#40

no kidding, that’s why this is such a fucking dumb move

#41

yeah but it might help people?

#42

can’t see it

#43

I can see it helping some people and hurting others which is why I think it’s complicated.

Happy to admit I’m not an expert on the issue.

#44

DiS has had enough of experts.

2 Likes
#45

that’s a little unfair

#46

Ah okay sorry.

#47

Funnily enough, the way the malt whisky industry works (and the way wholesale pricing works) it would actually have driven up the margin on some of the more luxury brands. The main appellant, the Scotch Whisky Association, was well aware that opposing the legislation might not actually be in the financial interests of a great many of its members. However it was opposed on a point of principle (because the legislation is contrary to EU law. which it is, by the way) and it was in the public interest to challenge and test that. The Supreme Court has just ignored the jurisprudence of the ECJ to deliver a political result. I expected it of the Scottish courts tbqh, as they are generally quite scared of Holyrood, but I expected more of the highest court in the land.

Oh well, I’m, so pleased that tesco and morrisons will be able to bolster their profit margins now. If they don’t divert the extra margin into a drink abuse programme/ charity then I think it is actually morally unforgiveable.

#48

Oh I see. Well yeah I suppose we’ll see in a few years how much good it’ll do, I won’t hold my breath.

#49

It will definitely have a financial impact on some producers, that’s for sure.

#50

My gripe is that the stated aims of the legislation are to target ‘hazardous’ and ‘harmful’ drinkers. This is not confined to the poor and studies have shown that most people who fall into this category are in the top 3 income quintiles, who won’t be affected by the fact that they can no longer buy £3.50 bottles of wine (as an aside- poor old bulgarian wine producers- that’s them fucked now because who will buy that stuff when it’s no longer dirt cheap). We’re talking about the people who drink a couple of bottles of wine a night and more at the weekend, but it’s ok because it’s a Chablis darling.

As for all the chat about how much it’s needed, I’m just not that sure. consumption is on the fall already, and the yoof of today don’t drink NEARLY as much as my lot did/ do. Actual decrease in both consumption and alcohol-related harm in recent years
2003- ave 19.8 units per week for men, 9 units for women
2014 - ave 13.6 units per week for men, 7.4 for women

naughty women seem to be slower to get the message, but still- why not see where this goes before introducing legislation?

#51

I’m not saying this to pick at your figures, so please don’t take it that way; do you (or does anyone) know if there are rough figures for quartiles/deciles or anything like that? Mean alcohol consumption going down is undoubtedly a good thing, but just wondering if that’s because most people are drinking less, but there’s still a similar number of drinkers with serious problems who are still drinking similar amounts (not quite so good if you see what I mean).

#52

Oh I just made those up :rofl:

3 Likes
#53

(obvs not- they were from ONS but I’d need to go back and look at the court papers to see the context again)

1 Like
#54

No worries - just thinking out loud really.

#55

the problem is what do you define as ‘serious problem drinkers’ and it’s been part of my issue with the policy objectives. What are we really annoyed at? vagrancy/ drinking on the streets? People on benefits spending them on booze instead of fruit? People getting riotously pissed and causing crime/ driving? people getting riotously pissed and hurting themselves by accident and wasting hospital time? People consistently drinking a bit more than advised by the CMO, but so that they might end up with long term liver problems? what are they actually trying to do?

#56

I think I read something somewhere that said that although average alcohol consumption is down across the population as a whole, ‘problematic’ drinking (however that’s defined) and hospital admissions as a result of alcohol abuse are actually on the rise since 2010, as there has been reduction in funding for a lot of the charities/local authorities/support networks that were in place to help the issue directly, and also whose absence has led to a rise indirectly.

1 Like
#57

Blunt instrument innit.

Again, musing out loud - I could see a possible benefit that it might discourage some people from becoming dependent in the first place, but totally get the point people are making above about it basically ending up being a tax on the poor.

I think I could only get behind it really if it were part of a while package of measures designed to reduce the harm alcohol does in society and to help those who have ended up dependent reduce or manage their dependency much better than we do currently. Culturally though, I think it would end up very difficult to actually get something like that done given our relationship with pubs and booze on this island.

1 Like
#58

It was originally going to be just one part of a package of measures. Not sure if that’s still the case.

(see original DiS thread on this, here: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4266330/linear)

#59

This is my suspicion - hence the question.

Visited a hostel for people dependent on alcohol last Christmas (a group of us repainted their communal areas for them) and it was both inspiring/depressing to see the state the various residents were in. Some were managing fantastically and back on the wagon entirely, but others were in a really bad way. :frowning: