How thick are MSP's. - Scotlands alcohol problems

[Antifa Hibs]

Just reading there that MSP's want to ban Buckfast, dafties thinking this will solve Scotlands bevvy problem.

So far, their only ideas of combatting Scotlands drink problem is to:

1. Ban Bucky
(Then folk will move to wine, beer and vodka, they won't stop cos bucky has been banned!)
2. Limit the time you can sell bevvy
(Makes no difference. If I know I need a bevvy before 10am (derbies,away games) then i'll buy it the night before)
3. Increase the prices
(Already happened I believe in pubs and clubs and alot of establishments are as busy as ever)
4. Shorten pub/club prices
(Close clubs 2 hours earlier? Simple, we'll go out 2 hours earlier to make up for it...)
5. Have alcohol only checkouts
(Woopy *** doo!)

Absulute no mention of changing the mindset of the people and getting to the root of the problem by targetting and education the future generations.

Do they, or anyone on here think that the above 'list' will actually do anything? *** load of s**** if you ask me! Someones actually been paid to come up with those...

[Jack]

1 Ban Buckie. Buckie is in itself a problem and its not really the alcohicol. Its the hair raising amount of caffeine [and sugar???] in it, mixed with the alcohol.

There's moves around the world, not just here, to ban or at least limit the caffeine that can be mixed with booze. IIRC the USA is going for a zero mix.

I agree with 3. Raising the price certainly made a difference to folk buying fags and petrol – not.

I take you meant hours @ 4 (?) I’d agree as well, folk if they want to will find it if.

Having alcohol only checkouts might make a difference.

I think more should be done to put folk off getting pished before they even go out [more at the weekends] and legislation currently in force could/should be used as a deterrent. Quite simply many, many more should be refused more drink in the pub when they are already pished – its illegal to do so, always has been, but how often do you see that enforced?

Also. Folk who are pished in the streets should be taken somewhere, ‘hostel’ like rather than ‘cell’ like, where they have to stay until they're sober. This hostel should charge upwards of £80-100 a visit. These folk aren’t criminals, just need to be looked after and deterred a bit and the cells are needed for proper crims like violent ones. Could you also charge the last pubs/clubs that served them the same amount? That might help the point above.

Underage kids who are pished in the streets, or even sober and drinking in a pub, should be delivered home by the police where the kids charged with underage drinking … and the parents done as well.

[Twa Cairpets]

1. Ban Bucky
(Then folk will move to wine, beer and vodka, they won't stop cos bucky has been banned!)
See Jacks answer above. Buckfast is a peculiarly Scottish affliction, and getting rid of it would help to address the cultural elements you mention (although I dont think it will happen because its not in and of itself an illegal product, and would be protected by Europe, restraint of trade legislation etc)
2. Limit the time you can sell bevvy
(Makes no difference. If I know I need a bevvy before 10am (derbies,away games) then i'll buy it the night before)
So speaks the champion of changing the mindset.
3. Increase the prices
(Already happened I believe in pubs and clubs and alot of establishments are as busy as ever) I think you will find that while some are busy, the number of pubs closing is continuing to increase. Increasing prices when cash is tight does restrict purchase - its simple economics. Im not saying its right, but it is a way of achieving reduced pub drinking.
4. Shorten pub/club hours
(Close clubs 2 hours earlier? Simple, we'll go out 2 hours earlier to make up for it...) Getting to the root of the problem, eh? I dont think this is sensible btw, as a mature society should not have artificial limits to when they can enjoy a drink imposed.
5. Have alcohol only checkouts
(Woopy *** doo!)
Proven conclusively to stop impulse buys

Absulute no mention of changing the mindset of the people and getting to the root of the problem by targetting and education the future generations.

Do they, or anyone on here think that the above 'list' will actually do anything? *** load of s**** if you ask me! Someones actually been paid to come up with those...

So what you are doing is abrogating individual responsibility completely, and making it the job of the government to educate a drinks culture away. What would this actually consist of Antifa? Big posters? Classes? What? Or is it just a conveniently banal phrase to trot out compared to the actions being suggested (see 2 and 4 above) which seem to p!ss you of because they may impinge on your drinking opportunities?

[Phil D. Rolls]

So what you are doing is abrogating individual responsibility completely, and making it the job of the government to educate a drinks culture away. What would this actually consist of Antifa? Big posters? Classes? What? Or is it just a conveniently banal phrase to trot out compared to the actions being suggested (see 2 and 4 above) which seem to p!ss you of because they may impinge on your drinking opportunities?

I think individual responsibility is fine, as long as you accept individual responsibility for your health, and don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab via the NHS.

[Killiehibbie]

I think individual responsibility is fine, as long as you accept individual responsibility for your health, and don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab via the NHS.

I think drinkers, smokers too, pay far more to the government over the years than the cost of treating them. I'm not talking about an individual liver transplant but as a group the government make a healthy profit from drinkers.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think individual responsibility is fine, as long as you accept individual responsibility for your health, and don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab via the NHS.

Yes, where its relevant. People getting p!ssed and having a fight or choking on their own vomit is clearly not taking responsibility for your own health, but yes we should support people in that position through the NHS. My point was more that blaming alcohol culture on lack of education is a cop-out. How many people really believe that excessive alcohol is going to them anything other than harm?

[Antifa Hibs]

So what you are doing is abrogating individual responsibility completely, and making it the job of the government to educate a drinks culture away. What would this actually consist of Antifa? Big posters? Classes? What? Or is it just a conveniently banal phrase to trot out compared to the actions being suggested (see 2 and 4 above) which seem to p!ss you of because they may impinge on your drinking opportunities?

I'm talking about future generations. The current generation is ****ed, beyond repair (myself included...) but those 5 points I listed in my original post will do hee-haw to eridicate Scotlands drinking problem now and in the future. I'm not as well travelled as some but do you get kids in Paris walking around with massive carryouts on weekends? At the Milan derby is there fans queing outside boozers at half 8 waiting to get in?

In Scotland it seems to be the norm for kids to start getting reeking at the age of 14-16, hanging about parks with bottles of blackthorn. Those 5 things listed won't change that, but educating and influencing kids will. I guess it won't take overnight but take a generation or two.

[Jack]

I think individual responsibility is fine, as long as you accept individual responsibility for your health, and don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab via the NHS.

OK FR but mind its not just the NHS. Although if less was spent on this more could be done to get your Grannies hip replacement done sooner, for example.

I think the biggest detriment is to the wider society, anti social behaviour; violence, particularly in the home (knock on effect to NHS), leading to a breakdown of, for want of a better description, ‘the family unit’; loss to the economy through absenteeism etc.

However back to the NHS. The main casualty as a result of drink in the NHS is, I suspect, Accident and Emergency [see what I did there :greengrin]. While many of the injuries caused by drunkenness are indeed emergencies, you'd be hard pushed to say the odd wee stabbing or the blooter in the gob is an accident!

If it was up to me the victim would have a choice; you either help the police with their enquiries to catch and prosecute their assailant, something virtually none of them do just now, or you pay for your treatment. A successful prosecution would lead to the assailant being charged with the cost of the treatment and that being fed back into the NHS. :devil: The system is already in place to recover medical costs as a result of traffic accidents.

The theme of an irresponsible minority in society costing the rest of us dear comes to the fore again. Sadly they think its their right, sadly too many folk who could change the rules seem to think its their right too. :grr:

[--------]

Yes, where its relevant. People getting p!ssed and having a fight or choking on their own vomit is clearly not taking responsibility for your own health, but yes we should support people in that position through the NHS. My point was more that blaming alcohol culture on lack of education is a cop-out. How many people really believe that excessive alcohol is going to them anything other than harm?


I really don't think 'education' in whatever sense of the word we mean it will do any good at all.

We have lots of sex education in schools nowadays - a lot more than we had in my day - and yet we also have a rising rate of teenage pregnancy?

'Education' doesn't seem to be solving that problem - if in fact it IS a problem and not just a fact of modern life.

In my experience, there are those folks who are genuinely addicted to alcohol. Education won't help them - only an effective recovery program will do that. Many of these folks simply do not recover. They're the ones who form the biggest 'burden' on the NHS - and they're also genuinely ill.

Then there are those who habitually drink a lot, but can stop if they have a reason to do so. These folks may need help at the beginning, but once a more sensible pattern is established, they have no problem sticking with it.

Then there are those who take a drink from time to time - they're no problem to themselves or to others.

Then there are those who don't drink and don't worry about it - they're no problem to anyone either.

Then there are the Prohibition Boys - who may or may not have a case, but are commonly a very good imitation of a bunch of holier-than-thou haemorrhoids out to prove their own moral worth at the expense of everyone around them.

IMO there's an argument for controlling publicity, advertising, and the way alcohol consumption is portrayed in the media - but I would suggest that TV or film drama that fails to portray reality as reality would just be silly. I think there's also an argument for controlling price and availability more tightly than at present, though as already said, those who want it will get it regardless.

Regulating the way supermarkets display and sell alcoholic drinks IS relevant, IMO - supermarket shopping operates on the principle of impulse buying, and it would do no harm to separate alcoholic drinks from soft drinks and other groceries and have separate checkouts as well. It wouldn't solve any problems, but it wouldn't hurt to make a distinction between alcohol and groceries, just as we already make a distinction between tobacco and groceries.

Like a lot of issues, I think it's a matter of balance - between individual responsibility and social concern, between freedom to enjoy oneself, and not infringing other folks' rights while doing so, between people enjoying a good night out and people making nuisances of themselves.

[Twa Cairpets]

I really don't think 'education' in whatever sense of the word we mean it will do any good at all.

We have lots of sex education in schools nowadays - a lot more than we had in my day - and yet we also have a rising rate of teenage pregnancy?

'Education' doesn't seem to be solving that problem - if in fact it IS a problem and not just a fact of modern life.

In my experience, there are those folks who are genuinely addicted to alcohol. Education won't help them - only an effective recovery program will do that. Many of these folks simply do not recover. They're the ones who form the biggest 'burden' on the NHS - and they're also genuinely ill.

Then there are those who habitually drink a lot, but can stop if they have a reason to do so. These folks may need help at the beginning, but once a more sensible pattern is established, they have no problem sticking with it.

Then there are those who take a drink from time to time - they're no problem to themselves or to others.

Then there are those who don't drink and don't worry about it - they're no problem to anyone either.

Then there are the Prohibition Boys - who may or may not have a case, but are commonly a very good imitation of a bunch of holier-than-thou haemorrhoids out to prove their own moral worth at the expense of everyone around them.

IMO there's an argument for controlling publicity, advertising, and the way alcohol consumption is portrayed in the media - but I would suggest that TV or film drama that fails to portray reality as reality would just be silly. I think there's also an argument for controlling price and availability more tightly than at present, though as already said, those who want it will get it regardless.

Regulating the way supermarkets display and sell alcoholic drinks IS relevant, IMO - supermarket shopping operates on the principle of impulse buying, and it would do no harm to separate alcoholic drinks from soft drinks and other groceries and have separate checkouts as well. It wouldn't solve any problems, but it wouldn't hurt to make a distinction between alcohol and groceries, just as we already make a distinction between tobacco and groceries.

Like a lot of issues, I think it's a matter of balance - between individual responsibility and social concern, between freedom to enjoy oneself, and not infringing other folks' rights while doing so, between people enjoying a good night out and people making nuisances of themselves.

Doddie - I am deeply concerned that i am agreeing with you more and more these days.

One thing though, and very off topic - you are wrong on the incidence of teenage pregnancy. It is actually slightly declining (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=15055) in the UK, and there would appear to have a direct correlatory link in countries where there is early sex education (Netherlands/Scandinavia) and low teen preganacy, and limited sex education (Third World, some US states) and higher pregnancy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes, where its relevant. People getting p!ssed and having a fight or choking on their own vomit is clearly not taking responsibility for your own health, but yes we should support people in that position through the NHS. My point was more that blaming alcohol culture on lack of education is a cop-out. How many people really believe that excessive alcohol is going to them anything other than harm?

I think in Scotland there are a lot of people who think that booze isn't harming them. As a nation we drink more than others.


OK FR but mind its not just the NHS. Although if less was spent on this more could be done to get your Grannies hip replacement done sooner, for example.

I think the biggest detriment is to the wider society, anti social behaviour; violence, particularly in the home (knock on effect to NHS), leading to a breakdown of, for want of a better description, ‘the family unit’; loss to the economy through absenteeism etc.

However back to the NHS. The main casualty as a result of drink in the NHS is, I suspect, Accident and Emergency [see what I did there :greengrin]. While many of the injuries caused by drunkenness are indeed emergencies, you'd be hard pushed to say the odd wee stabbing or the blooter in the gob is an accident!

If it was up to me the victim would have a choice; you either help the police with their enquiries to catch and prosecute their assailant, something virtually none of them do just now, or you pay for your treatment. A successful prosecution would lead to the assailant being charged with the cost of the treatment and that being fed back into the NHS. :devil: The system is already in place to recover medical costs as a result of traffic accidents.

The theme of an irresponsible minority in society costing the rest of us dear comes to the fore again. Sadly they think its their right, sadly too many folk who could change the rules seem to think its their right too. :grr:

Have to disagree about costs to the NHS. There are more and more people being admitted to hospital for detoxification. There are more and more people being admitted for alcoholic dementia. Then there are the secondary effects of excess alcohol, such as depression and liver disease.

We drink more than we used to - especially women - and the signs are there for all to see.

I'm afraid It's not just an irresponsible minority. The real growth areas are amongst middle aged women of all classes, and the over 65s. It's a real red herring to point to youngsters, they have always drunk too much.

IMO, the easy availability of cheap booze, and lack of other social opportunities, has led to a massive growth in suburban alcoholism. It's too easy to pop a bottle of wine into the barrow.

I am totally against prohibition, but I would welcome measures to make booze less easy to buy. Simply having to go to another counter - like happened in the not too distant past, will at least make people think about their purchase.

[hibsbollah]

I'm afraid It's not just an irresponsible minority. The real growth areas are amongst middle aged women of all classes, and the over 65s. It's a real red herring to point to youngsters, they have always drunk too much.

IMO, the easy availability of cheap booze, and lack of other social opportunities, has led to a massive growth in suburban alcoholism. It's too easy to pop a bottle of wine into the barrow.



:top marksAbsolutely spot on. The biggest growth in alcohol-related disease, and hence the biggest cost to the NHS, is the higher socio-economic groups, particularly middle aged and older people, drinking wine at home. It doesn't make as good headlines as 'Binge Drinking Young Schemy Jakey Feral Youth' though, hence the lack of Government initiatives to deal with the problem.

[Twa Cairpets]

:top marksAbsolutely spot on. The biggest growth in alcohol-related disease, and hence the biggest cost to the NHS, is the higher socio-economic groups, particularly middle aged and older people, drinking wine at home. It doesn't make as good headlines as 'Binge Drinking Young Schemy Jakey Feral Youth' though, hence the lack of Government initiatives to deal with the problem.

Nit-picking somewhat here, but "biggest growth" does not therefore mean "biggest cost". 30% growth, for example, in something that was only a small amount of the total to start with doesnt mean it has grown significantly in absolute terms. I dont know if youre right or wrong here, by the way, just querying the logic.

I dont have figures, but the longer term alcohol-related health issues of older people - liver failure, heart disease, etc - are chronic issues caused by years of abuse. The more visible impacts (A&E looking like a MASH unit on a Saturday nights, for example), are I think indisputably dominated by younger drinkers.

[hibsbollah]

Nit-picking somewhat here, but "biggest growth" does not therefore mean "biggest cost". 30% growth, for example, in something that was only a small amount of the total to start with doesnt mean it has grown significantly in absolute terms. I dont know if youre right or wrong here, by the way, just querying the logic.



Thats right of course. I meant the biggest increase in cost to the NHS. I don't know if older people are a bigger net cost to the NHS or not; i wouldnt imagine measuring that is very straightforward. What is indisputable is that Health care providers have been warning that older/higher socio-economic group drinkers are a serious and unreported drain on resources.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/middleaged-binge-drinkers-dying-in-record-numbers-774279.html
"Among men aged 35 to 54, the death rate has more than doubled since 1991 from 13.4 to 31.1 per 100,000. "

[magpie1892]

IMO, the easy availability of cheap booze, and lack of other social opportunities, has led to a massive growth in suburban alcoholism. It's too easy to pop a bottle of wine into the barrow.

I've still to hear a coherent explanation of how a litre of 12% red/white wine can cost from 40p upwards in Spain/Portugal/Italy and from about 90p for a litre in France yet they don't have the massive social and medical issues witrh alcohol that Scotland/UK does.

Attitudes and education is my guess. Anyone shed any light on this?

[heretoday]

:top marksAbsolutely spot on. The biggest growth in alcohol-related disease, and hence the biggest cost to the NHS, is the higher socio-economic groups, particularly middle aged and older people, drinking wine at home. It doesn't make as good headlines as 'Binge Drinking Young Schemy Jakey Feral Youth' though, hence the lack of Government initiatives to deal with the problem.

Spot on. There are so many people sitting at home - early retired, part-time workers - who just draw the curtains and get quietly sozzled on their own. They can easily afford it because either their partner is working full-time or they have inherited tons of cash from dead parents.

Edinburgh is full of them. Mind you, the closure of Victoria Wine has seriously curtailed their activities!

Come on...you know it's true!

[Aubenas]

I've still to hear a coherent explanation of how a litre of 12% red/white wine can cost from 40p upwards in Spain/Portugal/Italy and from about 90p for a litre in France yet they don't have the massive social and medical issues witrh alcohol that Scotland/UK does.

Attitudes and education is my guess. Anyone shed any light on this?


In those countries, wine is something you have with a meal from aged 14 or so - no big deal and not a way of proving what a grown up guy you are. When groups of European kids come over here for exchanges, they are bemused as to why kids would want to stand in underpasses drinking till they get sick, ad why they would think it was a grown up thing to do. In most European countries, gettin sick through drink is an embarrassment that shows how immature you are.

[Hainan Hibs]

In those countries, wine is something you have with a meal from aged 14 or so - no big deal and not a way of proving what a grown up guy you are. When groups of European kids come over here for exchanges, they are bemused as to why kids would want to stand in underpasses drinking till they get sick, ad why they would think it was a grown up thing to do. In most European countries, gettin sick through drink is an embarrassment that shows how immature you are.

:agree:. Also the culture/ way of thinking here is that to have a good time you need to be pissed.

[Gatecrasher]

ban buckie :rolleyes:

theres another 3 or 4 drinks that get you just as hyped.

the thing in livi the now is to drink the buckie to the label then top it up with Red Bull :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I dont have figures, but the longer term alcohol-related health issues of older people - liver failure, heart disease, etc - are chronic issues caused by years of abuse. The more visible impacts (A&E looking like a MASH unit on a Saturday nights, for example), are I think indisputably dominated by younger drinkers.

They always have done. Youngsters haven't changed their drinking habits much.


I've still to hear a coherent explanation of how a litre of 12% red/white wine can cost from 40p upwards in Spain/Portugal/Italy and from about 90p for a litre in France yet they don't have the massive social and medical issues witrh alcohol that Scotland/UK does.

Attitudes and education is my guess. Anyone shed any light on this?

:dunno: I think climate might be a factor, and possibly long winter nights. Scandanavians are as bad as us when it comes to hitting the sauce.


Spot on. There are so many people sitting at home - early retired, part-time workers - who just draw the curtains and get quietly sozzled on their own. They can easily afford it because either their partner is working full-time or they have inherited tons of cash from dead parents.

Edinburgh is full of them. Mind you, the closure of Victoria Wine has seriously curtailed their activities!

Come on...you know it's true!

:agree: AKA "SAGA" Louts.

[--------]

Doddie - I am deeply concerned that i am agreeing with you more and more these days.

One thing though, and very off topic - you are wrong on the incidence of teenage pregnancy. It is actually slightly declining (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=15055) in the UK, and there would appear to have a direct correlatory link in countries where there is early sex education (Netherlands/Scandinavia) and low teen preganacy, and limited sex education (Third World, some US states) and higher pregnancy.


Ah. Thanks, TC. This will prevent me from repeating the error in other places and at other times. Shows I shouldn't pay attention to the second-rate journalism of our public media. I'm actually pleased to be proved wrong there.

[--------]

I think in Scotland there are a lot of people who think that booze isn't harming them. As a nation we drink more than others.



Have to disagree about costs to the NHS. There are more and more people being admitted to hospital for detoxification. There are more and more people being admitted for alcoholic dementia. Then there are the secondary effects of excess alcohol, such as depression and liver disease.

We drink more than we used to - especially women - and the signs are there for all to see.

I'm afraid It's not just an irresponsible minority. The real growth areas are amongst middle aged women of all classes, and the over 65s. It's a real red herring to point to youngsters, they have always drunk too much.

IMO, the easy availability of cheap booze, and lack of other social opportunities, has led to a massive growth in suburban alcoholism. It's too easy to pop a bottle of wine into the barrow.

I am totally against prohibition, but I would welcome measures to make booze less easy to buy. Simply having to go to another counter - like happened in the not too distant past, will at least make people think about their purchase.




:agree: Totally agree. That would be my argument for a separate licensed section in supermarkets.

[.Sean.]

I think the notion of banning Buckfatst is pretty ridiculous. Surely in this country people have the right to drink whatever alcohol they like? How can anybody justify banning it?


That said, Buckfast is rank. Had some one day, it's rocket fuel. No coincidence the day I was steaming off it was the day I was kicked out Celtic Park! :greengrin Hibs end of course.

[--------]

I think the notion of banning Buckfatst is pretty ridiculous. Surely in this country people have the right to drink whatever alcohol they like? How can anybody justify banning it?

That said, Buckfast is rank. Had some one day, it's rocket fuel. No coincidence the day I was steaming off it was the day I was kicked out Celtic Park! :greengrin Hibs end of course.



The problem with Buckfast isn't the alcohol content; it's the fact that the dear brothers combine the alcohol with a whopping great dose of caffeine. The mixture tends to decrease inhibitions while increasing aggressiveness - hence the potion's popularity with neds and hooligans.

I see no problem whatsoever with the idea of banning the muck. Who's going to be deprived?

Thinking of the Buckie drinkers I see around Airdrie and the Caldera, I can assure you absolutely that this isn't a HUMAN rights issue. :wink: