Leggsy posted:

Nice pivot from Minimum Pricing.

Sion posted:

forkboy84 posted:

It's a lovely policy because instead of being a tax which could see money going towards treatment centres to help people with alcohol problems it just means that poor folk will spend a larger proportion of their wage on bevvy and supermarkets will make more profit. That's hosed. I'd accept it as a worthwhile attempt to treat a social ill. Put the money towards the health service & social care, giving it to Billy Tesco & Bobby Walmart is a terrible policy though.

Now I don't drink too often, but when I do, I binge drink horribly. And unless I'm particularly flush at that moment it's far more likely I'll buy a dirt cheap bottle of Glen's gut-rot vodka rather than a bottle of Laphroaig. Of course it's easy for tee-totallers to back a law that doesn't impact them. But more than "middle class students" drink for fucksake, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. What an utterly asinine point.

On top of that, I'm just not sure it'll make a huge dent into how much people drink. Just into their wallet. It's a very SNP policy, more about posture than the actual outcome, and a wee bit old-fashioned paternalistic too. Daddy (or in this case Mummy) knows best.

Sion posted:

Like, if it's done by unit then cheaper, stronger drinks (ie, the drinks that are usually consumed in large quantities) will be hit. This will raise prices and further raise poverty levels. Raising taxes on smoking did not seem to have that big an impact on the number of people that smoked.

Leggsy posted:

EDIT: I finally loving found it, seconds after I posted. Here's a great effortpost from ages back by Iohannes which sets out the basic arguments in favour of Minimum Pricing. Archives are needed but it's a great read: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3483266&pagenumber=15#post403615995

Niric posted:

On the pro-indy thing, this was something that came up repeatedly (and heatedly) when teaching the play to 2nd year uni students (in 2013 and 2014, so especially topical). I honestly found it incredible how many students - students of literature no less - read what they wanted to read. The amount of times you had to gently remind (some of) them that, actually no, the play doesn't "clearly say Scotland is oppressed by the English." This was all the more irritating because it came on the syllabus just a few weeks after we'd read the Communist Manifesto, so you would've hoped that the idea of class-based exploitation as a way to interpret history might've been something to consider.

Extreme0 posted:

Or you could, I don't know. Copy and paste the quote?

Iohannes posted:

So, you've just read about the plan of Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon/David Cameron (delete as appropriate) to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol and you've got your knickers in a twist of righteous anger about the obvious middle-class conspiracy to rob you of your precious life giving toxic, dependence inducing teratogenic and carcinogenic drug, alcohol.

STOP! Yes, you, stop right there!

You see, we've been here before. Possibly not you and me, but this thread. Back in 2009; and 2010; and 2011. Back when the thread and this discussion was not even raoul moatly funny.

The veterans of this argument are tired of it, those of us in favour of it are tired of pointing evidence and facts to back up our position; and we're also tired of those who oppose it calling us liberals, fascists, and snobs who hate poor people. It's tiresome and gets us nowhere. Those who can be persuaded already have been and those who can't be persuaded can gently caress off.

This post is for those who haven't made their minds up.

What is minimum pricing?
A very good question. I'll begin by saying what it isn't. It isn't a way for the middle classes to gently caress over poor people; in fact minimum pricing will disproportionately benefit (in terms of health) people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Minimum pricing is the idea that ethanol, the alcohol in alcoholic drinks that make them alcoholic, should have a unit price. In Scotland the SNP want that price to be 50p per unit, and David Cameron wants it to be 40p per unit.

What's a unit and how does that factor with ABV and proof?
In the UK (a ROI unit is different) a unit of alcohol is 10ml of pure ethanol. So a litre (1,000 ml) of wine with an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 10% is 10% alcohol and thus has 100ml of pure ethanol in it, diluted by the rest of the wine. It thus has 10 units. A 75cl (750ml) bottle of vodka that is 40% alcohol has 300ml of pure ethanol in it and thus has 30 units.

Proof is no longer used in the UK. Historically it's a Royal Navy term to describe the strenght of a drink (specifically rum). If the rum was 100 proof it had sufficient alcohol in it that when poured on gunpowder it did not stop the gunpowder igniting. If it did it was termed "under-proof" because it did not prove sufficiently strong. If you're interested the calculation is 7/4 * ABV. So 100 proof has an ABV of about 57.14% and 40% ABV vodka is 70 proof.

Proof has no bearing on this issue, while ABV and units do. Additionally, for the calculations in this post I shall be using 50p per unit (this preferred by most medical authorities).

How is minimum pricing different to taxes?
It's very different, most specifically in how it affects price.

A consumption tax adds to the cost of something. For example, VAT which is currently at 20%. This adds 20% of the price of a good onto the price paid at the till by the consumer. So if something is £3, a consumer pays £3.60 of which 60p goes not to the shop but to the treasury. Current alcohol taxes are (as of 28 March 2011) quite complicated but if you want to read them then they're here at HMRC

We can work out how much tax should be added to spirits easily if we know the ABV. The calculation for spirits is as follows:

code:

Tax payable = (Tax rate * (ABV/100)) * (size in ml / 1000)

For 70cl of 37.5% vodka the tax payabe is £6.70. "But wait!" I hear you cry. "Surely that can't be. I can buy a bottle of vodka of that size and that strength from Asda for £8.72. Surely the base price of 70cl of vodka can't be £2.02!?"

Ah-ha! You've come to the core reason why alcohol taxes do not necessarily raise prices. Alcohol can be used as a loss leader. For instance, Asda could lose money on the sale of every bottle of vodka but make it back on the sale of crisps or nuts or anything. In other words, the marginal cost in tax of an item doesn't need to be passed to the purchaser. It usually is, in the case of VAT, but doesn't need to be.

Not so with minimum pricing. That vodka has 26.3 units in it. At 50p per unit it must cost £13.15. It would be illegal for it to be sold for any less. £7.18 of that would still be payable in tax, but the vodka could no longer be sold as a loss leader. Its increase in price would discourage purchase in a way that an increase in tax would not because it could not be absorbed by the seller. In actuality it isn't the supermarkets that absorb the tax increases, it's the drinks manufacturers.

So you want booze to be more expensive?
Basically yes. But only certain booze. Let's be clear, the majority of alcoholic drinks would be unaffected by this law. The price of a pint in a pub won't go up. This is not a price added onto the tax payable or the basic price, it is a price floor under which the price could not sink. If the price of the drink is already above the minimum price, it won't go up any further because the basic principle of the ethanol content costing 50p per 10ml would already be met

To give some examples, again from Asda

code:

                                                                                Min Price
Drink                           Bottle Size    ABV     *Units*     Shop Price     (50p)
----------------------          -----------   ------   -------    ------------  -------- 
Own brand cheap vodka            700 ml        37.5%    26.3         £8.72       £13.15
Smirnoff                         700 ml        37.5%    26.3         £12.00      £13.15
Famous Grouse                    700 ml        40%      28.0         £15.97      £14.00
Highland Park 12yr Scotch        700 ml        40%      28.0         £24.97      £14.00                   
Cheapest white wine              750 ml        8%       6            £2.98       £3.00
Wine of Australia White wine     750 ml        12.5%    9.4          £3.68       £4.69
Carlsberg (4 440ml cans)         1760 ml       3.8%     6.7          £3.98       £3.34
Fosters (20 440ml cans)          8800 ml       4%       35.2         £15.98      £17.60
Strongbow Cider                  2000 ml       5.3%     10.6         £3.22       £5.30
Cheapest Cider+                  2000 ml       4.2%     8.4          £1.53       £4.20

* not on sale
+ Hawksridge 

As you can most of the changes of premium or named brands are not significant. The crate of Fosters would cost £1.62, a rise of 10%. The bottle of Smirnoff would cost £1.15 more, again about a 10% rise. The biggest rises will be on spirits, stronger wines and cheap cider. To give a comparison, these artisan ciders available from the Bristol Cider Shop won't be affected:

code:

                                                                                Min Price
Cider                           Bottle Size    ABV     *Units*     Shop Price    (50p)
----------------------          -----------   ------   -------    ------------  -------- 
Ross on Wye Alpaca Dry           500 ml        5.5%     2.75         £2.70       £1.38
Gwatkin Kingston Black           500 ml        7.5%     3.75         £2.39       £1.88
Newtons Autumn Harvest Perry     1000 ml       5.3%     5.3          £4.40       £2.65 

Newtons Dabinett                 10l           6.2%     62           £30.00      £31.00
Newtons Dabinett                 20l           6.2%     124          £50.00      £62.00
Hecks Blakeney Red Perry         10l           6%       60           £35.00      £30.00
Hecks Blakeney Red Perry         20l           6%       120          £60.00      £60.00

As you can see, it's only when you start to buy massive quantities (20l is about 35 pints) that you start to see large differences.

Minimum pricing is an effective way of ensuring that the price of ethanol is not absorbed as a loss leader (as a tax can be) and it sets a price floor for the price of the ethanol in a drink.

Surely an increase in price would hit poorer people harder than richer people?
Possibly. It depends upon proportion of disposable income spent on alcohol. For instance a British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) study has shown that actually professional groups drink more than poorer groups but, and here's the important bit, the health of poorer groups are more effected by alcohol.

quote:

BASL pointed out that alcohol-related ill health and mortality was very strongly linked to socio-economic status, with the most deprived experiencing between a three and five fold increase in death rates (health statistics quarterly 33) compared to the most privileged. For any level of drinking, lower income groups suffer more. The organisation argued that given the strong link with socio-economic status, one would predict that changes in the affordability of alcohol over time would have had the most impact on death rates in the poorer sections of society, which is what happened to liver death rates between 1991 and 2001. We know that professional groups drink more than lower income groups but, astonishingly, as the figure below shows, lower income groups suffer far more from liver disease. In the 1990s as price fell and consumption increased, liver disease increased among more deprived social groups but fell among the 'higher' social classes. Alcohol duty increases can therefore be predicted to reduce mortality in those lower socio-economic groups most at risk.

Why do we need it?
Here I bow to greater minds and point you to the following peer research:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...327795jra0402_9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1939047/
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-29773-001
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...09.02721.x/full
http://www.nber.org/papers/w1852
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...0058-X/fulltext
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7934053
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...tomisedMessage=
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...749379703002009

In particular, however, I would like to quote this Parliamentary report, which reiterates much of what I have said above:

quote:

MINIMUM PRICING

309. Minimum pricing has recently had a number of powerful supporters including the CMO. While much of the alcohol industry and most supermarkets were against, there was some support for minimum pricing from Tesco, Molson Coors (makers of Carling lager) and CAMRA.

310. The main arguments for preferring minimum pricing to rises in duty are:

Supermarkets will not pass on the full rises in duty to customers; they will get the drinks industry to absorb them; in contrast, this could not happen with minimum prices. As a result, supermarket and other off-licence sales would be much more affected than pub sales; thus minimum pricing could help traditional pubs.

Minimum prices would be particularly effective in raising the price of the cheap alcohol; this would be particularly effective in reducing consumption by heavy drinkers in low income groups and young binge drinkers

Minimum pricing would encourage people to buy weaker alcohol.

311. We have seen that supermarkets aggressively promote alcohol to attract customers; supermarkets even sell alcohol below the cost of the duty; thus raising the duty would not necessarily lead to higher prices.

312. Traditional pubs have lost custom for years. Rises in duty hit them; minimum prices would not since most pubs sell alcohol at a higher price than the any minimum price which has been proposed. For this reason CAMRA supports minimum pricing. Mr Benner, the Chief Executive of the organisation, told us:

"I think the price ratio at the moment is about five to one (ie the ratio of the off-sale to the on-sale price). If a minimum price of around 40 pence was introduced, that would make the ratio about three to one. Therefore, I think that is enough for there to be a shift in consumption towards drinking in community pubs.[297]"

313. While most pubs would benefit, some pubs and clubs, such as those which offer 'Happy Hours' and special promotions, would be affected. The Sheffield study found that the greatest impact on crime and accident prevention would be achieved through reducing the consumption of 18-24 year old binge drinkers, by raising the cost of cheap drinks in pubs and clubs and by reducing off-licence sales which encourage pre-loading. Off-licence sales can be very cheap with alcohol being sold for as little as 15 p per unit in some outlets.

314. BASL pointed out that alcohol-related ill health and mortality was very strongly linked to socio-economic status, with the most deprived experiencing between a three and five fold increase in death rates (health statistics quarterly 33) compared to the most privileged. For any level of drinking, lower income groups suffer more. The organisation argued that given the strong link with socio-economic status, one would predict that changes in the affordability of alcohol over time would have had the most impact on death rates in the poorer sections of society, which is what happened to liver death rates between 1991 and 2001. We know that professional groups drink more than lower income groups but, astonishingly, as the figure below shows, lower income groups suffer far more from liver disease. In the 1990s as price fell and consumption increased, liver disease increased among more deprived social groups but fell among the 'higher' social classes. Alcohol duty increases can therefore be predicted to reduce mortality in those lower socio-economic groups most at risk.

Figure 18: Changes in age standardised liver mortality rates (deaths / million) according to socio-economic status

Age standardised alcohol mortality rates according to social class for 1991 -3 (1) when socio-economic status was assessed by social class, and again for 2001-3 (Health Statistics Quarterly no 38) by which time socio-economic status was assessed by NS-SEC groupings—hence the different x axes in the graph.

315. According to the Sheffield study, a minimum price of 50p per unit would save over 3,000 lives per year,[298] a minimum price of 40p, 1,100 lives.

316. Minimum pricing would encourage people to buy weaker alcohol; for example, at a minimum price of 40p a 70cl bottle of 10% abv wine could sell for £2.80, of 12% wine for about. £3.40 (8.4 units), of 15% wine, about .£4.20p.

317. Opponents of minimum pricing argue that it would be illegal under EU competition law. The Scottish Government, which has examined this issue thoroughly, strongly disagrees and EU Competition Law does provide for a public health exemption. This exemption has been successfully used by the French Government to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship in certain circumstances, winning a number of cases in the ECJ which were brought by the alcohol industry.

318. The DH memorandum to this inquiry stated that the Government had made no decision about minimum pricing. However, when the CMO's report which advocated minimum pricing was leaked, a Government representative rejected minimum pricing.

But the Brits have always drunk too much?
Really. That's not actually based in historical fact. Sorry.

quote:

Like the myth that the English have always been drunk, the contrast between English drunkenness and civilised Mediterranean habits may also be something of a myth

quote:

While the wine drinking countries of Southern Europe always had historically very high levels of liver deaths from alcohol related cirrhosis, deaths in these countries have been dropping whereas UK deaths are still rising inexorably. The UK finally overtook Spain, Italy and France for liver deaths in 2004.

quote:

The fact that alcohol has been enjoyed by humans since the dawn of civilization has tended to obscure the fact that it is also a toxic, dependence inducing teratogenic and carcinogenic drug to which more than three million people in the UK are addicted. The ill effects of alcohol misuse affect the young and middle aged. For men aged between 16 and 55 between 10% and 27% of deaths are alcohol related, for women the figures are 6% and 15%.

quote:

(T)he 18th-Century gin craze was linked to the government's encouragement of gin production and restriction of brandy imports; the rise in consumption in the 19th Century was associated with rising living standards.

quote:

Measures included shorter opening hours, higher duties on beer, and significant reductions in both the production and strength of beer. The amount of beer consumed in 1918 was nearly half of the pre-war total, despite rising incomes, and arrests for drunkenness in England and Wales fell from 190,000 to 29,000 between 1913 and 1918.

quote:

"It is not inevitable that per capita alcohol consumption should be almost three times higher than it was in the middle of the 20th Century or that liver disease should continue to rise. Nor is it inevitable that at night town centres should be awash with drunks, vomit and disorder. These changes have been fuelled by cheap booze, a liberal licensing regime and massive marketing budgets.

.txt





Thank you, and good night.

quote:

The Scottish Government has appointed the chief executive of Virgin Money to lead a review of student support.

Jayne-Anne Gadhia's team will be tasked with assessing the fairness and effectiveness of student support structures in Scotland.

The review will examine support available for the poorest students as well as the repayment limits for student loans.

Gadhia's report will be published in autumn 2017.

She said: "It is important to ensure the student support system is fit for purpose, fair and firmly focused on meeting the needs of all students in further and higher education, particularly the most vulnerable.

"As such, I welcome the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the current systems of student support in Scotland."

Leggsy posted:

God forbid we do anything that might actually reduce consumption, lest it affect middle-class student drinkers.

EDIT: I'd like to see what policy you lot would put forward as an alternative that is equally supported by statistical and case evidence. Or are we going to fall back on the old chestnut of "education", which works fine as a buzzword but does gently caress-all to actually help people.

OwlFancier posted:

Minimum pricing sounds like a roundabout way of saying "poor people can't be trusted with alcohol"

Leggsy posted:

Which "cheaper drinks" would one switch to under a 50p Minimum Unit Price?

Also, that still doesn't refute the evidence that shows Minimum Pricing reducing consumption.

Leggsy posted:

Which "cheaper drinks" would one switch to under a 50p Minimum Unit Price?

Leggsy posted:

Which "cheaper drinks" would one switch to under a 50p Minimum Unit Price?

Coohoolin posted:

If you were a beer drinker maybe you'll start chugging 50cl bottles of glens or something. All I know is that when prices went up, I'd adapt my drinking habits or find cheaper bars.

Or are you imagining a world where all shops charge all alcohol types at the exact same price given minimum cost per unit?

Coohoolin posted:

You don't really know how drinking works, do you.

jre posted:

You don't get how minimum pricing works do you ? If your normal drink of choice has risen in price then there won't be a cheaper alternative, that's the entire point of the policy.
Also talking about "meths" misses the point that this policy is not targeted as sleeping rough alcoholics, it's targeted at the depressingly large proportion of the population who drink an unhealthy amount every week. I find discussing minimum pricing interesting because people with an unhealthy relationship with alcohol always out themselves with rants about how it won't work despite all the evidence.

OwlFancier posted:

If your society drives people to self harm, the championed response should not be "well just make razor blades expensive."

TomViolence posted:

What the hell are people going to do with their time when their favourite pastime of binge-drinking becomes untenably expensive? I mean it's something you do when there's nothing better to do anyway. Can't go out to the pub, can't afford to buy booze to drink at home. End up just sitting there, docile in the glare of an aging 17-inch flatscreen watching godawful TV that hates you. If Scotland has an alcohol crisis it's a much worse and deeper-rooted problem than well-meaning paternalism can hope to fix.

Jedit posted:

Link the evidence, then.

quote:

The evidence presented here suggests that higher prices for alcoholic beverages would reduce alcohol-related morbidity and is consistent with earlier studies indicating that higher alcohol prices would reduce acute consequences of drinking.

quote:

Raising the price of alcohol through taxation is a highly effective strategy by which to reduce excessive drinking and related harms. A 25 cent-per-drink tax increase would result in more than a 10% reduction in heavy drinking, which would yield a substantial public health benefit for a behavior that currently leads to approximately 79,000 deaths annually in the U.S.

quote:

There is also interest about who pays the most in alcohol taxes based on socio-economic factors, particularly among lower-risk drinkers who are unlikely to be detrimental to public health and safety. Among lower-risk drinkers, both in aggregate and on a per capita basis, groups who paid the most for an alcohol tax increase were male, white, relatively affluent and educated, and employed. Therefore, assuming that alcohol tax revenues were used for across-the-board offsets to other tax obligations, lower-risk drinkers from relatively disadvantaged socio-economic groups would realize a net economic gain from an alcohol tax increase. Among higher-risk drinkers, however, those who were relatively poor, less educated and non-employed paid more in per capita tax increases than other groups. Also, it should be noted that any tax increase on those with less income will take a larger proportion of their income than would the same tax on someone earning more, and could thus be potentially regressive in nature. In this case, however, that larger financial impact might lead to greater reductions in drinking and a larger public health benefit for those same individuals.

quote:

A systematic review of the literature to assess the effectiveness of alcohol tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms was conducted for the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). Seventy-two papers or technical reports, which were published prior to July 2005, met specifıed quality criteria, and included evaluation outcomes relevant to public health (e.g., binge drinking, alcohol-related crash fatalities), were included in the fınal review. Nearly all studies, including those with different study designs, found that there was an inverse relationship between the tax or price of alcohol and indices of excessive drinking or alcohol-related health outcomes. Among studies restricted to underage populations, most found that increased taxes were also signifıcantly associated with reduced consumption and alcohol-related harms. According to Community Guide rules of evidence, these results constitute strong evidence that raising alcohol excise taxes is an effective strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. The impact of a potential tax increase is expected to be proportional to its magnitude and to be modifıed by such factors as disposable income and the demand elasticity for alcohol among various population groups

quote:

A potential concern is that increases in alcohol taxes may have a greater proportional economic impact on people with lower incomes (i.e., alcohol taxes may be regressive). However, alcohol taxes constitute a minor proportion (i.e., <1%) of the tax burden of Americans, including those with low incomes. As such, concerns about the regressive nature of such taxes could be readily addressed by compensatory changes in other elements of the tax system. In addition, the amount of tax paid is directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed, and thus increases in alcohol excise taxes will be disproportionately paid by excessive drinkers, who also experience most of the alcohol-related harms and thus generate most alcohol-attributable economic costs. Furthermore, the beneficial economic results of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms may also be disproportionately greater for people with low incomes. Lower-income people may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful consequences of excessive alcohol consumption—consumed by themselves or others—because of factors such as lower rates of health insurance coverage, which may result in lack of or incomplete treatment for alcohol-related illness or injuries. Increasing alcohol excise taxes could also directly benefit low-income populations if the revenue generated from these taxes is used to help improve the availability of healthcare services for uninsured and other vulnerable populations

quote:

The authors examined the effect of a large reduction in the price of alcohol in Finland in 2004 on alcohol-related mortality by age and socioeconomic group. For this register-based study of Finns aged ≥15 years, data on independent variables were extracted from the employment statistics of Statistics Finland. Mortality follow-up was carried out for 2001–2003 (before the price reduction) and 2004–2005 (after). Alcohol-related causes were defined using both underlying and contributory causes of death. Alcohol-related mortality increased by 16% among men and by 31% among women; 82% of the increase was due to chronic causes, particularly liver diseases. The increase in absolute terms was largest among men aged 55–59 years and women aged 50–54 years. Among persons aged 30–59 years, it was biggest among the unemployed or early-age pensioners and those with low education, social class, or income. The relative differences in change between the education and social class subgroups were small. The employed and persons aged <35 years did not suffer from increased alcohol-related mortality during the 2 years after the change. These results imply that a large reduction in the price of alcohol led to substantial increases in alcohol-related mortality, particularly among the less privileged, and in chronic diseases associated with heavy drinking.

quote:

A 10% increase in average minimum price for all alcoholic beverages was associated with a 31.72% [95% confidence interval (CI): ± 25.73%, P < 0.05] reduction in wholly AA deaths.

quote:

Increases in the minimum price of alcohol in British Columbia, Canada, between 2002 and 2009 were associated with immediate and delayed decreases in alcohol-attributable mortality.

quote:

: Increasing levels of minimum pricing show very steep increases in effectiveness. Overall changes in consumption for 20p, 25p, 30p, 35p, 40p, 45p, 50p, 60p, 70p are: -0.1%, -0.3%, -0.6%, -1.4%, -2.6%, -4.5%, -6.9%, -12.8% and 18.6%. Lower minimum prices affect beers and spirits more than wine. Higher minimum prices reduce switching effects. Minimum prices targeted at particular beverages are less effective than all-product minimum prices, and only minimum prices for beer show noticeable effects. Differential minimum pricing for on-trade and off-trade leads to more substantial reductions in consumption (30p off-trade together with an 80p on-trade minimum price -2.1% versus -0.6% for 30p only; 40p together with 100p -5.4% compared to -2.6% for 40p only). This is firstly because much of the consumption by younger and hazardous drinking groups (including those at increased risk of criminal offending due to high intake on a particular day) occurs in the on-trade. It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased.

quote:

3.09 Making alcohol less affordable is the most effective way of reducing the harm it causes among a population where hazardous drinking is common – such as in the UK (Chisholm et al. 2004). There is extensive evidence (within the published literature and from the economic analysis undertaken to support this guidance) to justify the introduction of a minimum price per unit. For example, the evidence suggests that young people who drink and people (including young people) who drink harmful amounts tend to choose cheaper alcoholic products. Establishing a minimum price per unit would limit the ability of these groups to 'trade down' to cheaper products. The same effect would be more difficult to achieve through alcohol duties, as retailers or producers may absorb the cost of any extra duty levied.

3.10 Prohibiting 'below cost' selling would ensure any price increases (for example, through taxation) are passed on in full. However, a large increase in duty would be needed to raise the price of the cheapest products to a level that would reduce alcohol harm. Unlike a minimum price per unit, this would affect all products equally rather than focusing on cheaper and stronger goods.

3.11 A minimum price per unit (unlike a tax increase) would prevent retailers from passing on any increase to producers, or absorbing it themselves. It would also encourage producers to reduce the strength of products. As an example of the effect of minimum pricing, over a 10-year period it is estimated that a 50p minimum price per unit would reduce the cost of alcohol-related problems by £9.7 bn.

3.12 The PDG is aware of concerns that introducing a minimum price per unit for alcohol would have an unfair impact on people who are from disadvantaged groups. The reality is, however, that alcohol problems are not evenly distributed throughout society. Evidence shows that people from disadvantaged groups experience more health problems than others as a result of their alcohol use. They are also affected more when others around them consume excessive amounts. The PDG concluded that the overall benefits of introducing and maintaining a minimum price for alcohol would far outweigh any perceived disadvantage to lower income groups.

quote:

Our policy appraisals suggest that introduction of a £0·45 minimum unit price would have substantially different effects across consumption, income, and socioeconomic groups. These differences are driven by the alcohol consumption and purchasing patterns of population subgroups, the price elasticities of the different alcoholic beverages they purchase, and each group's risk of harm related to alcohol consumption. Moderate drinkers, including those with low incomes, would be little affected by the policy because they purchase only small quantities of alcohol at less than the proposed £0·45 minimum unit price threshold. Both non-drinking and moderate consumption are more prevalent in low income groups, meaning large proportions of these groups would not be substantially affected by the policy. Effects would be much more striking for harmful drinkers. The model estimates that harmful drinkers with the lowest incomes would reduce their consumption the most, while consumption in harmful drinkers with high incomes would also reduce. Notably, the estimated health benefits from the policy are also unequally distributed among socioeconomic groups. Most health gains occur in harmful drinkers in the poorest routine or manual worker groups, suggesting that the policy could contribute substantially to the reduction of health inequalities.

quote:

Thirdly, Snowdon claims that MUP is regressive and will penalise those on low incomes. We have recently published a detailed equity-focused appraisal of MUP which shows this argument to be simplistic [3]. As moderate drinkers with low incomes buy very little alcohol sold for less than the proposed 45p per unit threshold, the effect on them will be negligible. In contrast, alcohol purchases made by heavy drinkers with low incomes will be substantially affected. However, as this is the group at greatest risk of harm due to their drinking, they also stand to accrue the greatest health gains from the policy. We estimate approximately 80% of the health benefits of MUP would accrue to those in routine or manual worker households and the long-term unemployed – a clearly progressive outcome. Any judgement on the equity of MUP should take this more nuanced assessment into account.

quote:

The ban on below cost selling, implemented in the England in May 2014, is estimated to have small effects on consumption and health harm. The previously announced policy of a minimum unit price, if set at expected levels between 40p and 50p per unit, is estimated to have an approximately 40-50 times greater effect.

quote:

Current findings indicate that participants were largely sceptical of the introduction of a minimum price per unit alcohol-pricing policy and expressed doubts regarding its effectiveness. Participants did, however, suggest that the policy could be made more acceptable if introduced as part of a wider strategy to curb alcohol consumption. Present findings suggest that participants’ objections to a minimum price per unit were the result of three main issues:

1. a misunderstanding of the minimum price per unit policy itself;
2. the failure to recognise the significance of small incremental reductions in alcohol consumption; and
3. a preoccupation with the effects of a minimum price on heavy and dependent drinkers.

Coohoolin posted:

Maybe if drinkers are telling you it won't impact their drinking habits, it'll just make the habits have a further negative influence on the rest of their lives...

baronvonsabre posted:

Ok. All emphasis below is mine, evidence is from lots of different places since I don't have time to hunt for UK/Scotland specific sources:

Increasing price of alcohol reduces consumption and alcohol related illness/mortality

Alcohol dependence and the price of alcoholic beverages


The Impact of a 25 Cent-Per-Drink Alcohol Tax Increase: Who Pays the Tab?

...


The Effectiveness of Tax Policy Interventions for Reducing Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms

...


Reducing price of alcohol massively increases number of deaths

Changes in Alcohol-Related Mortality and its Socioeconomic Differences After a Large Reduction in Alcohol Prices: A Natural Experiment Based on Register Data


Minimum pricing of alcohol reduces consumption and alcohol related illness/mortality

The relationship between minimum alcohol prices, outlet densities and alcohol-attributable deaths in British Columbia, 2002–09

...


INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL PRICING AND PROMOTION: Part B


Alcohol-use disorders: prevention


Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: a modelling study


Re: Costs of minimum alcohol pricing would outweigh benefits


Potential benefits of minimum unit pricing for alcohol versus a ban on below cost selling in England 2014: modelling study


And, as a bonus:

THE COST OF ALCOHOL: THE ADVOCACY FOR A MINIMUM PRICE PER UNIT IN THE UK