[romille]

I see that the Scottish government have finally got the green light to introduce minimum alcohol pricing. It seems that once again the responsible majority are being punished for the sins of irresponsible few.

[Dave W]

The responsible ones it will hit proportionately hardest are those who earn least.

Yet I'm sure I've been told that Holyrood is the home of a progressive government.

[romille]

My view is that it will lead to a huge black market in cross border alcohol running and illegal production, the former will cause huge harm. It is also worth bearing in mind that both Glasgow and Edinburgh are less than 100 miles from England where people will be able to fill their cars with much cheaper booze. Also like drug addicts, alcoholics will turn to crime to feed their minimum priced habit. Furthermore it is effectively a wealth surcharge that will only impact those that drink cheaper beer, wines and spirits, quaffers of fine wine, quality beer and malt whisky will not see any increase in the price of their favourite tipple . Rather than progressive I think the SNP have scored an own goal, but only time will tell.

[Jim Jones]

Minimum pricing is not necessarily an additional 50p per unit.
The 3 litre cider bottle of 7.5% alcohol will now cost at least £11.25., up from £3.59
That’s the stuff that is being drunk by the drinkers I see with terminal ill health. Liver failure,gastric bleeds, pancreatitis and a ghastly death from a bleed in the oesophagus are a consequence of cheap alcohol.

A bottle of 12% wine will cost at least £4.50. Any decent bottle already exceeds that so won’t be affected, ditto drinkable spirits.

Retailers may try to pull a fast one of course and put up all prices, but that’s a matter for regulators.

The whole UK should follow.

(And selling alcohol without a licence is already illegal)

[romille]

Minimum pricing is not necessarily an additional 50p per unit.
The 3 litre cider bottle of 7.5% alcohol will now cost at least £11.25., up from £3.59
That’s the stuff that is being drunk by the drinkers I see with terminal ill health. Liver failure,gastric bleeds, pancreatitis and a ghastly death from a bleed in the oesophagus are a consequence of cheap alcohol.

A bottle of 12% wine will cost at least £4.50. Any decent bottle already exceeds that so won’t be affected, ditto drinkable spirits.

Retailers may try to pull a fast one of course and put up all prices, but that’s a matter for regulators.

The whole UK should follow.

(And selling alcohol without a licence is already illegal)

In these days when inflation is outstripping wage rises and people are financially hard pressed I am sure a lot of who do not have a problem with alcohol are choosing cheaper brands of booze. It is unfair to deny these people the right to relax with a glass of wine or a beer because a minority are out of control. We need to deal with problem drinkers rather than punish a large proportion of the population that are responsible.

Since when does something being illegal stop anything where criminals can make a fast buck, especially these days when the Police service are run ragged and the prisons are bursting at the seams.

This once again proves that politicians are utterly out of touch with the majority of the electorate and merely pander to lobby groups that make the most noise.

[nallen]

This once again proves that politicians are utterly out of touch with the majority of the electorate and merely pander to lobby groups that make the most noise.

Or it might prove the politicians are following the research that indicates it could be an effective policy. (The lobby group making the most noise has been the drinks industry, which has been fighting this tooth and nail through the courts for five years.)

[romille]

The drinks industry have been fighting it because it's patently unfair, if it is so bad for health why not just ban alcohol rather than make it something only the better off can afford. At the end of the day I want politicians to deal with the big issues rather than needlessly interfere in my every day life. It also seems that the extra revenue will go to the retailer rather than the government as it does in Canada. Surely rather than line the pockets of big business it would be much better to use the extra revenue to prevent alcohol abuse, yet another own goal.

[Flyin'Dutch']

There is good scientific evidence, further supported by real life experience in a number of countries that minimum unit pricing does reduce harmful drinking.

Harmful alcohol use is a big ticket item both for the individuals involved as well as the health service and society as a whole.

The drinks industry have been fighting it because it's patently unfair,

Nah, industry has been fighting it as they see it as a threat to their bottom line, and their powerful Westminster lobby has stopped Cameron from doing the right thing.

If anyone has any doubt about the effectiveness of doing this - the pricing of cigarettes has had a very positive outcome on levels of smoking. The UK now has a level of about 17% of adults smoking. The Netherlands and Germany between 30 and 40%.

Massive benefits for all (bar the tobacco industry)

[romille]

Seems to me that the retailer or drinks industry will be quids in as they rather than the Scottish government are getting the extra money charged.

[Jim Jones]

Useful summary here. Moderate drinkers will be hardly affected if at all.

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sect ... q#evidence


But when has evidence had anything to do with, it’s created by experts after all?

[Leodisflyer]

.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having followed this issue for while (no professional interest, just curious) I agree with Messrs Jones and Dutch - all evidence appears to heavily favour minimum pricing as a restrictor of abuse, unlikely to penalise any responsible drinker. ONLY the drinks industry has any reason not to want it (or anybody poor but hellbent on drinking themselves to death of course).

Well done Scotland, and the sooner this spreads south of the border the better.

And when you look at the effect ready availability of cheap alcohol has on a lot of families around the country, this *is* a big issue, and the Scottish government was quite right to tackle it. The question is why Westminster hasn't - and we can all conject why, and we might be right.

G

[romille]

As I don't drink I have no idea about the price or strength of drinks, but what I do know is that the majority of people that drink do it responsibly and should not be punished for the minority that are out of control. What is next in line for the minimum pricing treatment, sugar and high calorie food, as obesity seems more of a problem than alcohol.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I went to the off licence yesterday. Picked up the £3.60 bottle of cider and took it to the counter before checking and seeing it had as much alcohol as 2 bottles of wine. Took it back to the shelf and swapped for a more expensive, same sized bottle with just over half the alcohol content.
.

Typical dependence inducing industry behaviour.

Offer the strong stuff - alcohol/nicotine/drugs - containing products to get the punter hooked.

When the strength then gets reduced (Due to regulations/societal pressures/dealer decision) the punter has to buy more product to achieve the same level of 'satisfaction.

[Paul_Sengupta]

A nice traditional strength beer is refreshing and filling. There’s no need for strong beers to be priced the same or more cheaply and we are often not even given the choice.

I find a 3.8% is usually a bit lacking in taste. I find the best ales are 4.3 to 4.8%.

Our old Thursday pub actually had pricing by strength of beer. It ranged from £3.00 for a lowish alcohol ale (when they had them in, they didn't have them in very often), to about £3.40 for 3.8%, £3.60 for those 4.3 to 4.8% ones I mentioned, to £3.80 for the 5% ones.

At one pint every Thursday (driving!), the price difference wasn't going to break the bank!

Having said that, one of the nicest ales I've had in recent times was in Manchester (when I wasn't driving!)....it was the Cornish strong version of Proper Job, called Big Job or something like that. It was something like 7.5%. I was very nice. The staff actually told me they had to point out to me the strength, just in case I hadn't twigged when I ordered it. I was just in for one before dinner while my friends had got there earlier and had had 3 or 4 (lower strength ordinary ones!) by that time.

Ah, here we are...7.2%. Glad it wasn't stupidly expensive either.

https://www.staustellbrewery.co.uk/big-job

I find it interesting that the 4% lagers, down from 5%, like Stella 4 and Becks 4 are gaining in popularity. I guess people out for a lager session can spend more time in the pub without falling over...