Minimum Alcohol Pricing

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I'd say the increase in pub prices is more about trying to survive than anything to do with MUP. In fact, MUP will have increased the cost of shop bought alcohol way more than pub bought. 

To me it was essentially a 'jakey tax' to increase the prices of things like Buckfast, cheap vodka/whisky, large bottles of extra strength cider and similarly super strength lagers. Your middle class functioning alchy was still going to be able to afford to pay £15 for a 70cl of Vodka/Whisky or still be able to nip down the pub for a dozen pints without it hitting them too hard. 

At the 50p rate It's effects will be so limited that it's practically a homeopathic policy

If you're particularly politically partisan then you'll feel the need to read the data as indicating that it's made things better or worse according to ones preconceptions. And given the amount of noise in the data that's not going to be difficult

But which ever way you argue the counter hypothesis, that it's not really made much difference at all, remains strong.

 

 

[Billy Jean King]

On 29/08/2023 at 11:20, topcat(The most tip top) said:

By continuing to not increase MUP the government is effectively phasing it out

The current price adjusted for inflation is equivalent to 40p at the time MUP was brought in.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator

This is the crux of it now. Inflation has rendered it an irrelevance in its current guise and any attempt at saying it's been a success or failure based on "saving lives" is now totally moot. It either dies a quiet death in its current form or it needs a radical overhaul. 

 

What's the alternative as the same folk that use death rates to say it's worked / not worked never seem to have an alternative to put forward but surely the one thing those stats do prove is something needs to be done. You can't let a public health issue like that just happen with the "that's just us Scots and our traditional lifestyle" shrug that certainly feels pretty prevelant. 

Why do the multinational medical companies that pump billions into trying to find a cure for Cancer and the likes not do likewise for conditions like alcoholism  ? Both are massively driven by lifestyle yet alcoholism is always seen as a societal issue not medical.

Why does it always seem to be an issue governments need to find a solution too. 

[Bairnardo]

10 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

This is the crux of it now. Inflation has rendered it an irrelevance in its current guise and any attempt at saying it's been a success or failure based on "saving lives" is now totally moot. It either dies a quiet death in its current form or it needs a radical overhaul. 

 

What's the alternative as the same folk that use death rates to say it's worked / not worked never seem to have an alternative to put forward but surely the one thing those stats do prove is something needs to be done. You can't let a public health issue like that just happen with the "that's just us Scots and our traditional lifestyle" shrug that certainly feels pretty prevelant. 

Why do the multinational medical companies that pump billions into trying to find a cure for Cancer and the likes not do likewise for conditions like alcoholism  ? Both are massively driven by lifestyle yet alcoholism is always seen as a societal issue not medical.

Why does it always seem to be an issue governments need to find a solution too. 

You can't expect the population to suddenly accept into their beliefs that what is effectively a way of life was wrong, but also has never been properly educated out over a period of decades, then expect them to believe that the solution for it is simply to charge us more. The shoulder shrug goes both ways. Alcohol can form a healthy part of anyones life, but it's never been portrayed that way in Scotland or the UK. Focusing on the price is a lazy, cheap, ill thought out pile of shite for me. A problem decades if not centuries in the making doesn't get swept away by pricing the scum out of doing it. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

16 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

You can't expect the population to suddenly accept into their beliefs that what is effectively a way of life was wrong, but also has never been properly educated out over a period of decades, then expect them to believe that the solution for it is simply to charge us more. The shoulder shrug goes both ways. Alcohol can form a healthy part of anyones life, but it's never been portrayed that way in Scotland or the UK. Focusing on the price is a lazy, cheap, ill thought out pile of shite for me. A problem decades if not centuries in the making doesn't get swept away by pricing the scum out of doing it. 

Are you saying that pricing the scum out of smoking hasn't actually helped?

Edited August 30, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Bairnardo]

Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Are you saying that pricing the scum out of smoking hasn't actually helped

Perhaps i'm wrong, but I dont see drink on the same level of harm. Smoking is harmful from the first tab, and also comes with secondary harms to others. Drinking in sensible moderation is not unhealthy. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

15 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Perhaps i'm wrong, but I dont see drink on the same level of harm. Smoking is harmful from the first tab, and also comes with secondary harms to others. Drinking in sensible moderation is not unhealthy. 

Of course they're not identical problems

It just seemed that smoking was a textbook example of "A problem decades if not centuries in the making"  where using pricing disincentives to tackle it appears to have been quite effective in reducing consumption over time.

There would be lots of other factors like health education, removing smoking from TV, film, sports sponsorship etc that will have all played their part but anecdotally every former smoker I know who managed to quit would mention the cost as a factor

Edited August 30, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[ICTChris]

10 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

What's the alternative as the same folk that use death rates to say it's worked / not worked never seem to have an alternative to put forward but surely the one thing those stats do prove is something needs to be done. You can't let a public health issue like that just happen with the "that's just us Scots and our traditional lifestyle" shrug that certainly feels pretty prevelant. 

Why do the multinational medical companies that pump billions into trying to find a cure for Cancer and the likes not do likewise for conditions like alcoholism  ? Both are massively driven by lifestyle yet alcoholism is always seen as a societal issue not medical.

Why does it always seem to be an issue governments need to find a solution too. 

I don't think your first point is quite fair.  Pointing out that a government policy hasn't had the intended consequences doesn't mean you have to offer up an alternative.  It's right that policies should be assessed and their merits looked at.  If something does need to be done, let it be something that has a positive impact on the issue.

Multinational medical companies have invested money in finding cures for alcoholism.  There are numerous medications that have proven positive impacts on alcoholism.  However, the issue is that alcoholism isn't like cancer or Covid - it isn't a physical virus or a disease or an infection.  You can completely cure physical alcoholism by not drinking but clearly it isn't as simple as that.  I have friends who are alcoholics who continually relapse because they can't stay away from alcohol, it's available in shops, all their social life has revolved around drinking and it's all they know.  These are issues that medical companies can't solve, it's for individuals, society and the government to take action.  Probably more pertinently how do we stop people becoming alcoholics in the first place?

Another factor is that while there are treatments for chronic alcoholism this doesn't apply to people who drink above safe levels but aren't alcoholics or physically dependant.  Is there a treatment for people who drink eight pints a night at weekends?  The other elephant in the room is that while a minority of people are chronic alcoholics, most people, the vast majority, are perfectly capable of drinking normally.  If you are going to focus on the substance itself you have to deal with those differences in individual experience.  I mean, if you made the MUP £50 a unit, I bet alcohol deaths would fall and far fewer people would drink alcohol but I don't think many people would think that would be acceptable.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Of course they're not identical problems

It just seemed that smoking was a textbook example of "A problem decades if not centuries in the making"  where using pricing disincentives to tackle it appears to have been quite effective in reducing consumption over time.

There would be lots of other factors like health education, removing smoking from TV, film, sports sponsorship etc that will have all played their part but anecdotally every former smoker I know who managed to quit would give mentioned the cost as a factor

Yeah, and I guess the fact that I like beer, wine and spirits, and I hate smoking plays into my logic. But plenty would argue even in the case of smoking that it was govt overreach to price people out in that way. Again though, you can drink healthily. They do so in much or Europe. You can't smoke healthily. 

[ICTChris]

3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

 You can't smoke healthily. 

Tell that to this world class athlete

 

[scottsdad]

2 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

At the 50p rate It's effects will be so limited that it's practically a homeopathic policy

If you're particularly politically partisan then you'll feel the need to read the data as indicating that it's made things better or worse according to ones preconceptions. And given the amount of noise in the data that's not going to be difficult

But which ever way you argue the counter hypothesis, that it's not really made much difference at all, remains strong.

 

 

For me, the data is the thing that has been politicised from day one here. We were in the situation last year where alcohol related deaths rose, but the report title was listing numbers of lives saved by MUP. It's a very odd place to be and, as a scientist in my day job, I find this really bizarre. 

The data is very, very noisy, especially since the pandemic. But because the rate rose ever so slightly faster in northern England (where there is no MUP) compared to Scotland, it's being sold as a success. 

The Scottish government had MUP written onto one of the steps at Holyrood as one of the Government's successful policies less than a year after it was introduced. The fact it, it was deemed a success before it even launched. The government isn't willing to turn round now and say it was wrong.

And, on the true hardcore alcoholics, the data shows that MUP has been really harmful to them. If they just cannot live without drink, they'll do without food and without heating. Make booze more expensive? Something else gets cut out, but not the drink. 

[carpetmonster]

2 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Of course they're not identical problems

It just seemed that smoking was a textbook example of "A problem decades if not centuries in the making"  where using pricing disincentives to tackle it appears to have been quite effective in reducing consumption over time.

There would be lots of other factors like health education, removing smoking from TV, film, sports sponsorship etc that will have all played their part but anecdotally every former smoker I know who managed to quit would mention the cost as a factor

I quit when I moved to America and fags were half the price they were in Scotland because I managed to knock the Mrs up. Although I suppose if you factor in the cost of healthcare for smoking-related illnesses it'll probably dwarf the saving $5 on a packet of tabs. 

[Billy Jean King]

2 hours ago, razamanaz said:

What a crass thing to say, "cancer is caused by lifestyle" - tell that the kids in the children's cancer wards

Except I didn't say that did I ? you made that up. I said massively driven which is true. Of course massively driven is a totally different thing from "caused by" but I'm sure you are aware of that and are as usual looking (and failing) to find your Zinger.

[Billy Jean King]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I don't think your first point is quite fair.  Pointing out that a government policy hasn't had the intended consequences doesn't mean you have to offer up an alternative.  It's right that policies should be assessed and their merits looked at.  If something does need to be done, let it be something that has a positive impact on the issue.

Multinational medical companies have invested money in finding cures for alcoholism.  There are numerous medications that have proven positive impacts on alcoholism.  However, the issue is that alcoholism isn't like cancer or Covid - it isn't a physical virus or a disease or an infection.  You can completely cure physical alcoholism by not drinking but clearly it isn't as simple as that.  I have friends who are alcoholics who continually relapse because they can't stay away from alcohol, it's available in shops, all their social life has revolved around drinking and it's all they know.  These are issues that medical companies can't solve, it's for individuals, society and the government to take action.  Probably more pertinently how do we stop people becoming alcoholics in the first place?

Another factor is that while there are treatments for chronic alcoholism this doesn't apply to people who drink above safe levels but aren't alcoholics or physically dependant.  Is there a treatment for people who drink eight pints a night at weekends?  The other elephant in the room is that while a minority of people are chronic alcoholics, most people, the vast majority, are perfectly capable of drinking normally.  If you are going to focus on the substance itself you have to deal with those differences in individual experience.  I mean, if you made the MUP £50 a unit, I bet alcohol deaths would fall and far fewer people would drink alcohol but I don't think many people would think that would be acceptable.

It's an addiction, a condition that results in countless related diseases though. I agree 100% taxation isn't going to crack it just like a sugar tax won't crack obesity but it needs to be tackled somehow.

Not sure conflating social or even binge drinkers with alcoholism is helpful but I get that it's difficult to avoid when millions of people do use alcohol without actually being alcoholics.  I just struggle to see how governments (all govts, alcohol has been an issue here for ever basically) tackle an issue so engrained in the psyche of a Nation. What makes Scots prone to dying from Alcohol in such numbers. What makes us more prone to becoming addicted to alcohol (or drugs for that matter). People will say quality of life, poverty etc but there are loads of countries with more poverty etc than Scotland with nowhere near the levels of alcohol or drugs related deaths.

It's a hugely complex issue that probably needs a multi agency approach but that takes serious money and commitment and it's hard to see where either are coming from.

 

[Todd_is_God]

3 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

This is the crux of it now. Inflation has rendered it an irrelevance in its current guise

I disagree entirely.

I bought 4 x 10 packs of Heineken in an Asda in England last week. They were on offer, to the point that those 4 packs cost me £30

Under the current MUP and barring of drinks promos up here, the same purchase would have cost me at least £44

The latest figures show that the current measures do little other than increase revenue for bars and retailers in Scotland.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

20 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I disagree entirely.

I bought 4 x 10 packs of Heineken in an Asda in England last week. They were on offer, to the point that those 4 packs cost me £30

Under the current MUP and barring of drinks promos up here, the same purchase would have cost me at least £44

The latest figures show that the current measures do little other than increase revenue for bars and retailers in Scotland.

But you do have to ask yourself
Would you have got through 40 cans of lager if ASDA wasn't basically giving it away?

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

But you do have to ask yourself
Would you have got through 40 cans of lager if ASDA wasn't basically giving it away?

Nowhere did I say I went through 40 cans of lager, however the rate at which I will go through them will not have been impacted by the price, nor would it if I had no option other than to buy them up here.

The latter would just cost more.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Todd_is_God

[Crùbag]

4 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Perhaps i'm wrong, but I dont see drink on the same level of harm. Smoking is harmful from the first tab, and also comes with secondary harms to others. Drinking in sensible moderation is not unhealthy. 

On the other hand, the courts are full of people who get bevvied to fck and then do harm to others and/or themselves.

[Bairnardo]

I just find this whole policy to have a real air of snide and snobbery about it. Probably a large majority of people affected by it are ones who drink responsibly. But if you are one of those people who enjoy drink without inflicting health issues upon yourself, but happen to live close enough to the breadline that you do actively count the pennies, then this is one of lifes pleasures that you are being told isn't for you anymore. Primarily by people who probably also enjoy a drink, but drink stuff expensive enough not to be affected, or similarly, don't have to worry about their tipple going up to the same extent as less well off folk. Theres a sort of offshoot of "rules for thee but not for me" element to this. 

This snobbery runs right through society ironically, every bit as much as drinking does. Look at whenever the subject of getting beer at the football comes up. Guaranteed everytime someone hits out with "Aye well if you can't go 90 minutes without a drink you must have a problem" type bullshit. 

It's not well thought out, it's not beneficial to the public purse and for it to not even be demonstrably working is a pile of shite. 

[Crùbag]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

I just find this whole policy to have a real air of snide and snobbery about it. Probably a large majority of people affected by it are ones who drink responsibly. But if you are one of those people who enjoy drink without inflicting health issues upon yourself, but happen to live close enough to the breadline that you do actively count the pennies, then this is one of lifes pleasures that you are being told isn't for you anymore. Primarily by people who probably also enjoy a drink, but drink stuff expensive enough not to be affected, or similarly, don't have to worry about their tipple going up to the same extent as less well off folk. Theres a sort of offshoot of "rules for thee but not for me" element to this. 

This snobbery runs right through society ironically, every bit as much as drinking does. Look at whenever the subject of getting beer at the football comes up. Guaranteed everytime someone hits out with "Aye well if you can't go 90 minutes without a drink you must have a problem" type bullshit. 

It's not well thought out, it's not beneficial to the public purse and for it to not even be demonstrably working is a pile of shite. 

 

Most of the cost of booze is tax that goes straight to UK gov. I like my malt whiskies and they aren't affected that much by MUP - they're 'dear' aleady but with something like 70% or more of the cost of a bottle going to Uk gov.

MUP is just one part of the approach to change our drinking habits. Scotland has issues with various addictions or harmful behaviours. The roots of it all go way back and equally the problems won't be solved any time soon.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Crùbag said:

 

Most of the cost of booze is tax that goes straight to UK gov. I like my malt whiskies and they aren't affected that much by MUP - they're 'dear' aleady but with something like 70% or more of the cost of a bottle going to Uk gov.

MUP is just one part of the approach to change our drinking habits. Scotland has issues with various addictions or harmful behaviours. The roots of it all go way back and equally the problems won't be solved any time soon.

I agree. A deeply rooted problem isn't going to be fixed by this showy bullshit. What will happen in the meantime is that many folks lives will become just a little bit less happy for being punished for something they didnt do. Alcohol use isn't some seedy, illicit habit which people ought to pursue behind the blackout curtains. It's social, and healthy, and enjoyable. Or at least it is in other countries where its ironically more readily available and significantly cheaper than here.

This has the same parochial stench as the likes of the Scotrail alcohol ban. Demonising the enormous majority of people who can and do drink (and otherwise behave) responsibly, and actually hitting them in the pocket, presumably because the long game doesn't win you political points right now.