Notwithstanding that there is no binge drinking epidemic, 'alcohol related admissions' are not bankrupting the NHS, booze-related violence is not increasing and so on and so forth, from today's Evening Standard (much better value now it's free):
Ministers were accused of “betrayal” today as health campaigners said a new minimum price for alcohol was too low to deter excessive drinking. The Home Office said shops will be banned from selling alcohol for less than the tax they pay on it, resulting in minimum unit prices of 21p for beer and 28p for spirits... Don Shenker, of Alcohol Concern, said he felt “let down” by the minimum price, which is less than half that recommended by a government-commissioned study.
This whole high pricing malarkey, did it work for cocaine and heroin?
Methinks not, if anything, the harm they cause increases when prices increase (more crime, more incentives for drug dealers etc.). Admittedly some drugs like ecstasy tablets and cannabis are quite good value compared to booze and fags, but they are the ones that cause the least harm - whether in spite of or because of the low prices, or indeed whether there is no correlation whatsoever is a separate debate.
See also: Make cigarette packaging plain, government urges.
As everybody knows, since drug dealers weren't allowed to use fancy branded packaging, their sales went through the floor.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Well, it worked a treat with cocaine and heroin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"Evening Standard much better value now its free"
On the basis that the MSM is generally 'crap', you mean you now get loo roll free instead of having to pay for it?
Just asking, you understand?
"As everybody knows, since drug dealers weren't allowed to use fancy branded packaging, their sales went through the floor".
Quote of the week.
:)
Now, make that a maximum price and you're talking.
WFW, we is posh, we buy toilet rolls and don't use newspaper any more.
L, ta.
JH, it's an interesting thought experiment - what would happen to alcohol sales if they imposed a maximum price of (say) £1 per unit? What would happen if they imposed a minimum price of (say) 50p per unit?
Having thought that one through, what would happen to sales of e.g. ecstasy tablets if they imposed maximum or minimum prices?
No offence intended MW, just that knowing some accountants, they all try and maximise their expenditure.......reredis
WFW, I was in fact once so poor that we had to use newspaper, it's not a pleasant experience.
MW: Understood. At least, in compliance, with the Electoral Commission, I found it complies with the requirement to incorporate an 'imprint'!
Listenied this morning to a representative of the Scottish Drugs Forum saying how Scotland is still trying to recover from the explosion in drugs usage "caused" by the "1980's depression". How "£1 of public money invested (sic) now means a saving of £10 later"
Looked then at their Accounts and of course they're a fake charity of the first water. Their report contains this gem:
Highlighting underlying causes – poverty and deprivation: One area of which I am particularly proud is SDF’s continuing efforts to explore the all-important links between drugs and poverty. In pre-recession days, tackling poverty became largely sidelined in favour of a focus on treatment. It is good to see the debate has been expanding because SDF considers that tackling income inequality is, and always will be, integral to the success of social and clinical responses aimed at preventing and treating problematic substance use.
So as you say, if demand goes up as the substance in question becomes (either effectively or actually) more expensive, how will minimum alcohol pricing reduce usage?
As little as I don't want to think of it this way, I suspect at the heart of it the government is stimulating a noted source of tax revenue.
In fact, why not ban alcohol altogether? After all it worked so well in the US when they tried it a few years ago.
"SDF considers that tackling income inequality is, and always will be, integral to the success of social and clinical responses aimed at preventing and treating problematic substance use."
So all those bankers snorting coke were actually on the breadline. Who knew?
U, may I refer you to FT's comment? I'ts 'income inequality' that causes drug usage - these bankers have very unequal incomes ergo they take drugs.
B, that's what they'd like to do, isn't it? Maybe it'll work this time round?
Mark, yeah, I'm sure they didn't do it properly last time. I mean, they could have had the army shoot suspected bootleggers on sight. That would have worked.
The Northampton Chronicle & Echo has excelled itself on this story. Under a huge headline about the "Cheap booze ban"and a terrifying picture of LVT-hating former (hooray!) Labour MP Sally "Feeble" Keeble (far from feeble on LVT)is the wondrous first sentence :"Campaigners against high alcohol prices in Northampton say Government plans to reduce the the cost of alcohol don't go far enough".
Imagine the journo left his desk and his mates transformed the article with some deft substitutions.
Post a Comment