Minimum Unit Alcohol Price Illegal, says European Court of Justice

[lichtgilphead]

I didn't say that differential rates of alcohol duty were used in that way. I simply said that they could be.

OK, point taken.

Now, apart from using variable duty rates as a crude method to promote one specific alcohol producing sector (i.e. cider producers vs.wine producers), can you name any sound reason why differing rates of duty should be imposed upon drinks with the same alcohol content e.g. 250 ml of 4% lager vs. 25 ml of 40% whisky.

Surely equal duty rates on equivalent numbers of alcohol units provide the level playing field so beloved of free marketeers?

[Ad Lib]

OK, point taken.

Now, apart from using variable duty rates as a crude method to promote one specific alcohol producing sector (i.e. cider producers vs.wine producers), can you name any sound reason why differing rates of duty should be imposed upon drinks with the same alcohol content e.g. 250 ml of 4% lager vs. 25 ml of 40% whisky.

Surely equal duty rates on equivalent numbers of alcohol units provide the level playing field so beloved of free marketeers?

I've not stated my personal views on MAP on here; I've merely stated what the legal position is.

I personally oppose MAP and in general think that alcohol duty should be based on the volume of alcohol contained in a product rather than other factors. The only principled exception that I think can justify distinctions would be where specific strengths of beverage were shown to have a greater association with alcohol related disease, accidents, hospitalisation and addiction. I don't support the appeasement of specific sectors of the drinks industry through preferential tax treatment.

There is an instrumental distinction to be drawn, I guess, which relates to attempts by governments to maximise revenue realised from alcoholic drinks, and that differences might commercially therefore make sense. I don't know enough about the alcohol industry to reach an informed view about the extent to which this is reflected in current alcohol duty policy. If they can bring in more revenue from certain drinks to better treat alcohol related problems, it makes total pragmatic sense to do that.

I'm not sure why you think the opinion of free-marketeers is especially relevant here. The very nature of the European common market is such that free movement of goods is an ideal that member-states strive for and which can only be departed from with specific justification. It's not a prescription that prevents any differential treatment in any circumstances. It's not some Nozickian utopia.

[1320Lichtie]

I've not stated my personal views on MAP on here; I've merely stated what the legal position is.

I personally oppose MAP and in general think that alcohol duty should be based on the volume of alcohol contained in a product rather than other factors. The only principled exception that I think can justify distinctions would be where specific strengths of beverage were shown to have a greater association with alcohol related disease, accidents, hospitalisation and addiction. I don't support the appeasement of specific sectors of the drinks industry through preferential tax treatment.

There is an instrumental distinction to be drawn, I guess, which relates to attempts by governments to maximise revenue realised from alcoholic drinks, and that differences might commercially therefore make sense. I don't know enough about the alcohol industry to reach an informed view about the extent to which this is reflected in current alcohol duty policy. If they can bring in more revenue from certain drinks to better treat alcohol related problems, it makes total pragmatic sense to do that.

I'm not sure why you think the opinion of free-marketeers is especially relevant here. The very nature of the European common market is such that free movement of goods is an ideal that member-states strive for and which can only be departed from with specific justification. It's not a prescription that prevents any differential treatment in any circumstances. It's not some Nozickian utopia.

It's Christmas Day FFS!!!

[Ad Lib]

It's Christmas Day FFS!!!

Merry Christmas. I'm just in from the Watchnight.

[1320Lichtie]

Merry Christmas. I'm just in from the Watchnight.

Merry Christmas to you too. Away and get drunk on some cheap booze before this minimum pricing comes in.

[Ad Lib]

Merry Christmas to you too. Away and get drunk on some cheap booze before this minimum pricing comes in.

How dare you suggest I drink alcohol that cheaply sold. Nothing less than high quality single-malt in the Lib Household.

[Baxter Parp]

The number of Scottish people drinking above government guidelines (which are pretty conservative anyway) has fallen over the last decade. The number of Scots who completely abstain from alcohol has increased in that time. Also, problem drinking is higher among richer Scots (this is the same in other countries as well) than poorer so increasing the price of gut rot cans of tramp juice won't impact on that.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol

Hospital discharges have quadrupled since the early 1980s and alcohol-related deaths are 1.4 times higher.

Alcohol sales data suggests that consumption has increased by five per cent since 1994, with enough alcohol being sold for every adult in Scotland to drink over 20 units each and every week since at least 2000.

The impact on crime and anti-social behaviour is equally stark, with statistics showing that 45 per cent of prisoners (including three quarters of young offenders) were drunk at the time of their offence.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol

Hospital discharges have quadrupled since the early 1980s and alcohol-related deaths are 1.4 times higher.

Alcohol sales data suggests that consumption has increased by five per cent since 1994, with enough alcohol being sold for every adult in Scotland to drink over 20 units each and every week since at least 2000.

The impact on crime and anti-social behaviour is equally stark, with statistics showing that 45 per cent of prisoners (including three quarters of young offenders) were drunk at the time of their offence.

No-one is saying that there isn't a problem with alcohol.

The issue is that a lot of people believe that MAP (certainly in its current form) will not make one iota of a difference.

It's a policy that doesn't deal with the root causes. As has been pointed out elsewhere the levels of alcoholism are highest within higher income brackets (especially in the professions and trades) - the culture of binge-drinking at the weekend and its associated problems (for example, A&E admissions related to alcohol soar) - means that MAP has little or no effect on the pricing of alcohol for those drinkers.

[The Master]

Court of Session backs the Scottish Government.

I'm not convinced this is the right policy. Chances are it'll just mean "problem drinkers" finding something (else) to sacrifice so they can afford their booze. Some form of education from school onwards would be a better approach. 

[Alan Stubbs]

I wouldn't have liked an alcohol lobby to win the day but on a practical level, I'm not a fan of these kind of policies.

If this even puts a dent in Scotland's problems with alcohol, great. I'll put my hands up and admit I was wrong. Can't see it at all. 

[Ross.]

Has to be part of a wider range of policies if they want to have any real impact on our beautiful drinking culture.

[Scary Bear]

Might as well give it a go, but it would probably need to be a much higher unit price to have any real impact.

[Scary Bear]

Wonder how much money has been wasted fighting this through the courts.

[lichtgilphead]

20 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Wonder how much money has been wasted fighting this through the courts.

By who?

Lets be honest here. The court case was brought by the Scotch Whisky Association because they are considered to have some gravitas. Normally, any SWA member wouldn't be seen dead with a £14 bottle of whisky.

The 'White Lightning Association' or the 'Friends of Buckie Drinkers' would have been laughed out of court.

Realistically, the alcohol producers are hoping to continue to promote cheap ciders & fortified wine stuffed full of caffeine - nasty bulk products. They are happy to fight losing legal battles like this.

Surely people can accept that products of this type are more damaging than a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine* - a product that won't be affected by the current policy?

 

* says the person currently 2/3 of the way through a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine who claims to be impartial 

[dogmc]

By who?

Lets be honest here. The court case was brought by the Scotch Whisky Association because they are considered to have some gravitas. Normally, any SWA member wouldn't be seen dead with a £14 bottle of whisky.

The 'White Lightning Association' or the 'Friends of Buckie Drinkers' would have been laughed out of court.

Realistically, the alcohol producers are hoping to continue to promote cheap ciders & fortified wine stuffed full of caffeine - nasty bulk products. They are happy to fight losing legal battles like this.

Surely people can accept that products of this type are more damaging than a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine* - a product that won't be affected by the current policy?

 

* says the person currently 2/3 of the way through a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine who claims to be impartial[emoji38]

Correct but for some it's more important to look hard for some snpbad

[eez-eh]

Imagine actually being of the opinion that passing some lazy law which in turn punishes those who do no wrong is a more worthwhile policy than putting the effort into educating people and targeting the real causes of the issue.

Absolutely hideous train of thought.

[Scary Bear]

By who?

Lets be honest here. The court case was brought by the Scotch Whisky Association because they are considered to have some gravitas. Normally, any SWA member wouldn't be seen dead with a £14 bottle of whisky.

The 'White Lightning Association' or the 'Friends of Buckie Drinkers' would have been laughed out of court.

Realistically, the alcohol producers are hoping to continue to promote cheap ciders & fortified wine stuffed full of caffeine - nasty bulk products. They are happy to fight losing legal battles like this.

Surely people can accept that products of this type are more damaging than a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine* - a product that won't be affected by the current policy?

 

* says the person currently 2/3 of the way through a £4.99 bottle of 12.5% wine who claims to be impartial 

By both parties. I couldn't care less about the money lost by the part of the alcohol industry which brought the challenge. I just wonder how much taxpayers money has been shelled out over 9 years.

However, governments of the day waste money all the time. I mainly find it deplorable that the government's policy has been delayed for 9 years while the alcohol industry gives it the run around. The policy could be several years down the road by now with evidence to either support or weaken the arguments.

I feel that the government have started at 50p a unit just to try and get the policy through quickly, which hasn't worked. It's a start, but I would have thought the unit price would have to be substantially increased to make a real difference to alcohol consumption.

[Scary Bear]

Imagine actually being of the opinion that passing some lazy law which in turn punishes those who do no wrong is a more worthwhile policy than putting the effort into educating people and targeting the real causes of the issue.

Absolutely hideous train of thought.

Education is only ever part of the answer. You only have to look around you to see that education isn't embraced by some people.

'Education' is the lazy retort from people opposing some other action, such as this legislation. Why can't it be both?

[Suspect Device]

Reading today that legal fees so far have been £400k for the tax payer.

Not that much.

That said, I am totally against the idea because it is yet again punishing the majority for the 'sins' of a minority and I don't believe it will be effective either. It is one of the reasons I stopped voting SNP.

[Scary Bear]

Reading today that legal fees so far have been £400k for the tax payer.

Not that much.

That said, I am totally against the idea because it is yet again punishing the majority for the 'sins' of a minority and I don't believe it will be effective either. It is one of the reasons I stopped voting SNP.

Considering it's dragged on for 9 years the cost isn't as much as I expected.

Increasing the cost is usually effective if you want to decrease the use of something. The regular increases in the price of cigarettes has decreased use of them.

What really pisses me off is people who are reluctant to try things in case they don't work. Why not try it and see? If it doesn't work, or has unintended consequences, then it can be reviewed. I can't see a 50p per unit price making any sort of significant difference, but if the price was raised it might.

However, I'd question what the government are trying to achieve. People drink for various reasons. It's embedded in the culture. Some people just like drinking, some are drinking to blot out other stuff they can't deal with. Maybe stopping people drinking through price will have both positive and negative consequences.