My worse day sober, still beats my best day drunk
Today marks 28 weeks sober for me, I'm feeling good and i’ve got a lot going on and planned for the rest of the year and I'm feeling positive. I will be doing another radio show over the weekend and Im very excited that next Saturday the 12th September I will be going with Addaction up to Durham for the Recovery Walk 2015!.
The Drinking Problem
The Solution
Part 2 - Pricing
The debate about a minimum price for alcohol has been prompted by concerns about high levels of drinking, its effect on public health and public order, and a widespread belief that most of the alcohol which contributes to drunken behaviour is irresponsibly priced and sold. One policy option is to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol. Another is to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price (the level of alcohol duty plus VAT).
Alcohol licensing is a devolved matter. In May 2012 the Scottish Government passed legislation which would enable it to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland. The intended price is 50p per unit. The Scottish Whisky Association has been challenging the legislation in the courts. On 3 September 2015, the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice said that prescribing a minimum price for alcoholic drinks could only be justified to protect public health if no alternative measure could be found.
The Coalition Government’s alcohol strategy of March 2012 included a commitment to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. A consultation on the strategy recommended a price of 45p per unit. In July 2013, following its analysis of the consultation’s responses, the Coalition said that it would not be proceeding with a minimum unit price, claiming there was not enough “concrete evidence” that this would be effective in reducing the harms associated with problem drinking without penalising responsible drinkers. There would instead be a ban on the sale of alcohol below cost price. This came into force on 28 May 2014 and is one of the licensing conditions of the mandatory code of practice that applies to licensed premises.
Alcohol charities and public health groups continue to argue for the introduction of a minimum unit price, claiming that this would have more of an impact on alcohol-related harm than the ban on below cost selling.
Minimum pricing would mean that there is a baseline price for alcohol, below which it couldn’t be sold. This campaign targets high strength alcoholic drinks that is sold very cheaply – drinks that are often consumed by the heaviest drinkers, as well as by younger drinkers. Moderate drinkers will feel little effect from minimum pricing.
Alcohol-related harm remains one of the biggest health problems facing the UK, with over 10 million adults drinking more than recommended guidelines. Alcohol is a contributor to 60 different diseases and its excessive consumption is a significant cause of premature death in the UK. IT costs the NHS £3.5 billion, while alcohol-related crime costs an estimated £11 billion each year.
Approximately 2.6 million children in the UK are living with parents who are drinking dangerous amounts, while over 700,000 live with dependent drinkers. There is a clear link between the price of alcohol and the level of alcohol-related harm, so it goes without saying that the most effective way to reduce harm is to control price and availability.
In 2012, the government committed to introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol. Later that year, the Home Office released a consultation recommending a minimum unit price of 45p. Along with many other organisations, Alcohol Concern is calling for a minimum unit price of 50p, as this will have a greater impact on reducing alcohol-related harm. It will also be in line with what’s happened in Scotland where legislation has already been passed.
Hundreds of alcohol-related deaths could already have been prevented if the Government had introduced minimum unit pricing.In contrast, the decision by ministers to instead target “below-cost” alcoholic drinks will save just 14 lives a year and is 50 times less effective at protecting public health than the rejected proposals for minimum pricing, the research found.
The Government introduced a ban on the sale of below-cost alcohol in England and Wales, targeting ultra-cheap drinks sold for less than the amount of tax payable on them with the aim of reducing the burden of alcohol-related illness and crime on the state.
The move followed the scrapping of plans to introduce a minimum price of between 40p and 50p per alcoholic unit, which ministers argued would unfairly penalise responsible drinkers. At the time, critics said the Government had “caved in to lobbying from big business”.
Now researchers at the University of Sheffield, who compared the public health impacts of both approaches, have concluded that minimum pricing would have “an approximately 40-50 times greater effect” on alcohol consumption than the targeting of below cost drinks.
The study, published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that the Government’s ban will only prevent 14 deaths and 500 hospital admissions in England each year. A 45p minimum unit price would save 624 deaths and 23,700 admissions annually, it adds.
The researchers also pointed out that targeting below cost drinks would have a minimal impact on the alcohol market, increasing the price of just 0.7 per cent of drinks sold in England. By comparison, a 45p minimum unit price would increase the price of 23 per cent.
The amount of alcohol consumed by “harmful drinkers” – defined as more than 50 units per week for men or 35 for women – would also barely be affected by the Government’s ban, they added. In the space of a year, this group would only drink three units less than they would have previously – compared to 137 units less under a 45p minimum unit price.
The researchers compared the effects of the two policies on public health using a mathematical model alongside General Lifestyle Survey data from the ONS to estimate changes in alcohol consumption, spending, and related harm among adults in England.
Alcohol charities have called on the Government to change course and adopt minimum pricing. Jackie Ballard, chief executive at Alcohol Concern, said: “The research published is further proof that minimum unit pricing is an evidence-based policy that will save lives and cut crime, and we need the Government to act quickly to introduce it.
“We know that minimum unit pricing will reduce alcohol-related harm, cut crime and assault, ease the burden on our hospitals and protect the young and vulnerable. This is why doctors, nurses, ambulance services and police up and down the country want to see it introduced.”
Simon Antrobus, the chief executive of Addaction, added: “If further evidence were needed that the Government was wrong to ditch minimum unit pricing, this is surely it. It’s a policy that would have a significant benefit to public health, saving millions for the NHS and helping to protect our most vulnerable drinkers.”
But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: “Alcohol-fuelled harm costs society £21 billion a year and we are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. We are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol such as banning the lowest priced drinks.
“We are working with industry to promote responsible drinking, and are already making headway by removing a billion units from the market over three years.”
Sarah Wollaston MP, the Conservative chair of the Health Select Committee, said: "I have long supported a minimum unit price for alcohol as the most effective way to reduce the harm to the heaviest drinkers, their families and communities. Minimum pricing in Canada has been associated with significant reductions in alcohol related harm and, once the European Court has reached a verdict, if that gives a go ahead for Scotland, I hope the Government will reconsider the position south of the border. Of course minimum pricing cannot work in isolation but whilst alcohol remains so cheap, price will undermine all other efforts to help those who are losing control of their drinking."
Countries with minimum pricing
Canada
The first country in the world to introduce the policy, it has been established in some areas for 40 years. Implementation of the rules varies across Canada’s ten provinces: in Manitoba it affects only the sale of high-strength beers, while in Saskatchewan it applies to every alcoholic drink sold.
Research published in Canada has linked the introduction of minimum pricing with a significant drop in alcohol-related deaths. The findings, in the journal Addiction, were welcomed by health campaigners. But they have been criticised as "misleading and inaccurate" by the drinks industry, which has questioned the statistical basis of the research. The researchers said a rise in alcohol prices of 10% would lead to a 32% reduction in alcohol-related deaths. The Canadian study was carried out between 2002 and 2009 in British Columbia, where alcohol could only be sold directly to the public in government-owned stores. It suggests that, when drink prices rose, there were "immediate, substantial and significant reductions" in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol abuse.
The authors suggest increasing the price of cheaper drinks reduces the consumption of heavier drinkers who prefer them. Dr Tim Stockwell, director of the University of Victoria's Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, said: "This study adds to the scientific evidence that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, even the heaviest drinkers reduce their consumption when minimum alcohol prices increase. "It is hard otherwise to explain the significant changes in alcohol-related deaths observed in British Columbia." During the period under study, the law changed in Canada, permitting private liquor stores to open. A 10% growth in the number of such outlets was associated with an increase (2%) in all alcohol-related deaths. This is the first study to highlight the effects on mortality of alcohol minimum pricing, although the Scottish government has used previous research from the University of Sheffield to claim consumption of alcohol would be reduced if prices rose.
'Saving lives'
It has been welcomed by health campaigners. Alcohol Focus Scotland (AFS) said it was further evidence that minimum pricing will be effective. Dr Evelyn Gillan, chief executive, said: "This is important evidence which shows that minimum pricing is saving lives in Canada and will save lives in Scotland. "Increasing the price of the cheapest alcohol through minimum pricing has the biggest effect on the heaviest drinkers who are most at risk of alcohol-related illness and death."
She criticised drinks organisations who have challenged the Scottish government's plans to introduce minimum pricing. MSPs passed The Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 in May 2012, setting a 50p minimum unit price as part of an effort to tackle alcohol misuse. However, the government has undertaken not to introduce the measures until after the conclusion of the challenge brought at the Court of Session in Edinburgh by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) and several European wine and spirits bodies. They argue that it breaches EU trade rules. A consultation in England and Wales for a 45p minimum unit price ended and similar plans are being considered by the Northern Ireland government. An SWA statement said the experience of Canada, where there is no minimum unit pricing, was different to that in Scotland. It added: "The claims made by the Canadian researchers are not supported by official data from Statistics Canada which show alcohol-related deaths in British Colombia rising by 9% in the period, not falling as claimed. "This compares with a drop in alcohol-related deaths in Scotland of 25% since a peak in 2003. This would suggest measures already in place in Scotland to tackle alcohol misuse are working." The chief executive of the Wine and Spirits Association (WSA), Miles Beale, also attacked the research. "There is not a simple link between alcohol price and harm," he said. "Consumption is more likely to be related to cultural factors and that the increase in price does not impact on these significantly. The industry is committed to tackling problem drinking and its consequences, but minimum unit pricing will not do that."
Arguments for a minimum price for alcohol
- It makes people pay the social cost of alcohol.
- It is not a panacea, but higher minimum price can be a factor in dealing with the very high social costs of alcohol abuse.
- It can particularly discourage young drinkers from overconsumption
- It will have a positive effect on the more ‘upmarket’ alcohol brands and pubs. People may go out to a pub and spend there, rather than ‘preloading’ on cheap alcohol from supermarkets.
Arguments against minimum price for alcohol
- Some politicians have argued it would reduce living standards for those on low incomes. The minimum price is highly regressive and will effect those on low incomes the most. There is already substantial tax on alcohol.
- A higher minimum price could encourage people to switch to illicit ‘home brews’ and replacement alcohol. This is potentially dangerous as it leaves people exposed to alcohol of an unknown quantity and composition.
- It will be an easy way for supermarkets to increase their profits.
- The government would be better off just increasing tax on alcohol so that society pockets the extra cost rather than supermarkets. Then the tax revenue raised could be used to fund the cost of treating alcohol related diseases.
Conclusion
The argument about equality and living standards is misplaced. I don’t think that avoiding minimum alcohol pricing is the way to promote greater equality. The most important thing is to set a price for alcohol which is optimal for society. Given the widespread abuse and social costs associated with consumption of cheap alcohol, the price should be raised and we should see a significant reduction in some alcohol related problems. It is by no means a panacea, there are many other things that need to be done to address problems related to alcohol, but high prices do have some effect in reducing demand – especially amongst some young people.
Suppose alcohol was already at 50p per unit, and this was considered to be a good socially efficient price, would it make sense to cut the price of alcohol to improve the living standards of those on low incomes? No. If we wanted to improve living standards it would make more sense to redistribute income through benefits, taxes – rather than make it cheaper to buy a demerit good.
Debate: Should we introduce minimum pricing of alcohol to limit sales of cheap booze and curb anti-social behaviour?
FOR
“Binge drinking isn’t some fringe issue... The crime and violence it causes drains resources in our hospitals, generates mayhem on our streets and spreads fear in our communities ”
DAVID CAMERON
AGAINST
“Minimum pricing is a result of a national moral panic about alcohol... It is very unlikely that minimum pricing will affect David Cameron's chaotic problem drinkers ”
TANYA GOLD
What's going on?
Update: 13/03/13
Plans to ban cheap beers and spirits by imposing a minimum price on units of alcohol are set to be shelved by David Cameron following a Cabinet row over the moves.
Under the proposals, which are strongly supported by David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, a minimum price of 45p per unit would be set in England and Wales in an attempt to reduce binge-drinking and curb alcohol-fuelled crime.
However, the plans have been opposed by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and her Liberal Democrat deputy Jeremy Browne
Case for: "Drunk" isn't "free"
Keeping booze prices low doesn't protect the poor, it protects the profits of the drinks industry and, as the history of prohibition should demonstrate, this is an industry that's more than capable of looking after itself. While less harmful drugs like cannabis have been outlawed, alcohol remains legal and freely available despite abundant evidence of the damage it causes to individuals and society. If you're worried about protecting the freedom to get drunk on the cheap, worry about this instead: the freedom to move about public spaces without fear of drink-related violence and the freedom to use an NHS unburdened by drink-related injury and illness. Minimum pricing is a simple, efficient measure that will do a lot of good.
Case against: Punishing the poor
This is a tax on the poor, pure and simple. Any policy that introduces a minimum price is a blatant mechanism for pricing the poor out of the market. And here, as ever, the poor are taking the blame for much wider social ills. Instead of blaming the poor for binge drinking, and so stigmatising them further, we should apply the liberal principle that the state does not know best what is good for individuals, and if poor people wish to drink until they're drunk - just like those pesky middle class types who prefer Chardonnay - they should be free to.
I believe that the answer is a sensibly priced for all members of society minimum unit pricing system aimed mainly at supermarkets and other retails bulk selling at low prices, and establishments offering overly cheap shots and happy hour prices etc. It is my firm belief that the only people stopping this from happening is the government and the EU simply by money driven morals rather then the best interests of society.
I Fall
I Rise
I make Mistakes
I Live
I Learn
I’ve been Hurt
But I'm Alive
I’m Human
I’m not Perfect
But I’m Thankful
