[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
I understand where you're coming from but the NMW is not relevant here.

It's not, no. It does, however, rather suggest that your support of the minimum wage is based either on rhetoric you don't understand, or a simple towing of the party line. This is true for anyone that simultaneously damns a minimum pricing on alcohol but supports a minimum pricing on labour.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
It's not, no. It does, however, rather suggest that your support of the minimum wage is based either on rhetoric you don't understand, or a simple towing of the party line. This is true for anyone that simultaneously damns a minimum pricing on alcohol but supports a minimum pricing on labour.

Why? For the ordinary working man(ie who the Labour party are interested in) a minimum price on Labour is a good thing whereas a minimum price on alcohol is a bad thing.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Why? For the ordinary working man(ie who the Labour party are interested in) a minimum price on Labour is a good thing whereas a minimum price on alcohol is a bad thing.

And therefore you stop caring about "the freedom of individuals and retailers"? A minimum price on alcohol has all the same problems for consumers of alcohol and the alcohol producers as the minimum wage has on employees (analogous to the alcohol producers) and the businesses that hire them (analogous to the people that buy alcohol). The reason they have all the same problems - remember, those reasons you're opposing this minimum price? - are because they're the same damn thing. The laws of economics and maths don't change just because you want them to.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
And therefore you stop caring about "the freedom of individuals and retailers"? A minimum price on alcohol has all the same problems for consumers of alcohol and the alcohol producers as the minimum wage has on employees (analogous to the alcohol producers) and the businesses that hire them (analogous to the people that buy alcohol). The reason they have all the same problems - remember, those reasons you're opposing this minimum price? - are because they're the same damn thing. The laws of economics and maths don't change just because you want them to.

This debate is about alcohol.

[Keckers]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
This debate is about alcohol.

It's about the pricing of alcohol, therefore economics.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
This debate is about alcohol.

I'll consider that an acknowledgement of your internal struggle at the economic confusion of the Labour party.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by Keckers)
It's about the pricing of alcohol, therefore economics.

I'm not making the argument in economic terms, I'm making the argument in "Let's all go out and get p*ssed and have enough student loan money left over for a kebab at the end of the night" terms.

[Rhadamanthus]

This is a good motion. It's clear that this pseudo-paternalism on the part of the SNP is just another government intervention that will serve to harm the poor more than anyone else. Middle-class responsible drinkers, middle and upper-class alcoholics, brewers who sell alcohol above the threshold, and dictatorial politicians will not lose out. Poor but responsible drinkers will have to forgo some extra booze and poor alcoholics will have to spend more on their habit than they do already. A ridiculous idea.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
I'm not making the argument in economic terms, I'm making the argument in "Let's all go out and get p*ssed and have enough student loan money left over for a kebab at the end of the night" terms.

Except that's not where the impact will be. The impact will be on the cheaper-than-chips alcohol your buddies buy in Tescos and guzzle before you go out. Buy your Tennants on tap in the pub, nae bother; buy it in Tescos at 20 cans for £5, then yes, you have a problem. This motion really focuses at the wrong end of the question. As to those bemoaning the impact on the "poor", pull the other one!

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
I'm making the argument in "Let's all go out and get p*ssed and have enough student loan money left over for a kebab at the end of the night" terms.

It is just the best, isn't it?

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Except that's not where the impact will be. The impact will be on the cheaper-than-chips alcohol your buddies buy in Tescos and guzzle before you go out. Buy your Tennants on tap in the pub, nae bother; buy it in Tescos at 20 cans for £5, then yes, you have a problem. This motion really focuses at the wrong end of the question. As to those bemoaning the impact on the "poor", pull the other one!

But I don't see the deal with 20 cans for a fiver. You'd get what 2 pints for that price. Sounds awesome to me.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
But I don't see the deal with 20 cans for a fiver. You'd get what 2 pints for that price. Sounds awesome to me.

Yes but 2 pints in a pub doesn't do the damage that the 20 cans from Tesco do. Forcing up the price of alcohol in supermarkets will reduce deaths from alcoholism and other alcohol related-deaths. In the end, if minimum pricing is the only way to force supermarkets to increase the costs of booze that they, currently, sell at irresponsible prices then so be it. Failing that we ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Yes but 2 pints in a pub doesn't do the damage that the 20 cans from Tesco do. Forcing up the price of alcohol in supermarkets will reduce deaths from alcoholism and other alcohol related-deaths. In the end, if minimum pricing is the only way to force supermarkets to increase the costs of booze that they, currently, sell at irresponsible prices then so be it. Failing that we ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets.

The thing is though it's only really targeted at alcoholics. Is there anything wrong with casual drinkers or even binge drinkers who are not alcoholics from purchasing these drinks?


I'm happy with the status quo.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
The thing is though it's only really targeted at alcoholics. Is there anything wrong with casual drinkers or even binge drinkers who are not alcoholics from purchasing these drinks?

It's not the case at all that it's only really targeted at alcoholics. It's targeted at a society that has a drink problem in general (and I don't mean this just in terms of Scotland): to dismiss binge drinkers so casually highlights precisely one of the very great issues we have with drink. It's cool to get so wasted on booze that you become a threat to others around you - whether it's violence towards the police or staff in A&E or to your friends and family - and to yourself. Would you be so casual in dismissing those who take large amounts of other drugs on a regular basis but have yet to be diagnosed as addicts? I doubt it but the principle is the same.

[paperclip]

At the risk of sounding like Adorno, i find it ridiculous that this house is criticising the Scottish legislature. I understand this house's commitment to neo-liberal politics, but has anyone considered the fact that Scotland's drinking problem is completely different to Englands? Scottish parliament, in general, is a recognition of the differences between the two cultures, and from what i have heard/read, binge drinking is especially a problem for Scotland in its poorer areas such as Glasgow.

Anyone can be against a policy, but what do those that are voting 'aye' suggest Scotland do about their problems? Unless you don't believe binge drinking is a problem in Scotland?

Spoiler:

Show

Here are some figures from the NHS alcohol statistics report, 2011

In 2009 over a third of both men and women exceeded the recommended daily limit on their heaviest drinking day in the past week.
- For men the average number of units drunk in the heaviest drinking day in the last week was 5.9. This figure was 3.2 for women (Table 3.3).
- 26% of men and 17% of women drank more than twice the recommended daily limit (8 units for men, 6 units for women) (Table 3.3).
- Between 2003 and 2009 the mean number of units consumed by both men and women on their heaviest drinking day has fallen by a small but statistically significant amount (from 6.5 units in 2003 to 5.9 units

In 2009 the proportion of men and women exceeding ‘sensible’ drinking limits varies with age.
- More than half of men (53%) in the 25-34 age group exceeded sensible daily limits on their heaviest drinking day in the past week. Similarly for women high numbers of 25-34 year olds (and 35-44 year olds) exceeded sensible drinking limits (44% of both) (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1).
- Among men, the 25-34 age group were most likely to report drinking more than 8 units on their heaviest drinking day in the last week (36%). For women, 28% of both 16-24 and 25-34 year olds reported binge drinking (drinking more than 6 units) in the past week (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1).
- Apart from a slight fluctuation for men, with the proportion of 25-34 year olds exceeding that of 16-24 year olds, propensity to binge drink declines with age (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1).

[Mr Dangermouse]

It's a problem, obviously, but not one that should be solved by the law.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
It's a problem, obviously, but not one that should be solved by the law.

Then, pray tell, how do you solve it?

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Then, pray tell, how do you solve it?

You don't. If people are alcoholics it's their own fault and problem.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
You don't. If people are alcoholics it's their own fault and problem.

I've got to disagree there - alcoholism is far from just a personal problem, it can have terrible effects on the community and is a problem we should look to help people deal with.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
You don't. If people are alcoholics it's their own fault and problem.

Riight. Does this kind of attitude extend right across the social spectrum? People are enslaved, we can't solve that it's their own fault and problem. People are subjected to racial abuse, oh but we can't solve that because it's their own fault and problem.