Drunk tanks

I think choosing to get drunk is far different than doing a spot of d.i.y. I've never run out onto the main road wielding my hacksaw at anyone, and fighting people. (I've felt like it!)

A motorist who takes an accident victim to hospital can still be charged a fee but this is normally covered under motor insurance without affecting NCD!

Are there any countries where measures, groundbreaking or not, have made a difference?

I remember back in the 60s the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident with a pedestrian was liable to pay about £7 (more than half my weekly pay) if said pedestrian had to go to hospital, regardless of who was at fault. I don't know if this still applies but it seems to me that anyone who arrives at hospital drunk should be liable automatically for a payment to the hospital of about £200. That might help cover some of the costs and concentrate the minds of the drunks somewhat.

The Duke of Wellington started public houses to wean the masses off Gin which was causing high levels of drunkenness at the time. This is not a new problem, just the way we handle it!

Once we start charging drunks for treatment, (do we give them a rebate for the taxes they've paid on the alcohol?) do we then charge DIYers for their accidents, smokers, obesity etc. etc. etc......?

"The alcohol problem in Scotland is so significant that ground breaking measures are required.

Given the link between consumption and harm and evidence that affordability is one of the drivers of increased consumption, addressing price is an important element of any long-term strategy."

Scotland has more of a problem with the drinking culture than the rest of the UK according to statistics.

^the gap between per capita consumption in Scotland and
England and Wales has widened in recent years: In 2000, per capita consumption was 10% higher in Scotland
than in England and Wales, while in 2013 it was 17% higher.^

It would have been interesting if the UK had been included in that study and included in Table 2 Baggs

Perhaps you should have told the Scottish government, before they decided minimum unit pricing.
.

Explain the reasoning behind their decision.

The proof of the pudding etc

Here's an interesting study:
academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/26/4/581/2467426

(UK not included)

You still haven't explained what is wrong with minimum unit pricing
Oh really, how remiss
If I knew the answer and whether or not it would help, I would be advising the Government.

How do rates of drunkenness in Norway, where all alcohol is sold under government control and is relatively expensive, with rates in the UK?

You still haven't explained what is wrong with minimum unit pricing.

'The minimum unit price of 50p per unit will mostly affect cheap white ciders and value spirits with high alcohol content which tend to be favoured by harmful drinkers."
The people drinking at weekends in city centres are probably drinking in pubs and clubs and not drinking cheap white ciders etc which are obtained from some shops - more favoured by those who may in fact be under age, getting someone to buy it for them then sitting drinking in parks etc.'

Perhaps you should have told the Scottish government, before they decided minimum unit pricing.

You have twice said we pay the highest in Europe.
no, I did not in fact.

The tax on alcohol is high anyway - amongst the highest, if not the highest, in Europe.
we already pay one of the highest rates of tax on alcohol (if not the highest rate) in Europe

amongst the highest^; ^one of the highest^; ^if not modifies the statement to mean that it may not be the highest, there could be higher.

Thank you for posting the absolute facts.

Okay, explain how you would sort out the problem without penalising those who 'drink responsibly'.
Sorry, Miss, if I knew the answer I would be advising the Government.

The minimum unit price of 50p per unit will mostly affect cheap white ciders and value spirits with high alcohol content which tend to be favoured by harmful drinkers."
The people drinking at weekends in city centres are probably drinking in pubs and clubs and not drinking cheap white ciders etc which are obtained from some shops - more favoured by those who may in fact be under age, getting someone to buy it for them then sitting drinking in parks etc.

Finland pays a higher tax on alcohol than we do. You have twice said we pay the highest in Europe.

Okay, explain how you would sort out the problem without penalising those who 'drink responsibly'.

If you look at minimum price for alcohol you will find that expensive bottles of wine are already above the minimum price per unit of alcohol anyway. So you are worrying for nothing.

"Research into differing price policy options concluded that a minimum unit price is the most effective of a range of policy options. It has been recommended as a way of increasing the price of drinks such as own-brand spirits and white cider, which have high alcohol content but are usually very cheap.

Minimum unit pricing would simply set a floor price for a unit of alcohol, meaning it can't be sold for lower than that. The more alcohol a drink contains, the stronger it is and therefore the more expensive it will be.

Minimum unit pricing is not a tax; it is a targeted way of making sure alcohol is sold at a sensible price.
The effects of Minimum Unit Pricing

Minimum unit pricing will impact most on harmful drinkers - those who regularly drink more than the lower risk drinking guidelines. Those who drink within the lower risk guidelines will only be marginally affected simply because they only consume a small amount of alcohol and also because they do not tend to buy as much of the cheaper alcohol that would be most affected by a minimum unit price.

The small increase in the cost of alcohol to moderate drinkers has to be seen in the context of the total costs of alcohol misuse - estimates suggest around £900 per year for every adult in Scotland.

Almost all drinks bought in the pub are already sold well above any likely minimum price, so they wouldn't be affected. The minimum unit price of 50p per unit will mostly affect cheap white ciders and value spirits with high alcohol content which tend to be favoured by harmful drinkers."

From the link about Scottish pricing.

www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol/minimum-pricing

which, as I said, comes in on May 1st.

I have a bottle of New Zealand wine which costs £10 and has 9.4 units of alcohol. That's over double the unit price.
The organic bitter I buy costs about the same, £2 for 2.1 units.

Perhaps you should stop trying to twist what I say.

I don't think they should have bars in the H of C - even if they have to stay for a late sitting we want them to make decisions without being influenced by alcohol.
They got rid of Civil Services bars, didn't they? but not their own.

Finland is expensive for everything, that is why British people who are sent by firms to work there get a premium paid on their salaries.
(It used to be +60%)

Tax on alcohol doesn't matter. It's the overall price.
All Scandinavian countries have much higher prices than UK. People tend to drink responsibly in Finland and Norway because they can't afford to buy more.
Therefore, if you want people to drink less it's obvious you have to put the prices up.
By the way, there is a petition on change.org to ask for no subsidised alcohol in the houses of parliament. Actually, I think it's to get rid of bars, as other people are not allowed to drink while at work.

But - should it be necessary seeing that we already pay one of the highest rates of tax on alcohol (if not the highest rate) in Europe - or is that the world?
And why penalise the many to pay for the out of control behaviour of a few?

We need to look at Why?

And what is being sold for £2.50 that contains 14 units of alcohol? It's not the pint of real ale or the bottle of nice wine that is causing problems - it must be the cheap stuff then.

Do you want harm reduction, or don't you?
Twisting things again

Could you point me to anything I posted which says that I do not believe in harm reduction please?

There is more to this problem than price - if alcohol is cheaper abroad and they do not have the problem with their own populations, only with the British on holiday apparently, then there is something in the psyche of young British people that needs addressing.

You would make a really good politician - always twisting what other people say to make them sound negative!!

Raising the cost of alcohol will not change a thing, those that want the alcohol and can't afford it will just steal it.
Being a nanny to people too drunk to take care of themselves is not the answer either, they will dismiss the risks in the knowledge that they will be cared for. Do other countries provide this service or are they left in the gutter to face the consequences ?