Mostly, it reduces harm. There's a potential for harm for people with alcohol dependence how have very low incomes. That harm can be avoided with better access and better quality substance use...
Mostly, it reduces harm. There's a potential for harm for people with alcohol dependence how have very low incomes. That harm can be avoided with better access and better quality substance use disorder treatment. The press release is pretty information dense so I'm not going to cut and paste anything from it.
In the UK the standard drink is called "one unit". It was set some time ago as a way for the public to understand their drinking and for public health to communicate risk in a simple way. At the time one unit was half a pint of beer or one small glass of wine (125 ml of 8% ABV wine). Strictly speaking, it's 10 ml of alcohol. Beer has got stronger (half a pint of 5% ABV beer would be 1.4 units) and wine has got stronger and is served in bigger glasses. A small glass is 175 ml and 12% ABV is not unusual. This would be .175 * 12 = 2.1 units.
Scotland changed the law. They introduced "minimum unit pricing". This was set at 50pence per unit in May 2018. So, a 750 ml bottle of wine at 12% ABV (.75 * 12 = 9 units) cannot be sold for less than £4.50. A bottle of Frosty Jack's Cider 2.5 l at 7.5% ABV = 18.75 units cannot be sold for less than £9.37 (currently it's about £4.50 in England). A litre of spirits at 37.5% ABV would be £18.75. The aim was to not affect pricing of normal alcohol, and to target the very cheap, low quality, industrial alcohol being pushed at people with problem, harmful, or dependent drinking.
There was considerable challenge to this law. The alcohol industry went to Europe to get the law repealed. Europe said "we'd prefer it if Scotland had just raised taxes and duties rather than using MUPs, but we're not going to make them change the law". That gave the industry pause: go with MUPs and keep the profits, or force countries to raise taxes and duties which would shrink profits.
The difficulty for England is that current government hates regulation, especially public health regulation, and will not introduce tax rises nor MUPs.
Link title: Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm to health Your title: Does minimum unit pricing for alcohol cause or prevent harm? I really don't think you needed to edit the title...
Link title: Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm to health
Your title: Does minimum unit pricing for alcohol cause or prevent harm?
I really don't think you needed to edit the title to be clickbait.
Title of the report being discussed: Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: A synthesis of the evidence A gentle reminder that on Tildes you're expected to read...
Title of the report being discussed: Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: A synthesis of the evidence
A gentle reminder that on Tildes you're expected to read beyond the subject line and that subject lines are used to promote discussion.
A quote from the report:
The evaluation sought to answer two overarching questions:
a. To what extent has implementing MUP in Scotland contributed to reducing alcohol-related health and social harms?
b. Are some people and businesses more affected (positively or negatively) than others?
The title "Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm" is incomplete - MUPs reduce harm for most people, but increase harm for some others. MUPs didn't have much effect on dependent drinkers (which may feel obvious but at least we have the evidence now) but also it didn't appear to have much impact on people under 18 - and that's a surprise because it was one of the key drivers for the introduction of MUPs and campaigns against "pocket money booze" were looking at availability of cheap alcohol to children.
People could read the subject line as being "We've seen what they do in Scotland, but would MUPs reduce or cause harm in your country, and why?"
Mostly, it reduces harm. There's a potential for harm for people with alcohol dependence how have very low incomes. That harm can be avoided with better access and better quality substance use disorder treatment. The press release is pretty information dense so I'm not going to cut and paste anything from it.
In the UK the standard drink is called "one unit". It was set some time ago as a way for the public to understand their drinking and for public health to communicate risk in a simple way. At the time one unit was half a pint of beer or one small glass of wine (125 ml of 8% ABV wine). Strictly speaking, it's 10 ml of alcohol. Beer has got stronger (half a pint of 5% ABV beer would be 1.4 units) and wine has got stronger and is served in bigger glasses. A small glass is 175 ml and 12% ABV is not unusual. This would be .175 * 12 = 2.1 units.
Scotland changed the law. They introduced "minimum unit pricing". This was set at 50pence per unit in May 2018. So, a 750 ml bottle of wine at 12% ABV (.75 * 12 = 9 units) cannot be sold for less than £4.50. A bottle of Frosty Jack's Cider 2.5 l at 7.5% ABV = 18.75 units cannot be sold for less than £9.37 (currently it's about £4.50 in England). A litre of spirits at 37.5% ABV would be £18.75. The aim was to not affect pricing of normal alcohol, and to target the very cheap, low quality, industrial alcohol being pushed at people with problem, harmful, or dependent drinking.
There was considerable challenge to this law. The alcohol industry went to Europe to get the law repealed. Europe said "we'd prefer it if Scotland had just raised taxes and duties rather than using MUPs, but we're not going to make them change the law". That gave the industry pause: go with MUPs and keep the profits, or force countries to raise taxes and duties which would shrink profits.
The difficulty for England is that current government hates regulation, especially public health regulation, and will not introduce tax rises nor MUPs.
Link title: Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm to health
Your title: Does minimum unit pricing for alcohol cause or prevent harm?
I really don't think you needed to edit the title to be clickbait.
Title of the report being discussed: Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: A synthesis of the evidence
A gentle reminder that on Tildes you're expected to read beyond the subject line and that subject lines are used to promote discussion.
A quote from the report:
The title "Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm" is incomplete - MUPs reduce harm for most people, but increase harm for some others. MUPs didn't have much effect on dependent drinkers (which may feel obvious but at least we have the evidence now) but also it didn't appear to have much impact on people under 18 - and that's a surprise because it was one of the key drivers for the introduction of MUPs and campaigns against "pocket money booze" were looking at availability of cheap alcohol to children.
People could read the subject line as being "We've seen what they do in Scotland, but would MUPs reduce or cause harm in your country, and why?"