Minimum Price Per Unit Introduced In Scotland

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Wing it said:

Well folks I've had a right good read of this thread and at times a wee chuckle. So I thought I'll throw in my views. For those who have lost loved ones through addiction my condolences. However I don't believe addiction is an illness. People with illnesses don't have the choice. The increase in price will have no effect people will turn to cheaper alternatives, drugs home made gut rot, (no offence to the home brewers )or whatever. The effect on the NHS social services and the police will be minuscule as these services are not at breaking point they're broken. 

Im all for saving life's and no amount of money can replace a loved one. But yet again I'm paying for others life style choices.

Big rant for a first post but it really does rip my knitting  

Excellent , good post 

[henry d]

3 hours ago, Wing it said:

Im all for saving life's and no amount of money can replace a loved one. But yet again I'm paying for others life style choices.

Yeah, someone wakes up one day and says "Ye know what, I`m just gonna jack it all in and become a jaykie." happens all the time

[Wing it]

Your quite right nobody does but then no one holds them down and pours it down there throat 

People drink for different reasons  I get that but ultimately they can still say no.

Its they're choice but why should I have to pay. 

 

 

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, Wing it said:

Your quite right nobody does but then no one holds them down and pours it down there throat 

People drink for different reasons  I get that but ultimately they can still say no.

Its they're choice but why should I have to pay. 

 

 

I don't understand what it is you're paying for? 

[Wing it]

The way I see Scilly obviously my opinions.

Due to the medical conditions which are brought on by others addiction to alcohol the government have decided the best way to prevent others from requiring treatment and possible their death is to bump up the price of alcohol.

Thankfully I'm not addicted to alcohol in fact because of my limited weekends off and shifts I don't drink that much.

My beef is that when I do decide to its costing me more money to partake in some fire water 

[Bigbob]

I going to Penrith tomorrow for a message might be first booze run coming home 

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, Wing it said:

The way I see Scilly obviously my opinions.

Due to the medical conditions which are brought on by others addiction to alcohol the government have decided the best way to prevent others from requiring treatment and possible their death is to bump up the price of alcohol.

Thankfully I'm not addicted to alcohol in fact because of my limited weekends off and shifts I don't drink that much.

My beef is that when I do decide to its costing me more money to partake in some fire water 

Ah, I see. As tax payers we're all paying for the problems associated with someone's addiction. It's not something I resent. 

I think you may find it has little or nothing to do with combatting Scottish alcohol abuse. 

5 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

I going to Penrith tomorrow for a message might be first booze run coming home 

I'd leave it til you get to Carlisle on your way back; no discount booze outlets in Penrith anymore as far as I know. 

[Wing it]

As I said Scully I'll gladly pay my taxes to assist with the treatment of someone's illness not addictions 

You say it's nothing to do with the Scottish drinking culture so why was it introduced then.

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Yeah, someone wakes up one day and says "Ye know what, I`m just gonna jack it all in and become a jaykie." happens all the time

Although you are broadly correct, I have seen plenty of friends ect who for reasons best known to themselves did just that.
People with good jobs, families, prospects, no money issues, I buried a friend of mine last year, who died of cirrhosis at 50, he had been an alcoholic for 20 odd years, the last 10 as a common street drunk, yet his siblings and parents were multi millionaires. He was intelligent, business driven, but just loved drink more than anything else in the world, including himself.

 

24 minutes ago, Wing it said:

As I said Scully I'll gladly pay my taxes to assist with the treatment of someone's illness not addictions 

You say it's nothing to do with the Scottish drinking culture so why was it introduced then.

 

This is the thing, is addiction an illness? Maybe a mental illness ?
As with my friend above, was he mentally ill?  I dont believe he was, he was just apathetic toward 'real ' life.

Quite often the mental or physical illness comes from the addiction, which then qualifies for disabled/sickness or incapacity benefits, a self inflicted affliction.

Another friend, who has literally eaten himself disabled, at 40 stone , his legs will not carry him, unless its to his disability 4x4 and the take away, of which he is a very frequent visitor, he hasnt worked for 25 years, and has no intention of changing anything in his life, which is all paid for by the tax payer.

[Wing it]

18 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Although you are broadly correct, I have seen plenty of friends ect who for reasons best known to themselves did just that.
People with good jobs, families, prospects, no money issues, I buried a friend of mine last year, who died of cirrhosis at 50, he had been an alcoholic for 20 odd years, the last 10 as a common street drunk, yet his siblings and parents were multi millionaires. He was intelligent, business driven, but just loved drink more than anything else in the world, including himself.

 

This is the thing, is addiction an illness? Maybe a mental illness ?
As with my friend above, was he mentally ill?  I dont believe he was, he was just apathetic toward 'real ' life.

Quite often the mental or physical illness comes from the addiction, which then qualifies for disabled/sickness or incapacity benefits, a self inflicted affliction.

Another friend, who has literally eaten himself disabled, at 40 stone , his legs will not carry him, unless its to his disability 4x4 and the take away, of which he is a very frequent visitor, he hasnt worked for 25 years, and has no intention of changing anything in his life, which is all paid for by the tax payer.

You rest my case

[Scully]

49 minutes ago, Wing it said:

As I said Scully I'll gladly pay my taxes to assist with the treatment of someone's illness not addictions 

You say it's nothing to do with the Scottish drinking culture so why was it introduced then.

 

But you ARE paying your taxes to assist with the treatment of addictions; gladly or otherwise. Whether addiction is an illness or not seems to be debatable, dependant on which authority you ask. 

For revenue? To suggest that an increase in price per unit will diminish any drinking culture is naive and ridiculous. It is the job of any government to be perceived to have 'done something' about the issue of the day. Has that 'something' ever achieved its intended claim? Did prohibition in the USA reduce the occurrence of alcohol abuse? Was there an increase in alcohol abuse with its demise? 

[Wing it]

I totally agree with you. I know my taxes pay for theses things and unfortunately I can't pick and choose how my taxes are spent. 

The cock and bull that politicians spout is farcical.  They play to the snowflake society and who ever will believe them. 

I don't think for a minute that the increase will make any difference folk will still drink 

It's just increasing my blood pressure 

I may just might declare ma house an independent state and apply for foreign aid and have a **** up with it ?

[Wb123]

16 minutes ago, Wing it said:

I totally agree with you. I know my taxes pay for theses things and unfortunately I can't pick and choose how my taxes are spent. 

The cock and bull that politicians spout is farcical.  They play to the snowflake society and who ever will believe them. 

I don't think for a minute that the increase will make any difference folk will still drink 

It's just increasing my blood pressure 

I may just might declare ma house an independent state and apply for foreign aid and have a **** up with it ?

Eyewatering taxation on tobacco does however seem to have had some effect has it not? First it reduced use then pushed a good chunk of the remaining smokers to the electronic jobbies. In the process a generation or two of smokers more than paid for the consequences of their decisions in higher taxation, and the problem was dramatically reduced. 

 

Also, how much drinkable booze that normal people without drinking problems consume is under 50p a unit anyway? The only stuff I could find that cheap in my house is the home brew, everything we buy is already over 50p a unit bar the cooking wine.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Wb123

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Wb123 said:

Also, how much drinkable booze that normal people without drinking problems consume is under 50p a unit anyway?

Not much, but a litre of Scotch (40% A.B.V) is 40 units.  Perfectly drinkable brands (Bells, Grants, Famous Grouse) appear on offer at £ 15 occasionally, and regularly at £16 in my local supermarket.  Gordons gin (37.5% A.B.V) is currently on at £16 a litre.  Both of these are under 50p per unit.  I believe Aldi (whose gin and whisky are both very good) is also around that price or maybe lower.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not much, but a litre of Scotch (40% A.B.V) is 40 units.  Perfectly drinkable brands (Bells, Grants, Famous Grouse) appear on offer at £ 15 occasionally, and regularly at £16 in my local supermarket.  Gordons gin (37.5% A.B.V) is currently on at £16 a litre.  Both of these are under 50p per unit.  I believe Aldi (whose gin and whisky are both very good) is also around that price or maybe lower.

How about 20 cans of Carling @ £12-13 ?

New law 20 x 2.3 units per can = 46 units, now £23

[JohnfromUK]

I rarely/never buy beer/lager in the supermarket, so didn't have any idea of the price.  The examples I quoted were just a couple that I saw today.  I think a bottle of wine (say 13% ABV and 750 ml) is about 9 units, so that would have to be under £4.50 to go up - which is unlikely.

There are cheaper brands of whisky (e.g. there was one called High Commissioner which was horrible) - but they are questionable in line with the Wb123's restriction of "drinkable booze that normal people without drinking problems consume".  I presume the same applies to gin and vodka.

Edited May 9, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[Wb123]

20 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not much, but a litre of Scotch (40% A.B.V) is 40 units.  Perfectly drinkable brands (Bells, Grants, Famous Grouse) appear on offer at £ 15 occasionally, and regularly at £16 in my local supermarket.  Gordons gin (37.5% A.B.V) is currently on at £16 a litre.  Both of these are under 50p per unit.  I believe Aldi (whose gin and whisky are both very good) is also around that price or maybe lower.

Good call. The Aldi gin isnt bad at all, it is the base for my sloe gin (though Gordons was even cheaper last time I made a large batch). 

[Scully]

40 minutes ago, Wb123 said:

Eyewatering taxation on tobacco does however seem to have had some effect has it not? First it reduced use then pushed a good chunk of the remaining smokers to the electronic jobbies. In the process a generation or two of smokers more than paid for the consequences of their decisions in higher taxation, and the problem was dramatically reduced. 

 

 

The claims of passive smoking made smoking socially much less acceptable than it once was, followed by a ban in certain places; that was what reduced tobacco intake. Nothing to do with taxation.  I don't know anyone who has stopped smoking purely because of cost. There are still many people still smoking who smoked when I did; some pay through the nose for their addiction, others have gone on to roll ups. One of the lads with us at Drumoak just before Christmas was paying more than £11.00 for 20. 

I know loads of young people who smoke, most of them girls. My daughter told me that a lot of her friends at school started smoking from a fear of getting overweight, as it is claimed nicotine kills your appetite. 

 My nephew never smoked until he was over 18, but being left inside the pub while the majority of his mates went outside for a smoke saw him start 'just to be sociable Uncle .......' He's now addicted and on at least 20 a day. 

I can't see any reduction in alcohol intake until drinking is made socially unacceptable on the same scale and in the same manner as smoking. No government with hopes of being re-elected is ever going to do that, no matter what the savings to the NHS, so they come up with all manner of far fetched schemes. 

[henry d]

21 hours ago, Wing it said:

However I don't believe addiction is an illness. People with illnesses don't have the choice.

If someone is addicted to something they don`t have a choice and therefore according to your statement it is an illness. If someone is physically addicted to alcohol they have symptoms of craving and withdrawal so could it be better described as an illness of the brain?

There are some professionals who see addictions (Drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling etc) as genetic predispositions and many will have seen families who have several generations who are addicted to alcohol. We do not treat people who have other genetic predispositions as "self inflicted" so why do we with alcohol? Admittedly there are those who start off drinking and will appear to be doing it in spite of their family, work or societal commitments, but once alcohol has a grip like any other addiction it is then an illness surely? They got there by choice but now they need help to kick it, so is it better to treat them or to keep our NHS cash for other things and who is going to decide whether one person is genetically predisposed or self indulgent?

An interesting point from one story in the C5 documentary "Me & my addiction" was a woman who had surgery for pancreatitis and was on opioid pain relief in hospital, between doses she was experiencing delerium and sweats and shaking, she was having withdrawal symptoms and the staff did not realise this. At home she had to take fentanyl lozenges and had a repeat prescription. After 3 months she spiralled into taking more and more as she was so hooked on them. She had gone from her recommended maximum dosage of 8 per day to 60 per day in 3 weeks! She tried to cut down by herself but was having psychotic episodes seeing, as she described them, devils on the ceiling and music from the electrical sockets. Her GP eventually gave her a weeks worth and said she would not get any more, so she applied for NHS inpatient detox and was refused as she was not homeless and was not offending (she was a journo I think) so she put her cottage on the market and booked into private rehab. It took her a week in rehab to actually realise and admit she was an addict. (Unfortunately the documentary is not available on C5 playback)

I know this is just one of many many addicts and every person is different, but to turn around and say; No, it is your fault and you are not getting help with my taxes, is inhumane in my opinion.

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, henry d said:

If someone is addicted to something they don`t have a choice and therefore according to your statement it is an illness. If someone is physically addicted to alcohol they have symptoms of craving and withdrawal so could it be better described as an illness of the brain?

There are some professionals who see addictions (Drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling etc) as genetic predispositions and many will have seen families who have several generations who are addicted to alcohol. We do not treat people who have other genetic predispositions as "self inflicted" so why do we with alcohol? Admittedly there are those who start off drinking and will appear to be doing it in spite of their family, work or societal commitments, but once alcohol has a grip like any other addiction it is then an illness surely? They got there by choice but now they need help to kick it, so is it better to treat them or to keep our NHS cash for other things and who is going to decide whether one person is genetically predisposed or self indulgent?

An interesting point from one story in the C5 documentary "Me & my addiction" was a woman who had surgery for pancreatitis and was on opioid pain relief in hospital, between doses she was experiencing delerium and sweats and shaking, she was having withdrawal symptoms and the staff did not realise this. At home she had to take fentanyl lozenges and had a repeat prescription. After 3 months she spiralled into taking more and more as she was so hooked on them. She had gone from her recommended maximum dosage of 8 per day to 60 per day in 3 weeks! She tried to cut down by herself but was having psychotic episodes seeing, as she described them, devils on the ceiling and music from the electrical sockets. Her GP eventually gave her a weeks worth and said she would not get any more, so she applied for NHS inpatient detox and was refused as she was not homeless and was not offending (she was a journo I think) so she put her cottage on the market and booked into private rehab. It took her a week in rehab to actually realise and admit she was an addict. (Unfortunately the documentary is not available on C5 playback)

I know this is just one of many many addicts and every person is different, but to turn around and say; No, it is your fault and you are not getting help with my taxes, is inhumane in my opinion.

To think of addiction as an illness is to remove the thought that it was not possible to avoid it.
Where as a cold ,flu or measles, there are really not much chance of avoiding , opioid and alcohol addictions ARE avoidable, they are choices.

Except in your excellent, but mercifully rare example of the lady with pancreatitis above.

When it comes to hereditary behaviour or genetic disposition, there is really no evidence to suggest it ,beyond being in proximity to addiction in adolescence ect.
I have often been in proximity to addictions ,my father was an alcoholic, and I have lost more than a few friends to drugs ,and their resultant behaviours.
You often hear of addictive personalities, I used to describe myself as one, when I was younger, if I liked 'something' I would do a lot of it , until I was bored, then I would do something else.
But I have never had a drink or drug 'problem'

The difference is, with addictions, be it physically addictive things, like alcohol, nicotine or opiates, or mentally addictives like coke (both types) weed or adrenaline, it is your CHOICE whether you continue to participate, your willpower.
That amount of willpower necessary, may well differ from person to person, but to describe it as an illness, is not accurate.
Its not completely wrong, but to treat it like any other illness is not the answer, so...
To answer the fact whether it be 'inhumane' to 'fund it' is two fold, do you treat addiction by feeding it with public money ?
Or do you attempt to starve the demon.
The former has been tried, and has been found to be ineffective, I used to work next door to a drop in centre, year on year the numbers attending grew, along with the anti social behaviour, until it was shut down, and the problems moved on.
The latter, is possibly behind the new laws, which will be coming south of the border very soon.

[walshie]

20 hours ago, Bigbob said:

I going to Penrith tomorrow for a message might be first booze run coming home 

Are you going by train?

[Richie10]

Seems Ill be taking my own booze up Scotland next time. Actually could fill the truck and make a profit!

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Except in your excellent, but mercifully rare example of the lady with pancreatitis above.

I`m afraid it is far from rare, it is at epidemic proportions in some areas of the USA such a Huntington and in western Canada, but was also driven by the medical systems there who were basically pushing the use of Oxycodone/Oxycontin and Fentanyl. It is on its way here but will not be driven by the pharmaceutical companies and medical system, but probably by NPS producers.

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, henry d said:

I`m afraid it is far from rare, it is at epidemic proportions in some areas of the USA such a Huntington and in western Canada, but was also driven by the medical systems there who were basically pushing the use of Oxycodone/Oxycontin and Fentanyl. It is on its way here but will not be driven by the pharmaceutical companies and medical system, but probably by NPS producers.

Rare in this country so far.
Im not sure we have the same sort of mentality amongst the medical profession in here as in the US.
Getting medication from GPs is something of a battle in my experience, especially when it comes to the strong stuff !

It all comes down to budget at the end of the day, and the NHS budget is creaking at the seams, whilst the yanks can buy drugs like oxy (hillbilly heroin) over the counter from multiple outlets and mail order, ours is strictly controlled and costs far more per mg (whoever may be paying for it.

Not to say this all wont change, but for now , its not the nightmare situation like Huntingdon and other towns.

[Scully]

I'm not too sure there's much to be gained from arguing the toss as to whether alcoholism is an illness or not. Whether alcoholism is an illness or an addiction, or both or neither ( and like I said, much depends on who you talk to ) and whether we like it or not is irrelevant, as we are all as taxpayers, paying for it.

We subsidise the treatment and care of alcoholics as much as we subsidise the ambulances which rush to their aid; the hospital beds they occupy, and the drugs and care they receive until well enough to return to their accommodation, which we also subsidise. Are we suggesting we don't treat the problem?