Father Ted Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 This policy was an absolute waste of money and time. I could have told them that before it was implemented. Fix society and make it a better place for all, and maybe not as many people would see drink as the answer. Then again that's too much like hard work and the short termism of politics doesn't help Let's look to be doing something, when in essence all you are doing wasting taxpayers cash and not addressing the issue at all 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 Inflation seems to have caught up, nay surpassed the MPU regarding normal strength lager, specifically cans of Tennents. My local shop, having had cans at £1 (2 units) since the policy was brought in 4 years ago, has recently increased to £1.10 per can. I'm not a big wine or spirit drinker so can't comment on whether they have reached "2022 Inflation" prices. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hard Graft Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 There was some talk about a month ago that the MPU was too low and there was some talk about it going to 75p/unit. That will really help those who are not eating or heating but still purchasing alcohol. They need to ditch the scheme and invest more in education, social improvements but that is unlikely to happen. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 2 hours ago, Clown Job said: It’s been that long I can’t even remember what the chat was at the time of it's introduction Was MUP brought in to target alcoholics? I was thought it was overall more aimed at our culture of boozing to excess on cheap readily available alcohol Aye, because everyone was tanning 3 litres of White Lightning for fun before the MUP was introduced, but now they're having a single nightly glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape instead. This is the height of revisionist nonsense. The SG - egged on by the public health lobby - were absolutely selling it as a policy to deal with 'problem drinkers' (otherwise known as alkies/jakies). The mask has now well and truly slipped, with the miserable losers at Alcohol Focus Scotland trying to celebrate a 'population level' reduction*, while alcoholics are actively harmed by their hare-brained and socially regressive intervention. * A reduction that likely has no causal relationship to MUP. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted June 7, 2022 Author Share Posted June 7, 2022 Alcohol Focus Scotland think it's great: Look at that wee dip at the end of the graph (a 10% reduction). They claim MUP had done this. Nonsense, of course - just natural year-on-year variation that has subsequently been wiped out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 All the focus was on problem drinkers, the SG were pretty clear that it was targeting people buying cheap cider, super lager, vodka and fortified wine. Pretty much everyone in this thread who doesn't have their tongue permanently stuck out in the off chance Nicola Sturgeon's arse might materialise in front of them correctly said the policy would fail as it completely misunderstands the nature of addiction. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Days Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 59 minutes ago, Detournement said: All the focus was on problem drinkers, the SG were pretty clear that it was targeting people buying cheap cider, super lager, vodka and fortified wine. Pretty much everyone in this thread who doesn't have their tongue permanently stuck out in the off chance Nicola Sturgeon's arse might materialise in front of them correctly said the policy would fail as it completely misunderstands the nature of addiction. Its the SNP way, rather than tackle the problem sensibly, just punish the majority for the sake of the minority 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 Colour me shocked that raising the price of a substance has done nothing to tackle addiction issues. Absolute morons. All it does is cost people more money; treble the price of the substance and those who are dependent will still pay it. It does f**k all to tackle the issue. Worrying that those in charge genuinely thought this would be a good idea. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 25 minutes ago, Crazy Days said: Its the SNP way, rather than tackle the problem sensibly, just punish the majority for the sake of the minority They're only following up on the momentum from the Scottish Executive before them in this respect though. Scotland has displayed a pathetic deference to a clique of behaviouralist weirdos and curtain-twitchers ever since devolution. Walk into a Holyrood committee room with a sob story and a ban/minimum pricing policy and you've got a 50/50 chance of success. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 24 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said: Colour me shocked that raising the price of a substance has done nothing to tackle addiction issues. Absolute morons. All it does is cost people more money; treble the price of the substance and those who are dependent will still pay it. It does f**k all to tackle the issue. Worrying that those in charge genuinely thought this would be a good idea. At least the people it was targeting will have found the same unit strength of a cheeky Chardonnay to be no more expensive than industrial grade gut rotting cider. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moses1924 Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 8 hours ago, scottsdad said: Alcohol Focus Scotland think it's great: Look at that wee dip at the end of the graph (a 10% reduction). They claim MUP had done this. Nonsense, of course - just natural year-on-year variation that has subsequently been wiped out. im surprised it went up so much between 1990-2008, always had this impression that the 80's / early 90'2 would have been the high point for alchol deaths with de-industrialisation etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 12 hours ago, moses1924 said: im surprised it went up so much between 1990-2008, always had this impression that the 80's / early 90'2 would have been the high point for alchol deaths with de-industrialisation etc I think that illustrates the point that this is not a quick fix - these are generational issues, and what we are seeing now is the impact of what happened 20-40 years ago. If it is to be fixed, it will take just as long sadly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 Alcoholics and Problem Drinkers are different demographics. 21 hours ago, virginton said: Aye, because everyone was tanning 3 litres of White Lightning for fun before the MUP was introduced, but now they're having a single nightly glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape instead. This is the height of revisionist nonsense. The SG - egged on by the public health lobby - were absolutely selling it as a policy to deal with 'problem drinkers' (otherwise known as alkies/jakies). The mask has now well and truly slipped, with the miserable losers at Alcohol Focus Scotland trying to celebrate a 'population level' reduction*, while alcoholics are actively harmed by their hare-brained and socially regressive intervention. * A reduction that likely has no causal relationship to MUP. This isn't a defence of MUP it's just that you don't need to be dependent on alcohol, or "an alkie" to be harmed or cause harm through your drinking habits and these are definitions used in the studies being cited here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 (edited) 50 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said: Alcoholics and Problem Drinkers are different demographics. This isn't a defence of MUP it's just that you don't need to be dependent on alcohol, or "an alkie" to be harmed or cause harm through your drinking habits and these are definitions used in the studies being cited here. The definitions were not used to justify a MUP, because that policy would have no impact whatsoever on a 'problem drinker' middle class woman in Bearsden drinking a bottle of Pinot Grigio every other night. The MUP was designed by government to deal with jakies buying super-strength cider and no amount of goalpost shifting can change the fact that it has been a disaster. Edited June 8, 2022 by vikingTON 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 9 minutes ago, virginton said: The definitions were not used to justify a MUP, because that policy would have no impact whatsoever on a 'problem drinker' middle class woman in Bearsden drinking a bottle of Pinot Grigio every other night. The MUP was designed by government to deal with jakies buying super-strength cider and no amount of goalpost shifting can change the fact that it has been a disaster. Not sure what the issue with "this thing you said is wrong" when it is and "this isn't a defence of MUP" when it wasn't. Problem Drinker and Alcholic aren't synonyms* Quote Since the meaning of words seems a struggle for you *synonym noun a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 We're discussing MUP on this thread though - if you want an exercise in semantics then take it to another thread in which the context is not absolutely clear already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 The sales of Buckfast have apparently risen significantly since MUP. So it’s bad news for poor drinkers and good news for monks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 8 minutes ago, ICTChris said: The sales of Buckfast have apparently risen significantly since MUP. So it’s bad news for poor drinkers and good news for monks. Aren't they the people responsible for Monkeypox? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 17 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: Aren't they the people responsible for Monkeypox? Buckfast drinkers are responsible for Monkeypox? I’m not surprised tbh. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDoddyKane Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, 19QOS19 said: Colour me shocked that raising the price of a substance has done nothing to tackle addiction issues. Absolute morons. All it does is cost people more money; treble the price of the substance and those who are dependent will still pay it. It does f**k all to tackle the issue. Worrying that those in charge genuinely thought this would be a good idea. nearly every "good idea" they have had has either been a disaster or quietly shelved. Its a worry but not a surprise Edited June 8, 2022 by BigDoddyKane 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.