SNP's "minimum alcohol pricing" likely to be blocked.

[glazbagun]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8379574.stm

I was sceptical of this at first, but 40p (or even 60p) per unit doesnt seem excessive enough to stop me enjoying a pint (where can I find a 1.20 pint these days, anyway?). I guess it would push a bottle of Vodka to about £12 (£17?), but since I don't drink bottles of gut-rot daily, I can't see it having an effect on me or anyone else who enjoys drinking, or even getting smashed once in a while.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that minimum pricing is "the answer", since many alcoholics/violent drunks are far from poor and it's obviously a largely cultural issue, but I certainly see no reason to block it unless you see it as some kind of thin-end-of-the-wedge/social freedom issue, which is unlikely from Labour.

I've only been following this throuhg the BBC website, so if anyone has something that I've missed, feel free to add it. My understanding is that the SNP intend to put into law the minimum price-per-unit alcohol can be sold for (as opposed to adding tax to make up the difference. THough the difference will obviously still be taxed)

Academics seem to like it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_we...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8361159.stm

The Tories claim it would cost the Scottish Whiskey industry £0.6Bn a year. Don't know where that figure comes from. Can you buy Whiskey at <40ppUnit? :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8343122.stm

[Fittster]

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

[telecat]

Rather Typical of politicians. They were elected to maintain the "comforts" Scotland felt they could lose under Westminster Rule. For example, Good Higher Education, funded Old folks homes, Cheap Prescriptions etc. The Moralists amongst them then start getting ideas about taking rights away to "protect" the voters or save/raise money by taxing or restricting access to other "comforts" and they will get slapped down.

[youngsyr]

Funny how there is no mention of the money raised being used to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, provide them with other ways to spend their time or rehabilitate alcoholics in the policy announcement isn't it?

Anyone would think that the powers that be don't really care about alcohol abuse, but see it as an easy way to raise more cash to ease their budgeting problems.

[Kermit power]

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think they are proposing any new taxes are they?

I thought they just wanted a law to say that retailers have to sell the stuff at a minimum price. As far as I am aware, the only outcome would be said retailers getting more money per unit sold, although arguably selling fewer units overall.

[youngsyr]

Kermit power said:

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think they are proposing any new taxes are they?

I thought they just wanted a law to say that retailers have to sell the stuff at a minimum price. As far as I am aware, the only outcome would be said retailers getting more money per unit sold, although arguably selling fewer units overall.

At first glance it certainly comes across as though it's not a tax increase, but then you read this, and do you honestly trust them not to bring in the increase by way of taxes?

BBC article said:

But Labour is not convinced it is the right approach and the party's Holyrood leader, Iain Gray, said he feared setting a minimum cost per unit of alcohol would make supermarkets richer, fail to target some problem drinks and potentially break EU law.

He is planning to set up a commission to look at alternative pricing mechanisms such as a local sales tax.

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 26th November 11:28

[Fittster]

IL_JDM said:

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

It's bullst, if they wanted to 'cure' obesity by all means increase the tax on fatty foods, but re-invest the money into other measures to assist with the matter (subsidise gym memberships).

Same goes with cigarettes, quitting smoking, but subsidise nicotine patches with the billions of pounds accumulated from it.

Is it the states job to determine what lifestyle decisions we should make?

[dcb]

glazbagun said:

(where can I find a 1.20 pint these days, anyway?).

Your local Wetherspoons ?

glazbagun said:

it's obviously a largely cultural issue,

Agreed - I see messing about with the price as increasing
the tax burden and yet more ineffective action from the Nanny state.

The Channel Ferry operators must be rubbing their hands
with glee at the news.

[ninja-lewis]

Fittster said:

IL_JDM said:

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

It's bullst, if they wanted to 'cure' obesity by all means increase the tax on fatty foods, but re-invest the money into other measures to assist with the matter (subsidise gym memberships).

Same goes with cigarettes, quitting smoking, but subsidise nicotine patches with the billions of pounds accumulated from it.

Is it the states job to determine what lifestyle decisions we should make?

When the state is responsible for picking up the pieces (especially in A&Es on a Friday night) should still they still ignore the problem?

[youngsyr]

ninja-lewis said:

Fittster said:

IL_JDM said:

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

Are you happy to see rises in taxes on fatty foods and climbing gear as they are also dangerous for your health?

All tax rises are a bad thing.

It's bullst, if they wanted to 'cure' obesity by all means increase the tax on fatty foods, but re-invest the money into other measures to assist with the matter (subsidise gym memberships).

Same goes with cigarettes, quitting smoking, but subsidise nicotine patches with the billions of pounds accumulated from it.

Is it the states job to determine what lifestyle decisions we should make?

When the state is responsible for picking up the pieces (especially in A&Es on a Friday night) should still they still ignore the problem?

Hold on a second there, the State doesn't pick up the pieces in A&E, the doctors and nurses do, and they're paid out of taxes raised from the public.

Or are you suggesting that we're all going to get a tax rebate from the reduced cost to the NHS of treating alcohol related injuries/illnesses?

[Bing o]

Fittster said:

Is it the states job to determine what lifestyle decisions we should make?

Depends if the state provides healthcare or not really?

No healthcare, do what you want.

NHS blocked up with lung cancer and liver disease patients - different story.

[rs1952]

This is one of those "quick wins" so favoured by politicians that don't actually work when you look at the detail.

As others have said, this is a cultural thing that will probably take generations to address. Alcohol is a fraction of the UK price on the continent, yet the Friday night punch up scenario is essentially a UK thing.

If somebody really really really wants to drink or smoke themselves to death, then they will find the money from somewhere. They will either nick it or save money on other things.

I've often wondered whether high taxes on tobacco cause some smokers to have less healthy diets (thereby exacerbating other health issues) because they need such a high proportion of their income to buy the cancer sticks

[Mojocvh]

rs1952 said:

This is one of those "quick wins" so favoured by politicians that don't actually work when you look at the detail.

As others have said, this is a cultural thing that will probably take generations to address. Alcohol is a fraction of the UK price on the continent, yet the Friday night punch up scenario is essentially a UK thing.

If somebody really really really wants to drink or smoke themselves to death, then they will find the money from somewhere. They will either nick it or save money on other things.

I've often wondered whether high taxes on tobacco cause some smokers to have less healthy diets (thereby exacerbating other health issues) because they need such a high proportion of their income to buy the cancer sticks

Very good points.

[glazbagun]

telecat said:

Rather Typical of politicians. They were elected to maintain the "comforts" Scotland felt they could lose under Westminster Rule. For example, Good Higher Education, funded Old folks homes, Cheap Prescriptions etc. The Moralists amongst them then start getting ideas about taking rights away to "protect" the voters or save/raise money by taxing or restricting access to other "comforts" and they will get slapped down.

Moralists? Taking away rights? Taxing/restricting comforts? 40 Pence Per Unit comforts? The right to buy loads of the sttest, nastiest alcoholic drink I can with my Dole cheque and get completely rat-arsed all the time while generally acting like a and damaging/assualting people/property, landing myself/someone else in hospital and costing the taxpayer to fix me up? That's a right you can take off me for free, and the kind of right I'd rather others didn't enjoy, especially when it's my property

A growing number of people *aren't* drinking responsibly. I don't think a minimum price that's below that of anything I already drink will automatically solve all of the associated problems of Binge drinking, since it targets only the poorest, but I certainly don't think it's counter-productive to that end.

If it were £5.00 a Unit, I would argue that it would be counterproductive, but I can't think of an argument against a low minimum price of alcohol that isn't based on hurting drinks companies who cater for cheap, st drink or a knee-jerk "OMG! It sounds like tax!" reaction. I don't see how heavy drinking being a cultural problem is an obstacle to this particular proposed legislation. No single law is going to change a culture.

I wouldn't pretend that a minimum price would have an effect on alcoholics, and pricing them out could certainly cause worse problems for society in the short term, but alcohol abuse is collectively costing us money and quality of life. As a democracy, shouldn't we be concerned about/attempting to alter that?

Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 26th November 18:20

[miniman]

Fittster said:

Of course it should be blocked. If I want to drink myself to death, I should be allowed to do so.

And how is this going to stop you? If this gets a few White Lightning drinking chavs off the street then I'm all for it. Anything worth drinking is more expensive per unit than the numbers proposed anyway.

[dcb]

glazbagun said:

alcohol abuse is collectively costing us money and quality of life. As a democracy, shouldn't we be concerned about/attempting to alter that?

I agree we should be doing something *useful* about alcohol abuse,
however I have no evidence that increasing the price of it helps
solve the problem.

Feel free to educate us with some evidence that increasing the
price helps reduce alcohol abuse.

Indeed, in most Scandinavian countries alcohol is heavily taxed
and they've got a real alcohol abuse problem, but in most
Southern European countries it is lightly taxed and they haven't
got anything like as serious a problem.

That would tend to indicate to me, cheaper the better.

Subtle and complex cultural problem, meet politician's
knee-jerk law making.

[glazbagun]

dcb said:

I agree we should be doing something *useful* about alcohol abuse,
however I have no evidence that increasing the price of it helps
solve the problem.

Feel free to educate us with some evidence that increasing the
price helps reduce alcohol abuse.

Subtle and complex cultural problem, meet politician's
knee-jerk law making.

I'll have a dig. I'd be surprised if it's expected to have an effect on alcoholics, but
as a means of putting a dent in, say, teen/underage/she-chav alcohol-related violence I
think it could have some merit. I certianly don't feel it would make the problem any worse.

[FourWheelDrift]

No tax rise is ever in the public's interest.


Cash needed = tax rise + feeble excuse to try and justify it.

[glazbagun]

FourWheelDrift said:

No tax rise is ever in the public's interest.

Cash needed = tax rise + feeble excuse to try and justify it.

It's not a tax rise; it's a minimum legal price that wouldn't have a measurable effect on most drinkers. Any extra tax gained would be at the stardard rate (which I'd agree is pretty high), with the rest going to the retailer/manufacturer.

[catso]

I fail to see how making alcohol more expensive will solve any drinking problems? those who have a 'problem' will still drink, just be poorer for having done so, as with drugs some will doubtless commit more crime to help pay for it?

'tis yet another turd polishing exercise for a tax pretending to be something else and further evidence of the failure and dishonesty of the leadership of our country...