To worry about the poor alcoholics in Scotland

[jnfrrss]

the cheap ciders in 3l bottles have gone up three fold in price overnight with nothing done to actually help people that are dependent.

Surely this is going to cause a lot of pain in the immediate future? Seems very irresponsible to just do this in isolation without having some way to help people

One of my colleagues volunteers on one of Glasgows many booze busses over the weekend. I spoke with him earlier about the effect the pricing will have on the homeless. He said that he has seen a number of homeless people coming to his bus to ask about how to get round the pricing and still getting their drink. He has seen an increase in people wanting help.

The government has already said they will be increasing funding for treatment.

As I understand it the intention of the policy is to reduce people in stage 1 and 2 of alcoholism, reducing the number moving on to stage 3 such as those who are homeless. Reducing spending on those in stage 1 and 2 will open up spending for those in stage 3.

Who knows if it will work.

There's hardly anything to help people with mental health problems as it is.

They are an oil rich country

I thought the oil had all but gone?

The cost of smoking was what started me on the road to giving up.

Alcohol kills. It causes many diseases.

If some people give up because it's too expensive, all good. Alcohol also causes violence.

The middle class wine quaffers are not as big a deal to the government because let's face it, they are rarely the ones pissing in the street, vomiting all over the street, shouting verbal abuse at people from high street shop doorways etc. That is why the cheap, strong booze has been targeted. It is targetting the homeless, the poor and the young booze experimenters without much cash flow.

Whether or not this new approach actually helps remains to be seen, I can see pros and cons. The sunset clause is a good idea, hopefully it works in a similar way that the smoking ban does, but there is no denying there are going to be some addicts who turn to crime or suffer terribly because they cannot get enough alcohol to stave off withdrawal symptoms.

As I understand it the intention of the policy is to reduce people in stage 1 and 2 of alcoholism, reducing the number moving on to stage 3 such as those who are homeless. Reducing spending on those in stage 1 and 2 will open up spending for those in stage 3.

But surely those in stage 3 are the ones going to suffer the most and are those with the least access to help? Alcohol withdrawal can kill. How many homeless or serious addicts suffering can be considered collateral damage?

My take on this is that it works. The evidence is there that it reduces alcoholism and deaths related to alcohol abuse. That has to come first.

Of course support needs to be in place for those with a dependency problem. But simply doing nothing - leaving them alone to drink themselves to death - isn't any kind of solution either. And that's what's happening at the moment.

I see what you are saying blooperreel but your liver doesn't care if you are drinking 2 bottles of wine a night in your lovely big kitchen at home or lots of drink while living on the street. I know loads of people that drink waaaay over the recommended limit every week but because they live a naice lifestyle and are fully functioning, the don't see it.

@DillyDillyDally that is what I'm troubled by. Yes there is more funding available for alcoholics for treatment but what about the person who can't afford their alcohol today? What help is there now, at this moment?

The policy may save lives over the next years but what about the immediate future?

"What help is there now, at this moment?"

I think as plannergirl says, many will find ways of buying alcohol all the same. But they may not be able to purchase such large quantities as before. If there are severe cases, I guess it'll be a case for A&E?

Oil was 'found' again when Scotland voted No to Independence.

I know first hand how awful the NHS is in Scotland with helping people with mental health. I can't see them being any better at supporting A dependant people. They are an oil rich country with the hugely beneficial Barnett formula so they have the money but yet the NHS there seems in a terrible state

The NHS in Scotland isnt awful helping people with mental health problems. Why are you bringing the Barnett formula into it? The NHS here has problems of course it does but it is no way a "terrible state."

I thought the oil had all but gone?

Hahaha that was a line sold to people to say no to independence.

There's hardly anything to help people with mental health problems as it is

I find blanket statements like this rather offensive actually. Whereabouts in Scotland are you? I work in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, who provide a whole range of services for people with mental health problems.

I think it is a bold move that won't please everyone but remember Scotland was first in UK to introduce a ban on smoking in public places to a huge outcry. It is a much more pleasant place because of it.

Scotland has historical problems with alcohol abuse and it is doing something about it. The law has a sunset clause so in six years time, once the effects can be measured, if it is deemed not to have had a positive effect then it will change again.

No great things ever happened when they are not even tried out.

This.

I'm also wondering about the awful NHS Scotland treatment that the OP knows about. I have an aunt that is both an alcoholic and needs mental health support, she's had great care from the NHS here in Scotland. I think this minimum pricing will help her. She's currently getting help, but the increase in price will help her buy less. She has been an alcoholic for 35-40 years, getting worse in the past 5 and then slightly better since she has been seeking help. She is very motivated by saving money as she hasn't been able to work due to her drinking so has a small budget - I'm sure this will help some more.

As I understand it the intention of the policy is to reduce people in stage 1 and 2 of alcoholism, reducing the number moving on to stage 3 such as those who are homeless. Reducing spending on those in stage 1 and 2 will open up spending for those in stage 3.

Didn't know this, but I think it makes sense to at least try something. Otherwise, we would all be sitting about saying 'what is the government doing about our alcoholism problem?'

All I can see is people cutting back in other areas for their booze.

Have we covered the fact that most people who are in prison committed the offence while under the influence of alcohol?

It will be a sore one for alchoholics and poor people for sure, but what I hope it affects is teenagers starting drinking. Maybe a longer term benefit there.

Me and DH are very social drinkers but it won't affect us or people like us. I do like the M&s meal for £10 though but we've probably seen the last of that.

I thought the oil had all but gone?

Hahaha that was a line sold to people to say no to independence

No it wasn't.
There is a good few years of oil left although it is getting more difficult to get to it. The price per barrel crashed leaving the Nationalists back of a fag packet forecasting and budgeting absolutely wrecked as they had based their sums on $ top dollar and it was selling for pathetically low prices. We would have been bankrupt already.

I can't decide what I think about this policy. On the one hand, it does discriminate against poorer people and it feeds into a fallacy that addiction isn't as important an issue for the middle and upper classes.

My uncle was an alcoholic and if he were still alive, I'm not sure this policy would have had a massive impact. It would have inconvenienced him but wouldn't have stopped him drinking. He would have probably borrowed money or sold some items. My DP's neighbour was an alcoholic. This policy wouldn't have stopped her either. She often turned up on DP's doorstep to borrow money for food because she'd spent her income on alcohol.

But I can see that those people who are starting down the slope towards alcoholism might pause because of this policy. Perhaps that's enough reason to implement it?

I'm firmly on the fence.

Sounds a good idea. I hope it comes into force in England. I am buying less wine over the years as the cost has gone up. I haven’t a drink problem but I’m aware it could turn into one if alcohol was cheaper ( generally drink on the weekend watching tv!) it makes you think a bit more about what your spending / drinking.

I think it will just increase shoplifting and tbh.

Oops.....tbh crime will increase.

I feel for children who always live in poverty whose parents will now prioritise higher spending on alcohol over food/ clothing.

well to many people take no responsibility for themselves and have no problem letting others sought out their problems eg expect the state/charitys to run their lives,now this has happened regarding making drink more expensive and hopefully putting people of or better giving up they dont like it

my sympathy is with the family's of people with drink problems