Minimum pricing comes in tomorrow ya bas

I work in a store selling drink. There's hardly any young ones these days outside. Used to be 50- 100 on a Friday all trying to get folk to buy them £1 carbon *. Infact the majority of 15 year olds come in stinking of weed. Could just be a regional thing though.

 

Far smarter people than you or I have recommended minimum pricing. However if you think me agreeing with these people is somehow me "knowing what's best and looking down my nose at them" then aye nae bother you crack on SD as I have reached the point where I genuinely couldn't give a * what you think. Personally I'll stick with what the research has pointed towards.

You'll be happy to know that my tax rate is already starting to climb back up and I'm sure that will continue in the coming years until it may reach 60% in the next 5 years or so. So you might get your wish soon enough.
Funnily enough though I reckon I will moan about that considerably less than some are moaning about a couple of quid being added onto the price of a bottle of cider, for example, which is being done in an attempt to reduce the numbers who will go on to become dependant on alcohol, in the future. Heyho though It's me who is the * for backing this and that makes me a fascist seemingly now, although I suppose it's a change from a tory at least

 

Tory is to pigeonholed for you. I felt you deserved a wider label. A more fitting label.

I'm sure you will still get along fine with your 60% tax band though. Never a problem for you eh? I'm alright jack...

 

Probably buying it online these days.

 

There has been a few surveys and reports done on the matter. There always is. Some identify as much as 30% of 16-24 year olds are now teetotal.

They are also moving away from smoking too.

This is a growth of the social media generation in my opinion. Lots of people want to look their best for their social media posts.

 

Can you back that up for me?

All I see on social media is kids oot their *.

 

Very good I'll try and not pigeonhole you then

Yea yaa got me "I'm alright jack" and I dont give a * about anyone else. That'll be why I was able to explain the difficulties charities face at this time of year, when they get volunteers all clamouring to help on Christmas day. Weird how its quieter Jan to Oct though but I wouldnt have a clue about that... being the selfish fascist * I am. Anyway if it makes you feel better you crack on.

 

My opinion of the social media generation is my opinion. I can't quantify that. I see more youngsters moving away from drink and more interested in things like fancy cars.

The reports about less youngsters drinking and smoking can be found by using Google. It's widely reported and accepted as accurate.

 

He's right Sean.

https://news.st-andrews.ac.uk/archive/scottish-teenagers-drinking-less/

If you search you'll find other sources substantiating it too. Which is another reason I'm against minimum pricing.

It has been said that the target demographic is the next generation of drinkers, despite lots of research showing the next generation are drinking much less than their parents.

 

Well done. You done a great job not pigeonholing me there. And many others who don't like to help at this time of year.

My motives were selfish though. I wanted to take my mind off things on Christmas Day, what with having no close family left and needing to fill my day with something so I had less time to think.

Maybe me and you are more alike than I think because I will be earning on Christmas Day doing a 14 hour shift so a couple of parents can spend time with their families and I still earn out of it.

Loadsamoney! Well 8 and a half quid an hour...

 

Thanks mate.

I always wonder where they get these studies from though.

I never seen these poll takers cutting about the inner cities.

 

I didn't say anything about anyone 'not liking to help at this time of year' so I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

My post was in reply to your accusation that I'm a, among other things, "* you jack" type person, if I was I wouldn't know about these difficulties, simple as that. Anyway you can either believe it or not, I'm not fussed either way anymore tbh.

 

You and I both knew what you meant. I'm not fussed either. Me and you have been round the block enough times.

Merry Christmas.

 

So they shouldn’t try to reduce drinking further?

 

No, it seems you don't, anyway please yourself.

Last thing I will say is this - If I wanted to simply call you a *insert whatever insult here* I would, as I'm not shy that way and you know that.

 

Nah I know you're not shy. You do like to high brow your replies though.

Anyway * it.

 

Of course they should but I don't believe minimum pricing is the right way to do it for a variety of reasons.

 

Alcohol not being dirt cheap means it is more likely people will buy less.

 

Not necessarily, they might forego other basic living essentials to continue to drink alcohol. Those with experiences of addiction will know that the compulsion to drink is so strong that everything else becomes secondary.

In my opinion this very serious issue that is caused by a multitude of factors needed a more nuanced approach rather than the blunt approach of trying to price people out of buying alcohol. Bearing in mind that not all alcoholics are necessarily poor and the more well-off who can still afford to drink to excess are as entitled to societal assistance as anyone else. With minimum pricing they are completely disregarded.

I've said it ad nauseam on this thread but personally I think a better approach would be to try to understand the root causes of why many in Scotland drink to excess. Poverty, Education, poor mental healthcare provision & poor recreational and leisure facilities will almost certainly play a part.

Targeting those areas and investing in them would, in my opinion, be a much more productive and comprehensive way than the government pricing out the poorest in society. With all the added revenue going straight into the pockets of brewers and distilleries and not even a tax that could be invested back into the NHS or social welfare.

 

The extra revenue goes directly to the retailer and not to the producer of the alcohol. Obviously there is additional VAT on the higher price.

The taxation on alcohol is already massive and still doesn't cover the costs it creates.

In the past smoking and alcohol were heavily advertised everywhere. Just about every sport was heavily backed. It was everywhere. They stopped the majority of that sponsorship and exposure and we've seen a decline in drinking. It's not as cool as it used to be.

One of the other big issues in recent years is all these energy drinks. Again they heavily sponsor major sporting teams, events and celebrities. It does highlight just how much people are influenced by advertising.

Drinking culture is changing. The supermarkets aren't stacked deep in 24 packs of Bud and Miller anymore, with Smirnoff and Glens as the only two vodka choices. The aisles are now full of craft beers, premium gin, whisky and vodkas. It's the same in city centres.

Drinking already got more expensive in Scotland a few years ago when Multi buy discounts were stopped. People accepted that and moved on. Before this thread was bumped I've not heard anyone complaining.

It will be interesting to see if it has a positive impact long term. I genuinely believe it will.