pele said: Surely there’s a way of making even the 15p increase a straight up tax, and sending it straight to NHS Scotland’s Drug and Alcohol Service in order to tackle it from the other side? As it stands, it’s just lining retailers’ pockets and the extra VAT goes straight to Westminster? I would LOVE to be corrected on this because I really want to be wrong Social responsibility levy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago £1 a bottle favourite Banks's Bitter has gone up to £1.11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago Surely the MUP is aimed at a longer term societal change? I don't think it's helpful (for either side) to be making any measurements or pronunciations until at least 15-20 years can be studied? 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.