Minimum Alcohol Pricing

[scottsdad]

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

[scottsdad]

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.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

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

 

[strichener]

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?

[scottsdad]

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. 

[scottsdad]

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.

 

[scottsdad]

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.

 

[Todd_is_God]

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 yesterday at 15:33 by Todd_is_God

[scottsdad]

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

 

[scottsdad]

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.

[Soapy FFC]

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.

 

 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

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

[Wee-Bey]

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.

[scottsdad]

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.