Minimum Price Per Unit Introduced In Scotland

[Muddy Funker]

Watch shoplifting go through the roof.

If the boozehounds can't afford it they'll just take it.

[Bigbob]

39 minutes ago, shaun4860 said:

Just raise the tax on fuel.....

People will still buy fuel no matter what the cost ?

I see folk still putting fuel in there motors to get to work but going for a run etc at the weekend has been cut back , its a lot of **** use public transport its unreliable and doesnt get to my work early enough for my shifts 

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

How will the savings in death be measured? Utter garbage.

Similar to the way they now record fire deaths; if they die outside the house, in the ambulance or at hospital then it isn`t a fire death. The idea is to stop people accessing alcohol at cheap prices, which I believe is a good idea, but it is terribly flawed the way they are doing it. Also alcoholics and YP will not turn to home brewing to get their alcohol, they want instant gratification. By publically doing something that is supposed to help people live longer the SNP massage their supporters and keep them believing they care for society, when they are just moving the goalposts. They cannot win against addiction and the money it brings into the coffers.

Sounds like a great leap but drug deaths have been climbing fast in Scotland and the SNP are not keen on tackling it until they have another crack at independence. Add in a lot of YP who access alcohol via the “White Cider” route who now have to access other methods of getting “blootered”. The obvious are vodka and buckie, both also going up substantially. However there are signs of YP accessing NPS`s as they move from one substance (alcohol) to another for their kicks. There is also a move from heroin to other opioid like substances such as Oxycodone/Fentanyl although this is tends to be older users there is a downward progression to younger users of drugs alcohol.

Oxycodone/Fentanyl are now being targeted by NPS producers as the mark up is huge a $5-8K outlay on the raw materials can net $20M gross (other equipment is required). Heroin is cut and has all sorts in it, however NPS`s are 98-99%+ pure so is seen as a better bet as long as it is cheaper than H.

Will it be a perfect storm of expensive alcohol against cheap opioids? Probably not, but there will be a lot of YP heading that way. I first came across YP using NPS`s in 2011/12 when they could get them legally and delivered to their door, now they are illegal but the producers of the basic building blocks are getting it into the country and others are selling it via couriers direct to your door.

Alcohol deaths go down because people can`t afford it, happy days but drug deaths sky rocket.....

[grrclark]

Delighted that our enlightened devolved government have implemented a root cause cure for alcoholism, I look forward in knowing that the plight of alcoholism for the addicts and their family and friends shall be no more because cheapo gash cider is 3 times more expensive !!!

Not quite sure how that will pan out for the guy that slept rough outside Central station in Glasgow that had a black mouth and face that looked like he had been drinking melted shoe polish, oddly enough because that is exactly what he had been doing, melting the shoe wax and drinking it through a hanky to filter out the solids as it had an alcohol based solvent.  There was also down and out girl in Dundee who would steal tins of hairspray and empty it into fruit cordial as it had an alcohol based propellant and got her pleasingly out her face.  Whilst thinking about Dundee I do wonder how inflating the price of cheapo gash cider will counter act the epidemic of counterfeit valium that has swept that city at a price per tablet way less that the minimum unit price of booze and has seen more than 30 related deaths in a 6 month period.

Also interesting and entirely unsurprising that those who buy more alcohol also have more income, but of course we typically conflate acute alcohol abuse problems with down and outs or low/no income.  I can safely say that probably 50% of the senior management team at my last employer had a degree of alcoholism, i.e. habitually exceeding the recommended limits, and every single one of them could afford a good bottle or 3 every week and many of them drank that.

We also conflate cheap alcohol with those that have an alcohol problem where oddly enough it is mainly bought by people who reasonably enjoy a drink and are content not to have to pay through the nose for it.

Now that I think about it maybe our glorious leader is once again peddling policies that make great media soundbites, but maybe not so much substance. 

Edit to add: I see Henry has posted something similar re cheap drugs taking over.

Edited May 1, 2018 by grrclark

[clakk]

I do believe a certain card carrying member of the communist party is now hitting some of her core voters in the pocket and may find herself down the dole come next election time .Former leader of the S.N.P mr Salmon will be laughing in his beer ironically at this little error by wee krankie 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Similar to the way they now record fire deaths;

I don't accept that - they cannot quantify what they don't know. They can guess and invent a target. The thinking is flawed and this seems nothing to do with saving lives. It smacks more of revenue and headline grabbing.

[ClemFandango]

7 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I don't accept that - they cannot quantify what they don't know. They can guess and invent a target. The thinking is flawed and this seems nothing to do with saving lives. It smacks more of revenue and headline grabbing.

What do you mean they can't quantify what they don't know? Why wouldn't they know the cause of a persons death? 

[Gordon R]

They are talking about saving 400 lives. Are those who don't die going to say that the increase in the price of alcohol saved their lives? If they are genuinely alcoholic, a price increase isn't going to make them suddenly sober. It is simplistic thinking at its worst.

[ClemFandango]

If they know how many deaths are directly attributable to alcohol now, and they will know how many after the policy and the only major change has been the implementation of the policy then is it not fair to say that the difference might be connected? 

I imagine the 400 figure has come from statistical analysis of alcohol attributed deaths in Scotland, bear in mind that we only get to see the story the press releases, there is never any explanation of the science or thinking behind things like this, they just pick up on something that sounds outrageous or mildly interesting and use that as it sells.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

It is simplistic thinking at its worst.

It isn't so much simplistic thinking, but a 'cover up' excuse.  The reality is that they want to raise more money.  Governments, especially 'left leaning ones' such as the SNP, are addicted ...... to spending money.  Under the present 'devolved' Scottish government's rules, there are only limited ways that they can raise funds to do this.  This is a way of raising income that is easily 'passed off' as 'good'.  If they were to raise income tax, everyone would see through that.

[Gordon R]

Any decrease could be a change of lifestyle, healthier eating, found religion etc. Grubby politicians will claim it is their policy, never mentioning increased revenue. Does anyone actually believe that an increase in the price of booze will save one life - forget the 400? Is their anyone who would 100% accept any statistics?  As has been pointed out, boozers will steal, buy less food for themselves or their family etc. They have an addiction, not capable of being cured / controlled by price. Many chancellors have said an increase in cigarette duty is meant to save lives. I don't know how they sleep at night.

John - I meant that it is simplistic thinking to believe that people won't see the genuine motives of the SNP.

[JohnfromUK]

23 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

John - I meant that it is simplistic thinking to believe that people won't see the genuine motives of the SNP.

I think so many have become 'untrusting' of what politicians say, that even the occasional 'genuine' thing (and I can't actually think of one off hand) become suspect simply because one can't see any ulterior motive!  Sad really, but the miserable lot (ALL parties) have brought it on themselves.

[grrclark]

Gordon, i agree.  The biggest impact on these statistics are the instructions given to those that collect them.

As Scully has often pointed out the statistics for firearm use in crime is inflated as so long as the report indicates that a firearm or imitation firearm is used then it gets added to the tally, no matter if the imitations firearm is nothing other than a humourously shaped carrot.

Same applies to how hospitals/police/coroners will be asked to record “alcohol related” deaths, not necessarily to fudge these figures, but certainly to provide a desired context to influence wider public policy.

Reference deaths of cyclists in London to help influence transport policy as another example of where the recording of results is shaped to provide a narrative and justification for policy change.

As an aside it is worth noting that none of the price rise for the affected products come back to the government in this instance, it will stay wholly with the end point retailers and not even the wholesale distributers.

[Yellow Bear]

9 minutes ago, grrclark said:

As an aside it is worth noting that none of the price rise for the affected products come back to the government in this instance, it will stay wholly with the end point retailers and not even the wholesale distributers.

As I suggested earlier I suspect wee jimmy will find a way to tax this so increase is not seen as a tax by her gullible supporters

[clakk]

I have a cunning plan ,two tier pricing in the houses of Parliament ,English and Welsh m,p,s carry on paying subsidised prices all SNP to pay price per unit to show solidarity with their fellow scots .MM how long do you think that would last

[JohnfromUK]

41 minutes ago, grrclark said:

As an aside it is worth noting that none of the price rise for the affected products come back to the government in this instance, it will stay wholly with the end point retailers and not even the wholesale distributers.

The VAT portion will go to the government; higher sale price = higher VAT

[ClemFandango]

3 hours ago, Gordon R said:

boozers will steal, buy less food for themselves or their family etc. They have an addiction, not capable of being cured / controlled by price.

What evidence do you habe to support these claims? How can you quantify the rise in crime related to this policy? 

It's simplistic thinking at it's worst. 

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, ClemFandango said:

What evidence do you habe to support these claims? How can you quantify the rise in crime related to this policy? 

It's simplistic thinking at it's worst. 

Heres simplistic thinking for you.

Alky 1 has £50 a week to spend on booze, he usually buys cheap cider and gets around 100-130 units for his money, he occasionally steals/shoplifts to get a bit more if he can.
The new laws mean he can only buy half the alcohol for his money, so he decides to turn his life around and stop drinking.

Alky 2 has £50 a week to spend on booze, he usually buys cheap cider and gets around 100-130 units for his money, he occasionally steals/shoplifts to get a bit more if he can.
The new laws mean he can only buy half the alcohol for his money, so he decides to shoplift and occasionally mug kids to supplement his addiction.

In your eyes ,which is the more likely scenario ?

[henry d]

The initial discussion paper was 10 years ago and can be found here.

As grrclark has said some of the paper is already biased toward minimum pricing, as this is the first "reason" for an increase in consumption in Scotland. There are a few others I would add, but it would be a bit of a digression/tangent but involves pubs, alcopops and 90`s drug culture which also drove down alcohol pricing and social acceptance of being bladdered.

Gordon R - one life yes, 400 no. Short story. We were on detached youth work in a local park and there was a young (13-14 yo) female face down on the ground and it was frosty, her 3 pals were still drinking and unconcerned as she was always the first to get blootered. She would have been about 6-7 stone wringing wet, so not a big girl. Her friends didn`t know she was also hypothermic due to the skimpy clothes, alcohol and lying facedown on a frozen pavement (We got her warmed up and took her and her brother back home later). Frosty`s was the culprit, 8% alcohol and cheap enough for a YP to buy, today it is £11-30 for a 3 litre bottle. No one can be certain of the future and it isn`t a given that a YP similar to her will live due to Frosty`s going up but I`m pretty sure that there will be some that will not die, but for the fully functioning alcoholic with a job, they will certainly not be affected by the price rise but will be affected by alcohol and die from cancer, pancreatitis, stroke, heart attack....brought on by excessive alcohol consumption.

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

What evidence do you habe to support these claims? How can you quantify the rise in crime related to this policy? 

It's simplistic thinking at it's worst. 

 

What evidence do you have to support your view? None. My view is that little or nothing will be achieved in terms of saving life. I suspect people, who die of alcohol poisoning, are alcoholics. To think that will simply give up or reduce consumption is simplistic, but I think you have cornered that particular market.  

Do you think crime will remain static?  Members frequently compare drugs to alcohol, which has an associated crime rate all of its own.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Gordon R

[Rewulf]

I dont think anyone doubts that the new pricing law will make some people think twice, and it may well save some lives, but to attempt to quantify it is ridiculous.

As in your example above Henry , would the price of it have stopped them, would they do it less often, or just drink less on occasion ?

As you say, 'casual' alcoholics ,who work and have money will not be bothered, but the law wasnt really aimed at them was it ?
The young kids experimenting, and the chronic 'street ' alkies will feel the bite, and are also the ones who really cannot, or dont want to stop.
They will drink things that are not fit, like meths ect, sniff glue/thinners , take cheap drugs , how many deaths will that cause ?
Again, impossible to quantify.
Governments feeble attempts to put sticky plasters over gaping wounds in society, shows how absolutely out of touch they are with common people.
They should stick every MP into a working class household for a months 'work experience' to better qualify them for the work they are paid, and privileged to do.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Rewulf

[Bigbob]

Its okay buckfast the tipple of the conasuir wont be going up LOL 

[ClemFandango]

5 hours ago, Gordon R said:

What evidence do you have to support your view? None. My view is that little or nothing will be achieved in terms of saving life. I suspect people, who die of alcohol poisoning, are alcoholics. To think that will simply give up or reduce consumption is simplistic, but I think you have cornered that particular market.  

Do you think crime will remain static?  Members frequently compare drugs to alcohol, which has an associated crime rate all of its own.

I don't have a view on the subject. I was pointing out that the criticism you levelled can be levelled straight back at you. 

Your reply doesn't really answer my points either, as usual you have just come up with an insult and then gone off on a tangent. 

[Gordon R]

Much the same as yourself. You have a confrontational style - I do not envy the world you live in.

[grrclark]

9 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The VAT portion will go to the government; higher sale price = higher VAT

In some cases yes and I guess an element of corporation tax too on profits, however the likeliest outcome is that the current products that are sold significantly below the cost of named brands, so own brand whisky, gin and vodka, will simply disappear of the shelf as there is no longer a value differentiation between the named brand and own brand.

It may well be that overall there is a slight reduction in revenues to the retailer from alcohol sales.  Time will tell.

In principle i'm not actually against pricing out the Frosty Jack gash ciders of this world, as Henry D referenced, as typically they are bought by youngsters and have their own associated problems, but I do think the premise overall is more ideological and idealistic than a meaningful answer to the very unhealthy relationship that Scotland (and much of the UK) has with alcohol.