Scotlands Drink Culture

[Biohazard]

I'm sure the policy would be open to claims that it's something you can't measure but here's the thing, I'm perfectly happy with that as I don't mind that some things can't be quantified - it's trying to impute a level of precision that doesn't belong.

Well I disagree. Neither has it to do with 'precision', but measurement. If anything previously people have criticised the figure for being too 'low'. I will try and find the bit in the white paper about how the figure is calculated.

I don't think I said it a) wouldn't help and b) was invoked as a panacea. I did say that it wasn't addressing the root causes and I think that's perfectly true, the drinking culture in the UK as a whole isn't something that has occurred overnight and as we've seen with the ever-increasing cigarette prices that doesn't discourage lots of people from indulging.

Okay doky.

What is the primary cause for this problem? It merely being historic?

Beyond being an age old problem, what is then the next primary issue?

As for how to structure the education, I don't know but I'd suggest it starts with parents trying to encourage a bit of a sensible attitude to drinking. Difficult when a number will doubtless not have a sensible attitude themselves but I'd strongly suspect that it needs to be addressed from multiple angles so schools may need to take a bigger role in educating people about the dangers of excessive drinking and so on. My point is fairly simple, picking one thing to target is unlikely to do it by itself and right now it's also going to "punish" those who are responsible drinkers.

I agree with everything except the last part. Most responsible drinkers aren't out there for the cheapest "hit", and they are also concerned with the impact of drinking on society. You can't leave these two loose ends flapping in the wind for fear of the first contention imo.

 

[Biohazard]

This thread will turn into the almost daily Scotland vs England forum nonsense. Calling it now.

What do you think from a now far flung vista?

 

[Raikiri]

And this is exactly why alcohol should be more expensive. I wouldn't mind if they made it £5 per drink if it would stop idiots from coming out.

Aren't you the one who also claims to have spent £500 on a night out?

Surely you can understand that you aren't representative of most people, and the fact is most poeple are capable of going out and not causing any issues.




P.S. Sorry if I've got you mistaken with someone else.

 

["andy"]

I'm intrigued to see how hospital admissions and health stats go when 'idiots' start brewing there own or when the poor look for alternatives... the problems will still exist but there will be less money from booze tax to help pick up the bill

a lot of the people that this is aimed at have one thing in mind when they buy cheap booze and its getting as 'smashed' as possible. they will still do it one way or another. heroin anyone ?

 

[big_white_dog84]

So Dolph, do you really know better than all these experts and industry leaders?

Your post pretty much sums up why I decided never to vote for Scottish Labour while Iain Gray was leader. All these very intelligent people spoke in favour of minimum pricing before the last vote - yet Iain Gray decided to vote against it - opposition for the sake of it.

I feel fairly indifferent towards the policy - but if it's good enough for all the people in Biohazard's post then it's good enough for me.

 

[bhavv]

I'm intrigued to see how hospital admissions and health stats go when 'idiots' start brewing there own or when the poor look for alternatives...

a lot of the people that this is aimed at have one thing in mind when they buy cheap booze and its getting as 'smashed' as possible. they will still do it one way or another. heroin anyone ?

Very good point!

If alcohol becomes too expensive, such people may end up turning to other alternatives because all they want is to get drugged up for cheap.

 

[Macky]

Taxing stuff doesn't ****ing stop people from doing it......its merely just another mechanism for the ****** greedy expenses cheating fat cats to take yet another cut of peoples hard earned cash.

Oh no....there's now a slight increase in the cost of me getting hammered and partying....might as well stop drinking pints of Heineken and move over to Fosters....and if that fails....then may as well move on to some sort of illegal narcotics, since it will be the only substance the government cant tax....although give it time

Congestion charge....a fine example of just pure greed off of that communist **** Ken Livingston.....People that 'need' to drive in London will continue to do so....so in charging a premium they aren't minimising congestion, they are merely earning off of it.....Occassionally the lower earners who drive in London will HAVE TO get the train to work....but then BANG...constant year on year inflation busting ticket pricing increases and then Mr hard working tax payer is yet again further out of pocket.

Rant over I guess lol.... stuff like this just really bugs me...

Quoted for being a sensible post. Realist.

 

[Dolph]

So Dolph, do you really know better than all these experts and industry leaders?

I await with baited breath for your reply.

Anecdotes are not evidence, even when from experts (also known as vested interests).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...pricing/rapid-evidence-assessment?view=Binary

Is an example of the sort of 'research' done in this field. Heavily reliant on 'modelling' with the models rarely matched when comparing with real studies, and little evidence of actual causation.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

What do you think from a now far flung vista?

I don't know a great deal about the issue but I can say that the mindset and approach to alcohol here is vastly different to that in Scotland (purely subjective based on my friends and acquantices, granted).

Booze here is more expensive, generally speaking, but I don't think that's why there are fewer problems. In fact, as I'm typing this I don't know if the published stats back up what I'm saying or not. Maybe I'll have a look at lunchtime.

 

[mattyfez]

It's just more tax really. It won't affect the vast majority, but it will certainly make money. It's a pretty transparent ploy if you ask me.

 

[Biohazard]

Anecdotes are not evidence, even when from experts (also known as vested interests).

I foresaw this actually although I thought you'd pick it out not push them all aside, should have been more careful it cutting it off to start with. One or two are vested interests but it depends on how you look at it, although the vast majority do not anymore than professionalism. Unless you class things like community safety, health and NHS resources, and outreach as vested interests in this. Unfortunately, you do need to listen to the assessments from people in the front line and stakeholders. As much as it normally pains you.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...pricing/rapid-evidence-assessment?view=Binary

Is an example of the sort of 'research' done in this field. Heavily reliant on 'modelling' with the models rarely matched when comparing with real studies, and little evidence of actual causation.

Got a link that works?

 

[rz30]

Did not even Martin Luther once say something along the lines of, "When the Devil is at your door, go out and be merry, in fact go and get drunk and then get more drunk" Treat this with caution though.

I am going to look for that quote, i think it was in his book, 'the bondage of the will'.

 

[Biohazard]

It's just more tax really. It won't affect the vast majority, but it will certainly make money. It's a pretty transparent ploy if you ask me.

In Scotland if the legislation passes, with the subsequent tax acts, it is currently proposed that all the extra revenue would be funnelled back into alcohol related education/outreach/care & health.

 

[Dolph]

I foresaw this actually although I thought you'd pick it out not push them all aside, should have been more careful it cutting it off to start with. One or two are vested interests but it depends on how you look at it, although the vast majority do not anymore than professionalism. Unless you class things like community safety, health and NHS resources, and outreach as vested interests in this. Unfortunately, you do need to listen to the assessments from people in the front line and stakeholders. As much as it normally pains you.

I'll listen to them when they start doing research properly, rather than just making statements that they think are probably right...

There is no dispute that reducing alcohol consumption is desirable across a whole variety of areas, the question is whether minimum alcohol pricing will actually achieve this with the problem drinker categories, or just mean they spend less money on other things and moderate drinkers get punished for no real benefit.

Got a link that works?

Link works for me It's to a home office hosted paper by Sheffield university entitled 'Alcohol Pricing and criminal harm: A rapid evidence assessment of published literature'.

The most telling part is when you compare the claimed results around increases in price with the results around decreases in price, and find yourself wondering how anyone could claim a causal relationship between alcohol pricing and crime.

 

[rz30]

Ah i found it pretty quick - the wonders of google.

“Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.”

Now as i said treat this with caution, as many statements are semi metaphoric/symbolistic in their meaning.

 

[jimmy321]

I'm intrigued to see how hospital admissions and health stats go when 'idiots' start brewing there own or when the poor look for alternatives... the problems will still exist but there will be less money from booze tax to help pick up the bill

This may become a big problem, if alcoholics & kids can't afford the real stuff they will go buying counterfeit Vodka and find other ways to get smashed.

Anyone old enough to remember the hair lacquer and milk drinkers?

 

[Lima]

Quoted for being a sensible post. Realist.

Thank You

 

[mattyfez]

In Scotland if the legislation passes, with the subsequent tax acts, it is currently proposed that all the extra revenue would be funnelled back into alcohol related education/outreach/care & health.

That's all very commendable, but its tabling the symptoms rather than the cause.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Very good point!

If alcohol becomes too expensive, such people may end up turning to other alternatives because all they want is to get drugged up for cheap.

its not a good point.

for a start the alternatives you are talking about are "illegal".

some people get drug tested for their jobs.

some people cannot risk being arrested for illegal narcotics possession, it would ruin their careers.

just today, i was at the train station and guess what, a police officer with a sniffer dog went past everyone standing there. if i had something on me i would have been screwed.

this is a very good bill, it will stop people from buying as much booze.

people saying it wont make any difference dont have a clue. i know alcoholics who complain every time the price of a "case" goes up by a few pence. if the same case went up by a few quid, im pretty sure they wouldnt be able to drink as much, which can only be a good thing.

students will no longer be able to get cheap drinks in nightclubs, good they can study for a change.

idiots with no jobs will find it too expensive to get trashed all the time, good.

obviously this will affect hard working people too, but tbh if your smart and think about it, drinking achieves nothing in the first place, its an anti depressant, if you cant live without drinking then obviously you arent happy with your life.

nobody has even mentioned what this magical minimum price per unit is, anybody actually know?

i wonder why?

 

[Biohazard]

I'll listen to them when they start doing research properly, rather than just making statements that they think are probably right...

All of those people are completely wrong in their assessments?

Their professional work is not research or valid?

I don't think I could agree.

There is no dispute that reducing alcohol consumption is desirable across a whole variety of areas, the question is whether minimum alcohol pricing will actually achieve this with the problem drinker categories, or just mean they spend less money on other things and moderate drinkers get punished for no real benefit.

There is evidence that a majority of alcohol purchased from retail is currently bought at below 50p a unit, which would suggest you could have some impact on the units shifted and a rise to say something high like 90p would force customers with a strong price wall. Sheffield University itself, who you quote in your link/pdf, suggest that nearly 60% of off licensed trade aclohol sold is priced less than 40p per unit with something like 15% for on trade sales. Real term alcohol prices have been falling strongly, partly from offsales and that trend will probably continue with the decline of the 'pub' industry. It is untested, but a lot of 'irrelevent' Stakeholders would seem to agree with the hypothesis.

Link works for me It's to a home office hosted paper by Sheffield university entitled 'Alcohol Pricing and criminal harm: A rapid evidence assessment of published literature'.

The most telling part is when you compare the claimed results around increases in price with the results around decreases in price, and find yourself wondering how anyone could claim a causal relationship between alcohol pricing and crime.

Got it working sorry that was me.

Too long to read at present, got to nip to the shops in a moment, however; comparisons to scandanavian and other contintental countries, sometimes in a matrix, are for this purpose faulty when we don't have an exact mirror of their society, demographics and problems. This is assessment of what has been released as way of litrature and internet searches is a bit more orientated towards tax variations and not so much a minimum price, especially considering the nuiences of what would be a "Scottish Model" keeping in mind that minimum pricing hasn't really happened anywhere yet and so evidence on the effect is going to be a bit LOW I would say. Even then If I were to continue I feel what is presented is by chance falling to the misfortune of a lot of reading on tax rises and the effects, but not so much for their decline particularly.

It's a good reference, but I'm not convinced of its appropriateness.