Is setting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol a good idea?

[Ivor the Engineer]

The Chief Medical Officer in England, following similar plans in Scotland, has put forward a proposal to set a minimum price on a unit of alcohol to curb peoples' consumption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/02/scotland-drinking-proposals

Dramatic measures to control the sale of alcohol in Scotland, including minimum prices for drinks and a ban on two-for-one cut-price offers, have been unveiled by ministers.

The proposals, which mean Scotland could become the first country in Europe to fix alcohol prices, will prohibit all retailers, publicans and drinks firms from using heavily-discounted drinks to attract customers and boost sales.

Scottish health and justice ministers said they would push through the controversial measures, first suggested last year, despite concerted resistance from opposition parties, student groups, drinks firms and retailers.

Scottish ministers admitted they it would be a challenge ensuring that *minimum pricing was "effective, *proportionate and legally robust", and said they would need further time to find the right price and policy.

SNP ministers confirmed they faced a "challenge" ensuring that minimum pricing was "effective, proportionate and legally robust", and would need further time to find the right price.

But Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish health secretary, said this morning that tough measures were crucial if Scotland was to tackle its worsening problems with binge drinking, underage drinking and alcoholism.

One study last week said hospital admissions from alcohol-related diseases and violence had now exceeded heart disease for the first time. One study suggested misuse, bingeing and violence cost the Scottish economy £2.25bn a year.

Alcohol-related deaths were at 1,500 a year, and Scotland now had the world's eighth highest alcohol consumption rate, at 11.8 litres of pure alcohol a head, compared with 9.9 litres a head in England and Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7944334.stm

The government's top medical adviser has drawn up plans for a minimum price for alcohol which would double the cost of some drinks in England.

Under the proposal from Sir Liam Donaldson, no drinks could be sold for less than 50 pence per unit of alcohol they contain.

It would mean most bottles of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50.

Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander said the government would consider what Sir Liam had to say in his report.

But Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said ministers had no intention of going ahead with something that would punish the responsible majority of drinkers.

The proposal is aimed at tackling alcohol misuse and is set out in Sir Liam's annual report on the nation's health.

Does a significant proportion of the population in the UK have a problem with alcohol?

Do you think setting a minimum price will have the desired effect of reducing consumption to a more moderate level?

Is this "nanny state" gone too far?

 

[Aitch]

Does a significant proportion of the population in the UK have a problem with alcohol?

Probably not. Some people have serious problems with it, they are called alcoholics. Others probably have other problems, which they mask with alcohol. Some are going through the usual drinking-too-much-while-young phase and will grow out of it.

Do you think setting a minimum price will have the desired effect of reducing consumption to a more moderate level?

Not really; those who want to drink will drink - where they get the extra money to pay for it, or what they actually drink, is open to discussion. Those with money will continue as if nothing has happened. Those, like myself, who don't have a great deal of disposable income and like a drink now and then, will probably drink about the same - the difference will be minimal. Others may have a small pleasure removed because the government is trying its usual one-size-fits-all approach.

Is this "nanny state" gone too far?

More likely the government attacking the problem from the wrong direction. Or possibly attacking the wrong problem(s).

IMO.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk...5/content/6/682/docs/Liver disease deaths.pdf

The rising tide of liver disease deaths

An analysis of official statistics by the British Liver Trust shows:

• Liver disease is the only major cause of death still increasing year-on-year
• Liver disease is the fifth ‘big killer’ in England & Wales, after heart, cancer,
stroke and respiratory disease1
• 15,203 people in the UK died from liver disease in 2007
• This includes 13,126 people in England and Wales , 1,667 in Scotland
and 410 in Northern Ireland
• Twice as many people now die from liver disease as in 1991(1)
• Liver disease kills more people than diabetes and road deaths combined(1).

 

[Damien Evans]

Hell no. Run away!!!

 

[Aitch]

http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk...5/content/6/682/docs/Liver disease deaths.pdf

A single page handout. Doesn't split deaths down by age. Doesn't split liver disease deaths down by cause of liver disease. Uses a graph of % changes of deaths per million people by various causes - misleading?

Got anything with a bit more detail?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

A single page handout. Doesn't split deaths down by age. Doesn't split liver disease deaths down by cause of liver disease. Uses a graph of % changes of deaths per million people by various causes - misleading?

Got anything with a bit more detail?

Yep.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Defining_alcohol-related_deaths.pdf

 

[Aitch]

OK. The first link is, again, a summary page. It refers to 'alcohol related' deaths. Are we assuming that all AR deaths are via liver disease? It also states deaths have levelled off. Also, the highest rise seems to be among the age group that has the money to handle to proposed price increase.

Second link will take a bit of reading. But another report I found does point out that, when it was written, about 50% of liver disease deaths reported were alcohol related; ie most, but not all.

I would therefore not base your arguments on LD deaths; there are other AR death options - fights, accidents, drunk driving spring to mind. And a number of other causes of liver disease (obesity, diabetes and so on).

 

[ServiceSoon]

Does a significant proportion of the population in the UK have a problem with alcohol?

I would ask that you expand on problem.

Do you think setting a minimum price will have the desired effect of reducing consumption to a more moderate level?

Most likely. To what degree I can't say. It is apauling to me that gov functions this way. Instead of educating the gov attempts to control.

Is this "nanny state" gone too far?

For the UK? No. For the USA? Yes.

 

[Hittman]

We tried prohibition once before. It didn't work too well.

 

[geni]

As a side effect it might reduce the number of pub closures.

 

[dudalb]

The ideas of "The Right of an Individual to Choose" and "Personal Freedom" do not have big place in Ivor's world.

 

[GreyICE]

You know, in general I agree with some sorts of behavior-modifying taxes. Gas tax reduces gasoline consumption, cigarette tax reduces cigarette consumption.

But there's already alcohol taxes. Moreover, this is a terrible method of curbing consumption. At best, I can see limiting 2 for 1 specials (since they obviously give people an extra drink, which limits people's ability to curb their alcohol intake - and is obviously meant to spur more) but other than that, no. People are adults, let them be adults.

Everyone dies of something. If it wasn't liver disease, it would have been heart disease. If it wasn't that, there's all sorts of other organs that can give out. Cancer will get you eventually if nothing else does. We're not going to achieve immortality by playing whack-a-mole with causes of death.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

We tried prohibition once before. It didn't work too well.

This has nothing to do with prohibition.

 

[fuelair]

The Chief Medical Officer in England, following similar plans in Scotland, has put forward a proposal to set a minimum price on a unit of alcohol to curb peoples' consumption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/02/scotland-drinking-proposals



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7944334.stm



Does a significant proportion of the population in the UK have a problem with alcohol?

Do you think setting a minimum price will have the desired effect of reducing consumption to a more moderate level?

Is this "nanny state" gone too far?

How about just banning the sale of any but 12 year or older single malt Scotches or 18 -yr old Blendeds? That should take care of the price automatically. And double the price if they ask for water, quadruple it for ice.

 

[drkitten]

You know, in general I agree with some sorts of behavior-modifying taxes. Gas tax reduces gasoline consumption, cigarette tax reduces cigarette consumption.

But there's already alcohol taxes.

I see. So behavior-modifying taxes are fine until they're large enough to actually modify behavior?

Moreover, this is a terrible method of curbing consumption.

How so?

Everyone dies of something. If it wasn't liver disease, it would have been heart disease.

Sounds good. So lets stop giving children vaccines. After all, if it wasn't measles that killed them at age two, it would have been something else at age 70.

 

[Aitch]

OK, I had a read of the document referenced in #6. It's a discussion document concerning proposals to change the way alcohol related deaths are reported, with a view to them being more accurate. Don't think it is totally relevant.

Anyway, my objection is that the proposal (minimum cost per unit) affects the vast majority in order to control the problems of the minority. And probably won't even have the desired affect.

 

[Darat]

As a side effect it might reduce the number of pub closures.

I disagree, the "shop-bought" alcohol would still be cheaper than a pub would charge and this won't reverse the other social changes which contribute to pub closures.

 

[Darat]

...snip... And double the price if they ask for water, quadruple it for ice.

You've never visited a British pub if you think that would be a new idea!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Anyway, my objection is that the proposal (minimum cost per unit) affects the vast majority in order to control the problems of the minority. And probably won't even have the desired affect.

And what behaviour is it meant change?

There's a lot of talk in the press about how this is meant to help curb "binge drinking" - but from what I have seen "binge drinking" is a social activity so that means that it takes place in pubs and clubs where the proposed minimum price increase wouldn't have any effect (those drinks are already above that level).

 

[Soapy Sam]

The next step in the masterplan is to set a minimum price per gram of crack cocaine.