Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 8th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Plan to make booze retailers help pay cost of drink misuse



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 June 2008
PUBS, clubs and off-licences could face an extra tax to pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse under a new strategy unveiled today.
The proposed "social responsibility fee" paid by drink retailers would be designed to reduce the cost to the taxpayer, currently estimated at £2.25 billion a year.

The level of the fee could be set by local authorities, who would also have respons
ibility for collecting it. The cash raised could help meet not just the costs of extra late-night policing, but also the increased burden on the health service from alcohol misuse and other costs stemming from drink-fuelled antisocial behaviour.

The idea was spelled out today in a consultation paper launched in Armadale by health secretary Nicola Sturgeon and justice secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Other proposals to combat the misuse of alcohol have also been confirmed. They include:

• Raising the minimum age for off-sales alcohol purchases to 21.

• Setting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol.

• Ending "three for the price of two" type promotions which encourage impulse buying.

• Introducing alcohol-only checkouts in large off-sales premises, so that alcohol is thought of as a special case and not "just another product".

The ministers also confirmed a record £85 million increase in alcohol prevention, treatment and support services, bringing total spend to £120m over the next three years.

They chose Armadale for today's launch because of the recent six-week pilot which banned under-21s from buying alcohol at off-licences. The experiment resulted in a big drop in calls about antisocial behaviour, youth drinking and vandalism.

Ms Sturgeon said it was time for action to defuse the health time-bomb alcohol misuse was storing up for the future.

She said: "We are not anti-alcohol, but we are concerned about alcohol misuse.

"People across all sections of society, of all ages, are drinking ever greater quantities of stronger alcoholic drinks.

"It should come as no surprise that alcohol-related health problems have risen hand-in-hand with this increased consumption.

"The cost of alcohol misuse to our health service, our justice services and our economy is enormous and growing. The cost to our families, our communities and our society is incalculable."

Mr McAskill added: "We can no longer sit back and let alcohol misuse continue to take its shocking toll on our criminal justice system, health service and economy.

"We know that two-thirds of murders are fuelled by drink and almost half of prisoners admitted to being drunk when they offended."

The consultation will run until September 9 ahead of the new Licensing Act coming into force on September 1 next year.

Shock tactic adverts aim to cut binge drinking
A SHOCKING series of anti-binge drinking adverts launched today by the UK Government shows young people deliberately injuring themselves and smearing vomit in their hair.

The £4 million Home Office campaign is designed to show the consequences of drinking too much, and asks: "You wouldn't start a night like this, so why end it that way?"

One ad – to be shown during youth programmes on national TV – depicts a young man getting ready for a night out who rips out his ear-ring, smashes a wardrobe door in his face, urinates on his shoes and pours a takeaway meal down his shirt.

Another shows an attractive young woman arranging vomit in her hair, smudging make-up down her face and ripping her clothes.

The TV ads will also be replicated in a series of shop window displays.

A MULTIBILLION-POUND PRICE TAG
• Alcohol misuse costs Scotland £2.25 billion per year – the equivalent of £500 per adult.

• Last year Scots bought drinks containing nearly 50 million litres of pure alcohol – enough for every man and woman to exceed the sensible drinking guidelines for men every week of the year.

• An estimated 65,000 children are living with a parent or carer who has an alcohol problem.

• Alcohol-related visits to Scottish hospitals have risen by almost 50 per cent over the last decade and alcohol-related death rates have more than doubled.

• Scotland has one of the fastest growing liver cirrhosis death rates in the world at a time when cirrhosis rates in most of western Europe are falling.









The full article contains 730 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 June 2008 10:37 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Alcohol & binge drinking
 
1

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 17/06/2008 11:50:34
While the purveyors of alcohol have to take some of the responsibility, it is the end user who misuses the product. Every drunk who ends up in the cells for the night should pay for the service. Every drunk who ends up in hospital should pay for the service. Every parent of an underage drunk should have to pay for the sevice.
Before anyone jumps on the smoking bandwagon, smokers don't smoke to deliberately get cancer: they end up paying with their lives anyway, just once.
2

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 17/06/2008 11:51:24
While the purveyors of alcohol have to take some of the responsibility, it is the end user who misuses the product. Every drunk who ends up in the cells for the night should pay for the service. Every drunk who ends up in hospital should pay for the service. Every parent of an underage drunk should have to pay for the service.
Before anyone jumps on the smoking bandwagon, smokers don't smoke to deliberately get cancer: they end up paying with their lives anyway, just once.
3

Lillig,

17/06/2008 12:08:07
Well said Mad Jock.

Its not alcohol that is the problem in itself - its the mis-use of alcohol.

But here we are with our Nanny State trying to pass the buck to sitting ducks - the business people who own companies.

Make the mis-user pay up. If they don't have enough money - make them do something to pay for it - in their own spare time if necessary.

What are we going to have next. Chocolate makers and fish and chips shops taxed to pay for the costs of growing obesity?

4

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 12:15:42
Chocolate and Chippies dont make people do stupid things that hurt other people therefore your analogy is stupid.

As long as scots refuse to take personal responsibility for their own bevvy intake and its effect on the next generation there is no hope. It's a harmful drug. I wont tell you again.
5

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 12:36:52
I don't believe that they are so fundamentally stupid that they would suggest this crazy scheme.

THE PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY THE DRACONIAN ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS.

Instead of trying to force everyone to be whiter than white, they should concentrate on enforcing the SPIRIT of the licencing laws instead of the letter. That, combined with a campaign that bigs up the ability to handle drink responsibly will eventually solve this problem.

The idiot politicians have created this problem themselves with their stupid nanny-state policies.
6

,

17/06/2008 12:39:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Pamela Dale,

Plymouth 17/06/2008 12:52:19
Genuine Mario Antoinette - chocolate and chips DO make people do stupid things - like put on copious amounts of weight due to mis-use of the product, leading to obesity. That was Lillig's analogy. Why just have a dig at the Scots? Alcohol abuse/binging is Nationwide.
8

ianH,

Balerno 17/06/2008 12:52:38
Aye, another tax, one the numptys in holyrood can get their snouts in. Read the document, it would be hard pressed to find a more pious and patronizing piece of work which will only make life worse. Some of the proposals need careful consideration and really should have been included in the SNP manifesto, why weren't they?

They ask for responses, so let them know yours, for or against, but do read the document.
9

JT,

17/06/2008 12:59:04
When the politicians stop smoking, drinking, eating bad foods and taking drugs then the public will.
Maybe the government should look at why wine producers have tripled the alcohol content in a bottle of wine, or the supermarkets for selling it cheaper than water. Yes those who are drunk in public and make a pratt or nusiance of themselves or commit a criminal act should be dealt with but tarnish us all with the same brush will only lead to bootleg booze and consequences that go with that.
10

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 17/06/2008 12:59:39
Why not just round up all the drunken people and throw them over the Forth Bridge, and to hell with human rights abuses? That would get the message across.
11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 13:09:01
#10:

Before you do that to the drunks, let me do it to the tanker drivers first... Then get people in to do the job who are prepared to WORK for a living rather than moaning and groaning at every turn and making us suffer because of their stupidity.

I'd rather the country was over-run by drunks than by Troskyist scum.
12

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 13:09:43
#10:

Before you do that to the drunks, let me do it to the tanker drivers first... Then get people in to do the job who are prepared to WORK for a living rather than moaning and groaning at every turn and making us suffer because of their stupidity.

I'd rather the country was over-run by drunks than by Troskyist scum.
13

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 17/06/2008 13:16:33
"I'd rather the country was over-run by drunks than by Troskyist scum."

I'd rather the country ran over people who don't know how to spell Trotskyism.

Sheesh.
14

,

17/06/2008 13:16:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Klaus Dubois,

Ed. 17/06/2008 13:18:39
Must be quite flattering to Gordon Brown when he sees that the SNP also lacks logic & imagination - taxation is the blunt tool of the intellectually bereft (see Ed. council - bedroom tax, pavement tax, 'congestion' tax).
This is the same party who advocates voting for 16 year olds ??? What a p1ss poor choice the people of Scotland have - ol' labour or the tartan taleban.
16

Indespair,

17/06/2008 13:24:54
This is the same problem as airguns - it's not the guns or the booze that is dangerous its the morons using them that can't control themselves.
17

David Pantomime,

17/06/2008 13:25:08
how can alcohol be mis-used? - it's for drinking and cleaning wounds both of which are hard to get wrong
18

,

17/06/2008 13:30:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

17/06/2008 13:34:07
They always talk about the costs, but never all the fun that everyone is having.

It could be that the beneefits actually exceed the costs.
20

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 13:35:14
It not the landmines that are the problem its people standing on them.

ffs. listen to yourselves.
21

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

17/06/2008 13:36:13
Landmines? Oh my God!
22

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 13:37:05
i do partly agree with saloux though. Our politicians like to faff about round the edges of problems (anyone hear about putting smiley faces on energy bills ?) rather than tackle them head on.

Drunk people should be shot. In the face.
23

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

17/06/2008 13:37:20
Lillig offers: "

Make the mis-user pay up. If they don't have enough money - make them do something to pay for it - in their own spare time if necessary."

Absolutely. Put them on a couple of months of cleaning up blood, urine, vomit and broken glass and they'll maybe prefer to go home quietly after that.

Charging the bars simply spreads the cost to those who can hold their drink and head home quietly. That MacAskill can't grasp this shows he's unfit for the job.
24

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 13:39:55
7 Pamela , i dont think you quite get it. I shouldnt even entertain your nonsense but chocolate abuse hardly equates to alcohol abuse. If you cant understand why i am in no mood to tell you.
25

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 13:41:26
Why not sell Heroin in Supermarkets.

I'm cantankerous today.
26

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 13:47:19
Listen just read that stuff at the end of the article, unfortunately i think its true.

CHeers :)
27

,

17/06/2008 13:48:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

rossthelab,

Embra 17/06/2008 13:56:48
I think most adults I know have been drunk at LEAST once.
If we were to shoot them all in the face there would be on one left!
If they need shooting why not shoot them in the bum cheeks.
29

rossthelab,

Embra 17/06/2008 13:57:30
Down with this sort of thing!
30

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 17/06/2008 14:15:06
Sturgeon may very well not be anti-alcohol but she's certainly anti-the distirbution channels of alcohol. It's absurd that on the one hand these fools are relying on the pubs and off licences to enforce their new restrictions but with the other are charging them a "social responsibility fee" for the privilege of doing so. If the police are being removed from the enforcement principle then they don't need any extra cash to clear it up do they?

I'll read the proposals in detail and will be keen to see exactly who will get the extra cash that the minimum prices will doubtless involve but, on first review, it seems to be little more than the same old anti-pub and law abiding folk nonsense which will only dismay SNP Student Activists (especially after the University funding disaster) whilst encouraging the shop keepers of Berwick Upon Tweed to put up the welcome sign and start booking their Caribbean holidays.

31

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:21:52
Okay , Bum Cheeks will suffice. Or shoot one of their ears off and then if we see people wandering about all spasticked or with one ear we will instantly know that they have jakie tendoncies..
32

,

17/06/2008 14:23:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:23:23
30 Listen it's a drug alebit a legal one. There has to be restrictions on it. We have restrictions on Cannabis here in NL.

If getting pished is very high on your priorites then i pity you.
34

Edinburgh 100,

Musselburgh 17/06/2008 14:23:32
You can get

Pregnant at any age
Married at 16
Drive at 17
Join the Military at 18
Drink in a pub at 18
But cant buy a can of lager until your 21 out a shop. There is def something wrong with the thinking here.
35

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:23:48
32 maybe a JAKE tattoo on the forehead.
36

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:24:47
34 You CANT get pregnant at any age. Maybe in Musselburgh.
37

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 17/06/2008 14:30:51
21 is half of 42. Surely there's no coincidence that two such misconcieved assaults on liberty are so related. It's 84 that really bangs home the Orwellian nightmare though.
38

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:33:31
I will drive you all to drink (but you can make your own way home).
39

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 14:36:26
Idiotic idea.

Kenny MacAskill OUT!!!
40

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 14:46:39
38 as sang by Tammy Winette.
41

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special` 17/06/2008 14:56:52
40.

Tammy Wynette. She did "Stand by Your Ham" as well, didn't she?
42

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 17/06/2008 15:34:39
Read a little more detail of this document now and some interesting issues are raised but sadly then ignored.

Paragraph 25 acknowledges the “increasing affordability of alcohol is not uniform across all sectors” and then goes on to explain how it off-sales rather than on-sales that are at the forefront of loss leading practices. Pub prices have “generally increased above the RPI over the last 20 years”. No surprise for pub goers there I expect. The document then details how it’s off-sales that are providing the ‘booze cheaper than a bottle of water’ type headlines.

In the Framework for Action section of the document, paragraph 46 promotes a strategy that will reduce consumption and invites views on proposals to reduce loss leading and promote minimum prices. I’d been thinking that I’d write to express the view that the evidence strongly suggests that off-licences should be targeted for any price action deemed necessary but then paragraph 61 goes and spoils it all by ignoring the evidence earlier presented and declares “the scheme should apply equally to all premises selling alcohol”.

Fortunately, this is all a bit pie in the sky at the moment though as earlier paragraphs accept that such minimum prices would form part of alcohol taxes which, thank the Lord, are currently reserved to the UK Parliament. The SNP are of course keen to remove that body from any involvement in Scottish matters and would seem to be using this document as yet another push to persuade us that we’d prefer them to have full power. In an independent Scotland apparently we can look forward to the introduction of a Scottish Alcohol Duty structure. Will the prospect of this SAD tax save the Union I wonder?

Once again, the SNP are out to savage the local pub. We know how fast they buckled under last year in Edinburgh Council when public opinion was heard so lets just make sure we let them know how we feel about this latest wheeze and see how confident they are in this policy.
43

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

17/06/2008 16:24:17
Kenny MacAskill couldn't give a XXXX for civil liberties. he makes Gordon Brown look like John Stuart Mill.
44

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 17/06/2008 16:26:26
Pubs should start putting up "MacAskill Banned" posters as they've done for Darling.
45

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington Anarchist Society 17/06/2008 16:31:34
If there's a drink problem to tackle, it's that of politicians drunk on power.
46

DagdaFan,

Tollcross 17/06/2008 16:33:51
MacAskill's a well known fan of cooking lager. I'm arguing he's had his fill and is now legislating under the influence.
47

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

17/06/2008 16:35:37
DagdaFan reckons: "Pubs should start putting up "MacAskill Banned" posters"

That's quite a sound idea. Let's Photoshop some and hand 'em around.
48

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

17/06/2008 16:35:40
To be honest you have to beware of born again drunks.

Still , the way you lot go on about all scotlands social ills and STILL say WE WANT OUR BEVVY LEAVE IT ALONE does tend to make me laugh.
49

cheeses_of_nazareth,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 17:17:54
Can anyone else see the hole in the minimum price idea?

Any legislation would only apply to Scotland. If you buy liquid groceries on-line from a national supermarket thay'd have to charge Scottish and non-Scottish prices. Can't see that happening.

An enterprising chap could set up an on-line off-sales based in Engerland and ship booze to our thirsty citizenry. MacAskill would have to employ an army of excisemen to check all parcels and packages crossing the border. Pure genius.
50

Euan,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 17:20:58

I just cannot agree with the proposal to increase the price of drink.

It would simply not be fair on the hundreds of thousands of perfectly responsible drinkers who would have to pay more for their alcohol just because the Government thinks that by putting up the price it will only curb irresponsible drinkers from causing trouble etc.

From what I can see, if the already-in-place laws regarding the sale of alcohol to under 18s was properly enforced then this article would not even exist.


51

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 17:26:10
"PUBS, clubs and off-licences could face an extra tax to pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse"

So what about the brewers and distillers? They get away Scot-free? They should not be left out of any plans to introduce an extra tax on alcohol and are just as guilty as the retailers (if not more so).

52

an interested party,

30/06/2008 14:55:18
Great news this idea that the polluter not the user pays

now to get BP, shell et al to pay for global climate change.

no? why not

the airlines then?
no not them either

what about the coal fired power stations, or the car manufactures?
no?

so its the user thats at fault

perhaps this idea isnt really about drinking perhaps its about revenue as i am pretty sure little of the alcohol tax revenue ends up in scotlands hands, the formula gives 10% (or so) to scotland and we drink way more than 10% of the nations drink so give us the tax it raises

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.