David Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Rasing the age of buying alcohol to 21 and making it more expensive isnt going to solve the problem not does it tackle it its more a hit and hope It may not be the answer to all of Scotlands alcohol-related problems, but it does help to bring us into line with countries such as Sweden, Finland & Norway which is no bad thing. Â Obviously it's a problem that has to be looked at closely, but it's a good start by the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'd say raising the legal age doesn't work, but raising the price does. I know loads of people quitting because they just can't afford it now; prices have gotten to the point where they impact smokers' budgets significantly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'd say raising the legal age doesn't work, but raising the price does. I know loads of people quitting because they just can't afford it now; prices have gotten to the point where they impact smokers' budgets significantly enough. Such a move has already been suggested by the SNP, but got shot down when they were in minority Government. The situation has changed now, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else. If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else. If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted. Â I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact. Â If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'd say raising the legal age doesn't work, but raising the price does. I know loads of people quitting because they just can't afford it now; prices have gotten to the point where they impact smokers' budgets significantly enough. Are black-market prices too high for them too? It seems strange to go to the trouble of quitting something that one enjoys rather than changing the supplier first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'd say raising the legal age doesn't work, but raising the price does. I know loads of people quitting because they just can't afford it now; prices have gotten to the point where they impact smokers' budgets significantly enough. Are black-market prices too high for them too? It seems strange to go to the trouble of quitting something that one enjoys rather than changing the supplier first. Can't speak for anyone else's friends, but most of my mates who've quit either really wanted the excuse/motivation to do so, and the higher prices provided that, or they're aware of the fact that the black market funds organised crime and therefore won't go to them. Â One mate of mine went back to smoking rollies, buying this really nasty stuff you can get from a stall in Chapel Street market which costs a pound a hundredweight. Mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Rasing the age of buying alcohol to 21 and making it more expensive isnt going to solve the problem not does it tackle it its more a hit and hope It may not be the answer to all of Scotlands alcohol-related problems, but it does help to bring us into line with countries such as Sweden, Finland & Norway which is no bad thing.  Obviously it's a problem that has to be looked at closely, but it's a good start by the Government.  You mean Sweden, where rates of alcoholism and alcohol related violence have sky rocketed since they came into line with EU prices on Alcohol after a period of temperance because of a mass alcohol problem c.18th century. Heck even the boss of Ikea was celebrated for drinking a bottle of Vodka a day. Prices are still high by comparison to the UK, but it doesnt stop the swedes going to different countries in search of cheap booze and so on  Alcholism is the top killer for men in Finland  There was a u-turn on their alcohol prices about a couple of years ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7846842.stm but its still a massive consumption as it hasnt solved the issue, again was a similar prohibiton state, the undertones of the drinking culture were never eradicated and when the drinks came in to line with the EU prices and stuff Alcoholism exploded yet again.  Afaik Norway is the same, despite being pricey compared to Britain.  The problems that we have are still found in the countries you mentioned, despite all of this posturing and look we are like the Scandinavians Yes, we we are Repressed Alcoholics that will fall off the wagon at any point given the chance.  So rake the prices and age of consent and hope it goes away.. Fucking awesome strategy that doesnt actually work that well. Brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'd say raising the legal age doesn't work, but raising the price does. I know loads of people quitting because they just can't afford it now; prices have gotten to the point where they impact smokers' budgets significantly enough. Are black-market prices too high for them too? It seems strange to go to the trouble of quitting something that one enjoys rather than changing the supplier first. Can't speak for anyone else's friends, but most of my mates who've quit either really wanted the excuse/motivation to do so, and the higher prices provided that, or they're aware of the fact that the black market funds organised crime and therefore won't go to them. Â One mate of mine went back to smoking rollies, buying this really nasty stuff you can get from a stall in Chapel Street market which costs a pound a hundredweight. Mad. Â I quit for three years nearly but started again through all the crap with the split with the ex. It is expensive I cant afford it and it will kill me. I will stop again when Im ready. Â Afaik lots get stuff posted from abroad in packs of 200's or smoke rollies or see the local Eastern Europeans/Asian shops for some fags The shops sell amazing things under the counter if you ask nicely ( I dont know what the prices are though). Some weird and wonderful brands I see being smoked because they can be got in cheap and avoid duties that way. Though customs are cracking down on the posted fags. There will always be some kind of work around. Â It will be the same with alcohol. Reminds me of a story me mate used to tell of merchant sailors coming ashore in his home town and bootlegging vodka on the cheap to help boost their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Okay Pat, what's your answer to the problem? I don't honestly believe that we can stop people who want to drink from doing so, but it's up to the Government to at least put measures in place that make it as difficult as they possibly can without going too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact. If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help. Treating smoking-related diseases costs up to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Okay Pat, what's your answer to the problem? I don't honestly believe that we can stop people who want to drink from doing so, but it's up to the Government to at least put measures in place that make it as difficult as they possibly can without going too far. Â I've not got an answer at present, other than to ask a load of people why they drink, what would stop them drinking and work from the results of that. I wouldnt advocate prohibition and temperance though, remove the illusion of choice to do what they want and people can get well a bit 'antsy' as seen by the return to things straight away after the changes in Scandinavia and so on. Â Why is it up to the government or rather why are you looking to the government to put measures in place to stop people going too far? Why does it have to be them and not say for example a societal trend that ultimately realises that drinking too much is problematic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else. If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted. Â I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact. Â If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help. If I recall correctly, more tax is raised through the sales of tobacco than the cost of treating smokers. However, the argument only works if the tax money raised from tobacco was spend solely on healthcare, but all tax revenue goes into one bit pot and id distributed accordingly. I'm happy to be proven wrong, or shown the correct stats etc but my understanding is that healthcare gets less than 10% of the full allocation of revenue. If that makes sense?? Â EDIT - So going by that, and the figures Ronnie posted, of the 10bn raised in excise, less than 1bn goes directly to the treatment. However it's not a clear cut thing as you can argue the same for fatty foods, alcohol etc. Edited May 31, 2011 by Keith Houchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else. If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted.  I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact.  If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help.   I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact. If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help. Treating smoking-related diseases costs up to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Why is it up to the government or rather why are you looking to the government to put measures in place to stop people going too far? Why does it have to be them and not say for example a societal trend that ultimately realises that drinking too much is problematic? It's not up to the Government to put a stop to the matter, but it's their duty to recognise that there's an issue and to do what they can to try and remedy it. I'd expect them to do the same for any major problem that Scotland faces. Â Of course it's not down to the Government to stop people drinking, that's down to the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts