0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In Canada, where they have had minimum unit pricing for years, a 10% increase in the minimum price resulted in a 32% decrease in directly attributable alcohol related mortality.
It seems morally questionable to raise taxes to discourage use but then put that money into a general fund. The government is making money from a destructive form of behavior. Some or all of the tax increase should go directly to helping people change their behavior if they want to, scientific research about methods that help people accomplish that, as well as the medical system that has to deal with the associated morbidity. Otherwise it's hypocrisy. Just my opinion.
...alcohol corp pressure" .. you can't say stuff like that and then not give evidence
The example of price elasticity from Canada was interesting - a 10% increase in price led to a 5-10% decline in consumption. It is as if some segments of the community have a certain amount of money to spend on alcohol, and if the price goes up, consumption goes down.
- Alcohol addiction/misuse is a serious problem that is really neglected and we should spend resources to tackle it (on the basis that producers pay for the negatives of their products).
- I very much suspect that Canada is not an alcoholic free utopia.
- Do countries where alcohol is already above our prices have alcohol problems ?- Do countries where it is significantly cheaper have worse problems thatn the UK ?
Quote from: stewgreen on 19/01/2014 19:03:29- Alcohol addiction/misuse is a serious problem that is really neglected and we should spend resources to tackle it (on the basis that producers pay for the negatives of their products).Fair enough if the product is defective or turns out to have unexpected side effects, but you can't expect the manufacturer to pay fo the consequence of misuse, nor can you consider alcohol to be a novel product with unknown effects, and why should the manufacturers and responsible consumers of Brand A have to pay for my addiction to Brand B (especially if Brand B is homebrew)?
The campaign against alcohol consumption is very one-sided. Why doesn't the government pay to ensure that people understand the benefits of drinking alcohol?
People who are drinking have already internalised the costs of getting arrested for alcohol-fuelled violence.
The costs of Absenteeism is already internalised by the drinker
The health implications of alcohol is an internal cost to the drinker
Utter confusion reigns. There's a huge difference between making and selling a pleasant beverage, and being inebriated. Society should penalise anyone who harms or inconveniences a third party, and to do so when under the influence of any intoxicant must be classed as "intentional".
Laws that permit a certain moderate level of alcohol while driving (say, up to .08 or [0.1]) just invite people to make those very same misjudgements, but I suppose it would be socially unrealistic to lower the limit to .02 People don't realize that after a late night out and a lot of alcohol, they probably aren't even near zero BAC until afternoon the next day. And it's much harder to judge ones intoxication coming down, than going up.