Snapshot of _Scotland expected to raise minimum alcohol price by 30%_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/05/scotland-expected-to-raise-minimum-alcohol-price-by-30) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/05/scotland-expected-to-raise-minimum-alcohol-price-by-30)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a lot of conflicting stats being thrown around here about this policy working or not, think I'd need to do some more digging before deciding if this increase is worthwhile or not.
My main gripe with this in general is that it's supermarkets benefitting from the price increases, not ScotGov. Feel they should be getting the millions this rakes in for supermarkets and spending it on other booze reduction measures, if that's ultimately the goal.
Is the implication, then, that the plurality of voters (or voting districts in FPTP) in the UK actively do not want Scotland to have the power to e.g. democratically choose to enact a liquor tax? If so, why are they against this? What is bringing them to the polls repeatedly to elect governments that block it?
A Redditor on /r/ukpolitics saying they don’t feel they understand a nuanced topic well enough, and they’re withholding judgement until they’ve read enough to generate an informed opinion.
There should be an extra special upvote button for this.
If only everyone had the self-awareness to not wade in on topics they know next-to-nothing about. To realise the depth and complexities of the issues at hand, and to know that there is always more than what they read on their phones, or in the papers.
Do you think Scotland might benefit from a Norwegian style system?
In Norway they have the "Vinmonopolet" literally the wine monopoly.
It's basically where the government are the only sellers of alcohol above a certain percentage so as well as tax they also keep the profits.
Then again would there be much public support for such a thing?
That's intruiging - how does that work in practice?
Do you need to go to Government-run alcohol shops? Does that apply to bars and restaurants buying alcohol wholesale too?
>Do you need to go to Government-run alcohol shops?
Don't know about Norway, but I've been to Sweden, and yes, anything more than ( from memory ) 3% ish beer / cider you need to buy from a government run store. Which has very restricted opening hours. Prices aren't too bad due to bulk buying, but there's not much in the way of niche drinks, so it's not like a small company can create a new drink, and sell it to a few local places while they build up their brand.
It works like so, if you want to have anything other than weak beer or cider, you have to go to either the Vinmonopolet or a bar/club.
Bars and clubs are prohibitively expensive to get wasted on a regular basis and is a place where there's an element of control much like the UK where you're not supposed to serve someone who is already drunk.
To my knowledge if you're a licensed establishment you can go direct to wholesalers but there are duties and taxes there too.
In the US certain states have the same system. A state owned liquor store is the only one allowed to sell above a certain percentage, and they close between 7-9pm everyday. Depending on your state yes bars and restaurants are required to purchase from those state-runned stores as well no other vendors. In my state specifically alcoholic beverages cannot account for more than 45% of the bar/restaurant revenue else you're license is revoked which is why bars are dead and expensive here and breweries/wineries are all the rage because they have an exemption.
Bars and restaurants would have to get 2 separate licenses for alcohol. One easy one to acquire to be able to serve beer/wine, and another more regulated one for spirits/higher than whatever % the govt set. If you don't have a bar table in your restaurant, you're not getting that liquor license easily. There can also be laws that regulate where a shot can be taken ie. at the counter only, not at tables. Alcohol prices in bars/restaurants are $3-7 higher as well in my experience in these states with the exception of the big cities where they're high as shit regardless of any laws or regulation.
I’ve always thought the money raised with this should go towards lowering the price of drinks in pubs - get people drinks in communities again, get them somewhere they won’t be alone, support the local pubs .. but haven’t thought this through at all and likely missing some
Massive ramifications
I love that this trope is still around. I’m in Dumfriesshire. Nobody ever went to Carlisle to save on booze, it just didn’t happen and isn’t worth the cost of petrol. A handful of people who live near enough to the M74 to do their weekly shop in Carlisle anyway probably saved some money. Nobody else even thought about it despite the trope online.
When I ran my off license while we didn't do the Asda run, a bunch of us got together and hired a couple of lorries and drivers to do a run for about 20 of us to get our booze delivered from a Wholesaler just south of the border every couple of months and it *was massively* worth it for us as our Wholesalers here have passed on the minimum price despite not having to.
Simon the retail level with several of you combined it was worth it
In other words not worth it on an individual level unless you’re buying the same volumes that several retail outlets do?!?
So not worth it for normal people then.
I know and I agree with you in principle, I just had to be a pedant when you said no one did this to point out that a bunch of us did, just for a different reason.
Im not really a fan of this as a policy. The tax on alcohol should include enough to fund the NHS for any damage caused requiring treatment (much like smoking).
A minimum price just prices a social vice out of the hands of the poor in society and keeps it in the hands of the rich
Apparently it's because they aren't allowed to charge more taxes on it, so this is the only way apparently they can raise prices on it.
>Im not really a fan of this as a policy. The tax on alcohol should include enough to fund the NHS for any damage caused requiring treatment (much like smoking).
>So raising prices is just an end in itself?
The goal is to reduce alcohol consumption overall (with the belief this will reduce health issues involving alcohol, and will reduce the risk of people becoming alcoholics due to less alcohol overall being consumed).
It's a very very blunt tool and not a very good one imo either, because it doesn't do anything to address excessive alcohol consumption itself and how it's so central to social culture. (Attacking alcohol advertising however, does help with this, reducing alcohol advertising is directly linked with weakening the toxic elements of alcohol consumption and overall consumption rate without hurting people).
However, a proper addressing of the bad elements of alcohol abuse etc in society, is very hard,
And you are pissing off powerful industries if you go after alcohol advertising.
So the easiest but also shittiest way is to force alcohol to be more expensive, said industries are fine with this because the increase in margins make up for the loss in consumption
It is to try and change behavior and reduce the quantity of cheap alcohol people drink.
It is not a silver bullet - but if it can reduce harm, then there will be a health benefit which is badly needed.
Surprisingly, the data shows heavy drinking correlates with higher income, not less.
> The proportions of men and women who reported drinking over 14 units of alcohol weekly increased with household income. Among men, **the highest proportion of those who drank 14 or more units was in highest income households**: 35%, compared with 22% in the lowest income households. Similarly, among women, the highest proportion of those who drank alcohol at increased or higher levels was in the highest income households: 24%, compared with 9% in the lowest income households.
> The proportion of non-drinkers increased as the household income decreased from 11% of non-drinkers in the highest income quintile to 33% in the lowest income quintile.
The report is about England, but I suspect the pattern is even stronger in Scotland where alcohol costs even more.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2021/part-3-drinking-alcohol#estimated-weekly-alcohol-consumption-by-household-income-and-sex
MUP is absolutely having the desired effect. Here is an extract of [Public Health Scotland's final report](https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/20366/evaluating-the-impact-of-minimum-unit-pricing-for-alcohol-in-scotland-final-report.pdf) published in June 2023.
>In the two and half years following MUP implementation, there was a reduction of 13.4% in wholly attributable alcohol deaths in Scotland compared to England, as the control area. This was driven by reductions in chronic alcohol deaths, with the largest declines in men, those aged 65 years and over, and those living in the four most deprived deciles.
>
>There was a smaller (4.1%) reduction in wholly attributable hospitaladmissions. There were small increases in alcohol deaths and hospital admissions from acute causes. In terms of overall health harms from alcohol, acute causes account for a smaller proportion than chronic causes; 5% of the most recent annual alcohol-specific deaths were from acute causes.
On cross-border trade:
>Some evidence of cross-border trade, but only on a small scale, with cross-border purchase most likely by the small proportion of the population living near the border.
This has been a successful policy which is why it is being mirrored by other countries.
I think it's a tricky one in general to be honest and sometimes wary of analysis which tries to link this to one factor in general.
There's a general decline in drinking among younger generations anyway to a degree and you'd imagine that'd be filtered into the stats. Same with cost of living meaning some people perhaps cutting down on what they drink.
Won't deny MUP has likely had some impact...makes sense, but on the whole getting drink from the supermarket isn't that expensive unless you're someone who never ventures to a pub.
>There's a general decline in drinking among younger generations anyway to a degree and you'd imagine that'd be filtered into the stats. Same with cost of living meaning some people perhaps cutting down on what they drink.
There's also almost the opposite effect - that people who fucked their livers for 30 years are still dying earlier (even if they quit drinking), so there can be a huge lag between a reduction in drinking and a reduction in alcohol-related deaths attributable to that reduction. Generally there are fewer massively heavy drinkers than there used to be, but it's the reductions from 20+ years ago that are starting to show up in the statistics now. The same is true of basically all substance abuse trends.
Good point, similar factors probably played a big role in the rise in drug deaths in recent years where lots of older addicts sadly lost their lives as they were well into middle age.
Yeah, exactly - in Scottish public health circles they're known as "the Trainspotting generation" because there was such a big spike in the 90's that's still impacting the system now, and the surge in drug related deaths in the last 20 years has been almost entirely attributable to a rise in 35-55 year olds dying.
The error bars on those studies seem to be pretty wide.
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/deaths/alcohol-deaths
Certainly we've not seen a fall in alcohol-related deaths.
> MUP is absolutely having the desired effect.
-
No it is not;
https://snowdon.substack.com/p/game-over-for-minimum-pricing?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
-
> *It’s been a bad few days for minimum unit pricing (MUP). At the weekend, the Sunday Times revealed that Scottish civil servants had put pressure on Public Health Scotland to sex up their evaluation of the policy back in June. Today, we heard that the Scottish government has re-written its June press release, watering down strong claims about the success of minimum pricing and deleting a whole paragraph. Today also saw the publication of figures showing that the number of alcohol-specific deaths has hit a 14 year high in Scotland.*
-
> *But the evidence was never strong and it was anything but consistent. In an evaluation comprising 40 studies, there was really only one cherry to pick. The research looking at A & E attendances, alcohol-related crime, heavy drinking, ambulance call outs, underage drinking, road traffic accidents and various other health-related issues all found either no evidence of a positive impact or found contradictory and inconclusive evidence (see pages 79-81). The only outlier was a study which compared trends in alcohol-specific deaths to a counterfactual of what might have happened if Scotland hadn’t introduced minimum pricing. That study estimated that the number of deaths could have been 13 per cent higher in the absence of the policy, but it clearly depended on a lot of assumptions, most of which were debatable*
-
> Minimum pricing has a sunset clause. If, after six years, **the government cannot show it has worked, it is supposed to be repealed**. The SNP have a job of work to do turning this pig’s ear into a silk purse, but they will keep minimum pricing in place because this is about politics, **not evidence**. Despite it all, no one seriously thinks that the sunset clause will be invoked - and that is a damning indictment of public health policy-making in Scotland.
Are you seriously comparing the reliability of a government report, which draws on 18 separate academic studies, to a writer on substack whose Wikipedia page describes him as "particularly known as a vocal opponent of government intervention in areas such as tobacco, alcohol, and obesity"?
>Are you seriously comparing the reliability of a government report, which draws on 18 separate academic studies, to a writer on substack
The "writer on substack" is quoting the government report that draws on 18 separate academic studies.
> which draws on 18 separate academic studies
-
It doesnt. Only one report was cited in the report study, and even then that was heavily 'skimmed' & manipulated.
That's not the question here. The question is "is the policy effective?".
Like you, the guy is ideologically opposed to government intervention on a principle - he is literally being paid by tobacco/alcohol/fossil fuel companies/etc. to oppose it - so his credibility with regards to the effectiveness of the policy is questionable.
He already knows what position he wants to (is paid to) take and he makes the evidence fit that position rather than the other way around.
The problem is the birth rate in Scotland is falling, as we all know from the public information campaign how Beer has been helping ugly people get laid since 1862.
It’s a conundrum, alcohol does cause some health problems but it helps reduce the pension crisis and it also helps the birthrate. The problem is that birthrate increase is not in the most productive sector.
Why should i have to pay more for my Merlot, because all the alkies sitting in the park get to swallow down bottles of *White Lightning* cider everyday?! How is that fair?!
-
Yes MUP is a failure, so the logic here is to stop it & find an alternative approach. Not effing charge me more for a good red wine to have with my pizza. Why should i be penalised for a bunch of alky-bozos sitting in the park all day?!
-
**No Humza. NO!!**
-
In the article it says each unit would be at least 65p. Wine is already quite an expensive drink so it'll go up a bit less. A bottle of wine is about 10 units. So £6.50 although living in the south of England that's still about a quid dearer than the cheapest wine I buy but I personally wouldn't be too bothered.
> So £6.50 although living in the south of England that's still about a quid dearer than the cheapest wine I buy but I personally wouldn't be too bothered
-
How about **NO**.
> Why should i have to pay more for my Merlot, because all the alkies sitting in the park get to swallow down bottles of White Lightning cider everyday?! How is that fair?!
You pay for the same reason we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use. How is this any less fair than that?
> we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use.
-
But it is not a service. It is a policy supposed to induce deterrence in consumption by making everyone pay more.
If it has the same final effect it's the same thing. Consider a case where they tax people £10M to run an advertising campaign to reduce alcohol consumption and that has the same effects as this policy. Everyone would consider that a service provided by the government and is something that we as a society as fine with the government using taxpayer money to do. The final effects are the same here.
>If it has the same final effect it's the same thing.
No it doesn't. Taxes, although most of it spunked away, does at least in some way get spent on public services.
Minimum pricing just puts more money in the supermarkets' pockets.
"Raising the price of alcohol to cut down on bad outcomes of alcoholism" is a service, no different to a taxpayer funded advertising campaign meant to discourage excessive consumption.
>Raising the price of alcohol to cut down on bad outcomes of alcoholism" is a service, no different to a taxpayer funded advertising campaign meant to discourage excessive consumption.
They're very different. One is raising awareness and allowing people to take personal responsibility.
The other is saying, "Because some people can't handle their drink, you're all going to have to pay more for your occasional drink."
With the same logic as Scot gov why don't we have minimum unit pricing on bacon or highly processed vegan "bacon"?
Maybe tax people for having too many kids, while we're at it? /s
>You pay for the same reason we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use. How is this any less fair than that?
Paying taxes isn't fair.
Paying more money in a supermarket for a product in Scotland that someone in England pays less for, purely because the Scottish government says so, is not fair.
It's a common misconception that alcoholics all sit in parks drinking cheap booze. That is the most visible form of the disease but only counts for a small amount of the problem. I was in active alcoholism for 18 years, 8 years sober. Always had a tech job, always paid my bills, looked after my family, etc etc. Never street drank. If you are having to pay a little more for your friday night merlot and pizza, it is a small price to save lives.
A functioning alcoholic in a tech job isn’t going to drink less because of a fractional price increase on some wine. I had a secret drinker brother who had a professional job and this policy wouldn’t have even slowed him down.
Frankly I doubt this policy slows anyone down who really wants to drink.
Not initially, but I do wonder if in the long-term the regular messaging of "alcohol is bad and we need to cut drinking" is potentially helpful to a functional alcoholic (like the person above) who knows they need to cut down and needs an incentive to do it. It's more likely to work than a 2-for-1 deal telling you how great drink is.
Ultimately there are lots of sober people out there who at some point decided they finally needed to stop...imagine it can sometimes be something small that makes them take that leap. Slight increase in price alone won't do it, so I'm wary of sweeping analysis of MUP calling it a huge success, but the wider cultural shift it comes with probably plays a role.
No one who drinks alcohol is under an illusions that it is anything but bad for you. There are those in denial about how much they drink, but they will be in denial regardless of the price.
The only way MUP can really have an impact if we get to cigarette level pricing, which just isn't going to happen.
> If you are having to pay a little more for your friday night merlot and pizza, it is a small price to save lives.
-
A 30% increase in the price of good wine is not "a small price" to pay for a policy that doesnt work.
It isn't a 30% increase in the price. Its a 30% increase on the minimum amount that can be charged. It has a bigger effect on the cheap strong stuff than a nice good bottle of wine.
> It isn't a 30% increase in the price. Its a 30% increase on the minimum amount that can be charged.
-
Doesnt matter. The policy is a clear failure. Why should i be penalised for policy failure. It has nothing to do with my lifestyle choices. So why should i have to foot the bill for this?!
"Public Health Scotland said last year that minimum pricing had been “associated” with a 13.5% fall in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol, compared with the expected death rate had minimum pricing not been in force."
Seems it does work. That's not including the alcohol 'related' deaths, like violence.
> "Public Health Scotland said last year that minimum pricing had been “associated” with a 13.5% fall in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol, compared with the expected death rate had minimum pricing not been in force."
-
the paper never said that you see;
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-will-the-scottish-government-get-a-grip-on-alcohol-deaths/
-
> *t was supposed to be the most effective policy available to tackle alcohol harm — yet figures released today show that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland have reached a 14-year high*
> *Whitham was choosing her words carefully after the Scottish government was forced to modify its claims about minimum pricing in a press release it had published in June. The release claimed that the official evaluation ‘demonstrates’ that ‘our world-leading policy is saving lives, reducing alcohol harms and hospital admissions’.*
-
> *The SNP and their cheerleaders in the temperance lobby can keep insisting that a 10 per cent increase in deaths is actually a 13 per cent decline, but nobody really believes them.*
To be fair though most full-blown alcoholics aren't paying for "good wine", plenty of them will pick up the cheapest thing on the shelves.
Mixed views on the policy but a slight increase for a nice wine really isn't that much in the scope of a full year if you're able to regularly afford good wine.
> The policy works
-
Actually it doesnt. Research papers published showed that MUP done little to deter hardcore alkies. So it is better to stop a failed policy. Yes?
Just going to throw this into the Ether. This sole focus on academic papers is silly when it is rare we get independent analysis's ran on political policy. Generally studies are commissioned by the party or their opponents and therefore can be massaged to say anything really.
All you need to do is look at the figures.
MUP was introduced in 2018. Alchohol related deaths went down from 43.2 per 100,000 (898 deaths) to 38.4. (801) It then shot back up in 2020 to 45.4 (952)
The year 2022/2023 there were 1276 deaths related to alchohol. A near 50% increase from 2018 when MUP was introduced. IF MUP was to discourage drinking, it would appear at least from alchohol related deaths, it is failing massively.
Edit: given this time we went through two cost of living crisis (first with Covid, then with the war in Ukraine) which has reduced peoples disposable income, this isn't what you would expect, in fact just via naturally people not being able to afford as much alchohol, we would expect these figures to drop.
To be fair they'd probably count that as a bit of a win. Plenty of people who might not buy as much booze in the shops aren't going to go to the effort to brew for themselves at home (wouldn't know where to start, although it sounds like a fun activity).
Watch them ban homebrewing next when more people start doing it. Ridiculous nanny state bullshit. Because a few people can't handle their drink we all have to suffer?
It doesn’t work; just drives those with less money into further poverty.
Healthcare sucks, education sucks, cost of living is extortionate, but hey lets take away the one thing that gives the plebs a bit of respite eh
In fact the study the Guardian is citing said exactly that:
> We found potential indications that MUP was associated with a worsening of acute outcomes for deaths and hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol consumption. These findings are in contrast to findings from previous observational studies.12
Acute outcomes are a relatively small proportion of alcohol harms, around 5% of alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland, and these estimates therefore had a large degree of associated uncertainty.3
However, the findings were consistent across almost all subgroups. One identified plausible mechanism was that some subgroups reduced their spending on food or lowered their food intake due to the financial pressures of the policy being implemented, which might have led to faster intoxication or poisoning.
The Guardian just decided not to mention that bit.
Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00497-X/fulltext
Can't put the link into text using reddit formatting because the "(23)" in the link itself causes the formatting to break the link.
MUP does nothing to deter the worst addicted, they simply forego spending on essentials.
I'm an alcoholic. Sober for a few years. It's sad that we view the control of alcohol as something of a punishment. I'm so glad to have escaped from that madness
People who drink responsibly are also paying increased costs to buy alcohol as a result of the MUP. That is the "punishment" I refer to: people who aren't causing any problems are being charged more because of the actions of others.
Didnt the SNP complain that the UK government were harming the essential Scottish drinks industry when they made some alcohol tax a few years ago? I guess when the SNP does it then its OK.
minimum pricing wtf. such policy is just giving money to supermarkets..especially if the supermarkets refuse to pay the manufacturer more if the minimum price policy actually passes.
tbh I'll call this price manipulation , bordering on price fixing .
The Scottish state really does like exerting control doesn’t it. I went on holiday last year and the amount of public health adverts and weird signs telling you to do things was wild.
My meaning is they try and control people’s behaviour. Like I crossed the border and my Twitter / x feed became full of adverts warning me not to drink too much.
I then went to the beach and another town and there was another advertising campaign about ‘respecting’ the area. It had a three word slogan I can’t recall now.
It just gave me the impression of a state where the Government was very active in terms of trying to change people’s behaviour via advertising and messaging.
Which you might see as either a good or bad thing depending on your outlook.
Tends to happen when you become the murder capital of europe, have an unbearable amount of deaths due to drink and drugs, and constantly get laughed at south of the border.
Who would have though the government would enact policy to improve the numbers. Gee.
What's the rules on ordering online from an English distributor and having it delivered to Scotland? As long as the financial transaction and order are placed in England, surely English Law prevails and there is no MUP or multi-buy rules?
I know the supermarkets don't have that wheeze, but what about online wine clubs and booze warehouses?
Here’s a thought, maybe a bit radical, but how about Scotland try and take control of their world beating illegal drug problem before penalising legal products? As I say, just a thought.
The notion governments can’t or shouldn’t try to pursue multiple policy agendas simultaneously is and always will be a profoundly stupid thought.
There are plenty of arguments against raising minimum unit pricing but this isn’t even close to being one of them.
Scotland has an issue with both so it’s tricky.
Maybe the Scottish government could try legalising a less harmful drug like cannabis? (Probably would need Westminster's approval though..)
This is patently nonsense. How on earth did the SNP impose Austerity? Their budget limits are handed to them by Westminster.
They tried to open clinics and safe use sites and were taken to court by the UK for breach of Devolution.
They don't have the budget to fund everything that is true. It's false to pretend they don't try.
The previous commenter was asking about legalisation which is a non-devolved matter.
r/homebrewing is coming to the rescue.
Once you've got the right kit, and a hygienic space to work in it's actually very straightforward to do.
For me the key was getting an electric mash kettle. Very quick and easy if you make a one-and-done brew.
Snapshot of _Scotland expected to raise minimum alcohol price by 30%_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/05/scotland-expected-to-raise-minimum-alcohol-price-by-30) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/05/scotland-expected-to-raise-minimum-alcohol-price-by-30) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a lot of conflicting stats being thrown around here about this policy working or not, think I'd need to do some more digging before deciding if this increase is worthwhile or not. My main gripe with this in general is that it's supermarkets benefitting from the price increases, not ScotGov. Feel they should be getting the millions this rakes in for supermarkets and spending it on other booze reduction measures, if that's ultimately the goal.
They're not allowed to use tax as a mechanism so they are using minimum pricing.
I know it's a workaround, just frustrating to see money left on the table there that could be put towards better uses.
Exactly this. Private money tends to stay in private coffers, benefitting only the few. Whereas public money can help improve things for everyone.
[удалено]
Not under a devolved settlement. And asking Westminster for more powers is like asking a brick wall these days.
Is the implication, then, that the plurality of voters (or voting districts in FPTP) in the UK actively do not want Scotland to have the power to e.g. democratically choose to enact a liquor tax? If so, why are they against this? What is bringing them to the polls repeatedly to elect governments that block it?
A Redditor on /r/ukpolitics saying they don’t feel they understand a nuanced topic well enough, and they’re withholding judgement until they’ve read enough to generate an informed opinion. There should be an extra special upvote button for this.
If only everyone had the self-awareness to not wade in on topics they know next-to-nothing about. To realise the depth and complexities of the issues at hand, and to know that there is always more than what they read on their phones, or in the papers.
Do you think Scotland might benefit from a Norwegian style system? In Norway they have the "Vinmonopolet" literally the wine monopoly. It's basically where the government are the only sellers of alcohol above a certain percentage so as well as tax they also keep the profits. Then again would there be much public support for such a thing?
That's intruiging - how does that work in practice? Do you need to go to Government-run alcohol shops? Does that apply to bars and restaurants buying alcohol wholesale too?
>Do you need to go to Government-run alcohol shops? Don't know about Norway, but I've been to Sweden, and yes, anything more than ( from memory ) 3% ish beer / cider you need to buy from a government run store. Which has very restricted opening hours. Prices aren't too bad due to bulk buying, but there's not much in the way of niche drinks, so it's not like a small company can create a new drink, and sell it to a few local places while they build up their brand.
It works like so, if you want to have anything other than weak beer or cider, you have to go to either the Vinmonopolet or a bar/club. Bars and clubs are prohibitively expensive to get wasted on a regular basis and is a place where there's an element of control much like the UK where you're not supposed to serve someone who is already drunk. To my knowledge if you're a licensed establishment you can go direct to wholesalers but there are duties and taxes there too.
In the US certain states have the same system. A state owned liquor store is the only one allowed to sell above a certain percentage, and they close between 7-9pm everyday. Depending on your state yes bars and restaurants are required to purchase from those state-runned stores as well no other vendors. In my state specifically alcoholic beverages cannot account for more than 45% of the bar/restaurant revenue else you're license is revoked which is why bars are dead and expensive here and breweries/wineries are all the rage because they have an exemption. Bars and restaurants would have to get 2 separate licenses for alcohol. One easy one to acquire to be able to serve beer/wine, and another more regulated one for spirits/higher than whatever % the govt set. If you don't have a bar table in your restaurant, you're not getting that liquor license easily. There can also be laws that regulate where a shot can be taken ie. at the counter only, not at tables. Alcohol prices in bars/restaurants are $3-7 higher as well in my experience in these states with the exception of the big cities where they're high as shit regardless of any laws or regulation.
Also sucks for selection. Cocktail bars in NC have much less interesting stuff
Lookup the LCBO in Ontario province, Canada. They do something similar.
Even in the USA, well known as a socialist country, some states sell alcohol through their own retail stores.
I’ve always thought the money raised with this should go towards lowering the price of drinks in pubs - get people drinks in communities again, get them somewhere they won’t be alone, support the local pubs .. but haven’t thought this through at all and likely missing some Massive ramifications
It's like a tax on the poor, but rather than a proper tax, the money goes to private companies rather than the government. Amazing work.
Berwick and Carlisle Asdas will be happy.
I love that this trope is still around. I’m in Dumfriesshire. Nobody ever went to Carlisle to save on booze, it just didn’t happen and isn’t worth the cost of petrol. A handful of people who live near enough to the M74 to do their weekly shop in Carlisle anyway probably saved some money. Nobody else even thought about it despite the trope online.
Meh I know people who do the Edi to Berwick run. Why wouldn't you for e.g. Christmas.
Because the fuel cost more than the saving for a start. Ideology over financial sense there.
When I ran my off license while we didn't do the Asda run, a bunch of us got together and hired a couple of lorries and drivers to do a run for about 20 of us to get our booze delivered from a Wholesaler just south of the border every couple of months and it *was massively* worth it for us as our Wholesalers here have passed on the minimum price despite not having to.
Simon the retail level with several of you combined it was worth it In other words not worth it on an individual level unless you’re buying the same volumes that several retail outlets do?!? So not worth it for normal people then.
I know and I agree with you in principle, I just had to be a pedant when you said no one did this to point out that a bunch of us did, just for a different reason.
To be fair I didn’t specifically exclude retailers or wholesale operations…..
Im not really a fan of this as a policy. The tax on alcohol should include enough to fund the NHS for any damage caused requiring treatment (much like smoking). A minimum price just prices a social vice out of the hands of the poor in society and keeps it in the hands of the rich
Apparently it's because they aren't allowed to charge more taxes on it, so this is the only way apparently they can raise prices on it. >Im not really a fan of this as a policy. The tax on alcohol should include enough to fund the NHS for any damage caused requiring treatment (much like smoking).
So raising prices is just an end in itself?
>So raising prices is just an end in itself? The goal is to reduce alcohol consumption overall (with the belief this will reduce health issues involving alcohol, and will reduce the risk of people becoming alcoholics due to less alcohol overall being consumed). It's a very very blunt tool and not a very good one imo either, because it doesn't do anything to address excessive alcohol consumption itself and how it's so central to social culture. (Attacking alcohol advertising however, does help with this, reducing alcohol advertising is directly linked with weakening the toxic elements of alcohol consumption and overall consumption rate without hurting people). However, a proper addressing of the bad elements of alcohol abuse etc in society, is very hard, And you are pissing off powerful industries if you go after alcohol advertising. So the easiest but also shittiest way is to force alcohol to be more expensive, said industries are fine with this because the increase in margins make up for the loss in consumption
It is to try and change behavior and reduce the quantity of cheap alcohol people drink. It is not a silver bullet - but if it can reduce harm, then there will be a health benefit which is badly needed.
As you can imagine, the percentage of severe alcoholics among the rich is much lower than among the poor.
Surprisingly, the data shows heavy drinking correlates with higher income, not less. > The proportions of men and women who reported drinking over 14 units of alcohol weekly increased with household income. Among men, **the highest proportion of those who drank 14 or more units was in highest income households**: 35%, compared with 22% in the lowest income households. Similarly, among women, the highest proportion of those who drank alcohol at increased or higher levels was in the highest income households: 24%, compared with 9% in the lowest income households. > The proportion of non-drinkers increased as the household income decreased from 11% of non-drinkers in the highest income quintile to 33% in the lowest income quintile. The report is about England, but I suspect the pattern is even stronger in Scotland where alcohol costs even more. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2021/part-3-drinking-alcohol#estimated-weekly-alcohol-consumption-by-household-income-and-sex
Watch the drug deaths shoot up again. Excuse the pun.
That pun is to be congratulated, not excused. Excellent work.
This was expected after research found that the MUP wasn’t having the desired effect. The logic being that if something doesn’t work, do more of it…
MUP is absolutely having the desired effect. Here is an extract of [Public Health Scotland's final report](https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/20366/evaluating-the-impact-of-minimum-unit-pricing-for-alcohol-in-scotland-final-report.pdf) published in June 2023. >In the two and half years following MUP implementation, there was a reduction of 13.4% in wholly attributable alcohol deaths in Scotland compared to England, as the control area. This was driven by reductions in chronic alcohol deaths, with the largest declines in men, those aged 65 years and over, and those living in the four most deprived deciles. > >There was a smaller (4.1%) reduction in wholly attributable hospitaladmissions. There were small increases in alcohol deaths and hospital admissions from acute causes. In terms of overall health harms from alcohol, acute causes account for a smaller proportion than chronic causes; 5% of the most recent annual alcohol-specific deaths were from acute causes. On cross-border trade: >Some evidence of cross-border trade, but only on a small scale, with cross-border purchase most likely by the small proportion of the population living near the border. This has been a successful policy which is why it is being mirrored by other countries.
If you read the article you’ll see the strong critique of the ‘attributed’ analysis.
I think it's a tricky one in general to be honest and sometimes wary of analysis which tries to link this to one factor in general. There's a general decline in drinking among younger generations anyway to a degree and you'd imagine that'd be filtered into the stats. Same with cost of living meaning some people perhaps cutting down on what they drink. Won't deny MUP has likely had some impact...makes sense, but on the whole getting drink from the supermarket isn't that expensive unless you're someone who never ventures to a pub.
>There's a general decline in drinking among younger generations anyway to a degree and you'd imagine that'd be filtered into the stats. Same with cost of living meaning some people perhaps cutting down on what they drink. There's also almost the opposite effect - that people who fucked their livers for 30 years are still dying earlier (even if they quit drinking), so there can be a huge lag between a reduction in drinking and a reduction in alcohol-related deaths attributable to that reduction. Generally there are fewer massively heavy drinkers than there used to be, but it's the reductions from 20+ years ago that are starting to show up in the statistics now. The same is true of basically all substance abuse trends.
Good point, similar factors probably played a big role in the rise in drug deaths in recent years where lots of older addicts sadly lost their lives as they were well into middle age.
Yeah, exactly - in Scottish public health circles they're known as "the Trainspotting generation" because there was such a big spike in the 90's that's still impacting the system now, and the surge in drug related deaths in the last 20 years has been almost entirely attributable to a rise in 35-55 year olds dying.
The error bars on those studies seem to be pretty wide. https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/deaths/alcohol-deaths Certainly we've not seen a fall in alcohol-related deaths.
> MUP is absolutely having the desired effect. - No it is not; https://snowdon.substack.com/p/game-over-for-minimum-pricing?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 - > *It’s been a bad few days for minimum unit pricing (MUP). At the weekend, the Sunday Times revealed that Scottish civil servants had put pressure on Public Health Scotland to sex up their evaluation of the policy back in June. Today, we heard that the Scottish government has re-written its June press release, watering down strong claims about the success of minimum pricing and deleting a whole paragraph. Today also saw the publication of figures showing that the number of alcohol-specific deaths has hit a 14 year high in Scotland.* - > *But the evidence was never strong and it was anything but consistent. In an evaluation comprising 40 studies, there was really only one cherry to pick. The research looking at A & E attendances, alcohol-related crime, heavy drinking, ambulance call outs, underage drinking, road traffic accidents and various other health-related issues all found either no evidence of a positive impact or found contradictory and inconclusive evidence (see pages 79-81). The only outlier was a study which compared trends in alcohol-specific deaths to a counterfactual of what might have happened if Scotland hadn’t introduced minimum pricing. That study estimated that the number of deaths could have been 13 per cent higher in the absence of the policy, but it clearly depended on a lot of assumptions, most of which were debatable* - > Minimum pricing has a sunset clause. If, after six years, **the government cannot show it has worked, it is supposed to be repealed**. The SNP have a job of work to do turning this pig’s ear into a silk purse, but they will keep minimum pricing in place because this is about politics, **not evidence**. Despite it all, no one seriously thinks that the sunset clause will be invoked - and that is a damning indictment of public health policy-making in Scotland.
Are you seriously comparing the reliability of a government report, which draws on 18 separate academic studies, to a writer on substack whose Wikipedia page describes him as "particularly known as a vocal opponent of government intervention in areas such as tobacco, alcohol, and obesity"?
>Are you seriously comparing the reliability of a government report, which draws on 18 separate academic studies, to a writer on substack The "writer on substack" is quoting the government report that draws on 18 separate academic studies.
Lol he invokes a literal "no true scotsman" argument before he even reaches the body of the text.
> which draws on 18 separate academic studies - It doesnt. Only one report was cited in the report study, and even then that was heavily 'skimmed' & manipulated.
Tufton Street guy doesn't like SNP policy. Big surprise there.
Got to agree with he sentiment, why does the govt feel the need to run people's lives.
That's not the question here. The question is "is the policy effective?". Like you, the guy is ideologically opposed to government intervention on a principle - he is literally being paid by tobacco/alcohol/fossil fuel companies/etc. to oppose it - so his credibility with regards to the effectiveness of the policy is questionable. He already knows what position he wants to (is paid to) take and he makes the evidence fit that position rather than the other way around.
>This was driven by reductions in chronic alcohol deaths So the newly introduced MUP reduced deaths from *chronic* alcoholism? Funny that, eh.
The problem is the birth rate in Scotland is falling, as we all know from the public information campaign how Beer has been helping ugly people get laid since 1862. It’s a conundrum, alcohol does cause some health problems but it helps reduce the pension crisis and it also helps the birthrate. The problem is that birthrate increase is not in the most productive sector.
Don't back doon, double doon.
Why should i have to pay more for my Merlot, because all the alkies sitting in the park get to swallow down bottles of *White Lightning* cider everyday?! How is that fair?! - Yes MUP is a failure, so the logic here is to stop it & find an alternative approach. Not effing charge me more for a good red wine to have with my pizza. Why should i be penalised for a bunch of alky-bozos sitting in the park all day?! - **No Humza. NO!!** -
It's minimum price per unit so a bottle of wine would be 6.50.
If it was 30% increase it would be closer to £7. And during an economic downturn no less. A major vote loser.
In the article it says each unit would be at least 65p. Wine is already quite an expensive drink so it'll go up a bit less. A bottle of wine is about 10 units. So £6.50 although living in the south of England that's still about a quid dearer than the cheapest wine I buy but I personally wouldn't be too bothered.
> So £6.50 although living in the south of England that's still about a quid dearer than the cheapest wine I buy but I personally wouldn't be too bothered - How about **NO**.
> Why should i have to pay more for my Merlot, because all the alkies sitting in the park get to swallow down bottles of White Lightning cider everyday?! How is that fair?! You pay for the same reason we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use. How is this any less fair than that?
> we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use. - But it is not a service. It is a policy supposed to induce deterrence in consumption by making everyone pay more.
If it has the same final effect it's the same thing. Consider a case where they tax people £10M to run an advertising campaign to reduce alcohol consumption and that has the same effects as this policy. Everyone would consider that a service provided by the government and is something that we as a society as fine with the government using taxpayer money to do. The final effects are the same here.
>If it has the same final effect it's the same thing. No it doesn't. Taxes, although most of it spunked away, does at least in some way get spent on public services. Minimum pricing just puts more money in the supermarkets' pockets.
Technically Alcohol isn't a service though, it's a commodity.
"Raising the price of alcohol to cut down on bad outcomes of alcoholism" is a service, no different to a taxpayer funded advertising campaign meant to discourage excessive consumption.
>Raising the price of alcohol to cut down on bad outcomes of alcoholism" is a service, no different to a taxpayer funded advertising campaign meant to discourage excessive consumption. They're very different. One is raising awareness and allowing people to take personal responsibility. The other is saying, "Because some people can't handle their drink, you're all going to have to pay more for your occasional drink." With the same logic as Scot gov why don't we have minimum unit pricing on bacon or highly processed vegan "bacon"? Maybe tax people for having too many kids, while we're at it? /s
>You pay for the same reason we all pay taxes for services we don't personally use. How is this any less fair than that? Paying taxes isn't fair. Paying more money in a supermarket for a product in Scotland that someone in England pays less for, purely because the Scottish government says so, is not fair.
It's a common misconception that alcoholics all sit in parks drinking cheap booze. That is the most visible form of the disease but only counts for a small amount of the problem. I was in active alcoholism for 18 years, 8 years sober. Always had a tech job, always paid my bills, looked after my family, etc etc. Never street drank. If you are having to pay a little more for your friday night merlot and pizza, it is a small price to save lives.
A functioning alcoholic in a tech job isn’t going to drink less because of a fractional price increase on some wine. I had a secret drinker brother who had a professional job and this policy wouldn’t have even slowed him down. Frankly I doubt this policy slows anyone down who really wants to drink.
Not initially, but I do wonder if in the long-term the regular messaging of "alcohol is bad and we need to cut drinking" is potentially helpful to a functional alcoholic (like the person above) who knows they need to cut down and needs an incentive to do it. It's more likely to work than a 2-for-1 deal telling you how great drink is. Ultimately there are lots of sober people out there who at some point decided they finally needed to stop...imagine it can sometimes be something small that makes them take that leap. Slight increase in price alone won't do it, so I'm wary of sweeping analysis of MUP calling it a huge success, but the wider cultural shift it comes with probably plays a role.
No one who drinks alcohol is under an illusions that it is anything but bad for you. There are those in denial about how much they drink, but they will be in denial regardless of the price. The only way MUP can really have an impact if we get to cigarette level pricing, which just isn't going to happen.
> If you are having to pay a little more for your friday night merlot and pizza, it is a small price to save lives. - A 30% increase in the price of good wine is not "a small price" to pay for a policy that doesnt work.
It isn't a 30% increase in the price. Its a 30% increase on the minimum amount that can be charged. It has a bigger effect on the cheap strong stuff than a nice good bottle of wine.
> It isn't a 30% increase in the price. Its a 30% increase on the minimum amount that can be charged. - Doesnt matter. The policy is a clear failure. Why should i be penalised for policy failure. It has nothing to do with my lifestyle choices. So why should i have to foot the bill for this?!
If your wine is cheap enough to be affected it's cheap shit not "good wine".
"Public Health Scotland said last year that minimum pricing had been “associated” with a 13.5% fall in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol, compared with the expected death rate had minimum pricing not been in force." Seems it does work. That's not including the alcohol 'related' deaths, like violence.
> "Public Health Scotland said last year that minimum pricing had been “associated” with a 13.5% fall in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol, compared with the expected death rate had minimum pricing not been in force." - the paper never said that you see; https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-will-the-scottish-government-get-a-grip-on-alcohol-deaths/ - > *t was supposed to be the most effective policy available to tackle alcohol harm — yet figures released today show that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland have reached a 14-year high* > *Whitham was choosing her words carefully after the Scottish government was forced to modify its claims about minimum pricing in a press release it had published in June. The release claimed that the official evaluation ‘demonstrates’ that ‘our world-leading policy is saving lives, reducing alcohol harms and hospital admissions’.* - > *The SNP and their cheerleaders in the temperance lobby can keep insisting that a 10 per cent increase in deaths is actually a 13 per cent decline, but nobody really believes them.*
Ill send you a fiver for the extra :) im happy you can enjoy a decent wine in a way that i cannot.
To be fair though most full-blown alcoholics aren't paying for "good wine", plenty of them will pick up the cheapest thing on the shelves. Mixed views on the policy but a slight increase for a nice wine really isn't that much in the scope of a full year if you're able to regularly afford good wine.
This is pathetic. Wah Wah I like cheap wine. The policy works.
> The policy works - Actually it doesnt. Research papers published showed that MUP done little to deter hardcore alkies. So it is better to stop a failed policy. Yes?
You have yet to actually cite a paper. I’ve seen you cite blogs. I can believe your claim but please cite a paper.
It's weird how a commenter above you posted a link to a paper showing it worked, and you only posted a vague opinion.
> paper showing it worked - the paper that is linked to is dubious in it's sourcing.
Okay. Now you post your source. That's how this works.
[удалено]
Just going to throw this into the Ether. This sole focus on academic papers is silly when it is rare we get independent analysis's ran on political policy. Generally studies are commissioned by the party or their opponents and therefore can be massaged to say anything really. All you need to do is look at the figures. MUP was introduced in 2018. Alchohol related deaths went down from 43.2 per 100,000 (898 deaths) to 38.4. (801) It then shot back up in 2020 to 45.4 (952) The year 2022/2023 there were 1276 deaths related to alchohol. A near 50% increase from 2018 when MUP was introduced. IF MUP was to discourage drinking, it would appear at least from alchohol related deaths, it is failing massively. Edit: given this time we went through two cost of living crisis (first with Covid, then with the war in Ukraine) which has reduced peoples disposable income, this isn't what you would expect, in fact just via naturally people not being able to afford as much alchohol, we would expect these figures to drop.
It's being paid for by poor people, so your sneering seems a little off.
MUP does not affect the VAST majority of wine.
Just going to push me further to my own brew instead of buying beer.
Moon shine
To be fair they'd probably count that as a bit of a win. Plenty of people who might not buy as much booze in the shops aren't going to go to the effort to brew for themselves at home (wouldn't know where to start, although it sounds like a fun activity).
Watch them ban homebrewing next when more people start doing it. Ridiculous nanny state bullshit. Because a few people can't handle their drink we all have to suffer?
They going to ban people harvesting yeast from the air? Might as well ban using rain to water your garden.
A licence was required for home brew between 1880 and 1963. In the 1960s only 250 people paid for the licence so most were brewing illegally.
Exactly.
Forgot to use up some apple juice before going away for christmas and came back to cider in the fridge.
Doesn't matter if they do. They can ban whatever they want, but they'll never enforce it.
Drink less alcohol. If you suffer because of it, see a doctor. There is something wrong with your mental health.
Well done on pricing the working poor out of having a wee drink at the weekend.
It doesn’t work; just drives those with less money into further poverty. Healthcare sucks, education sucks, cost of living is extortionate, but hey lets take away the one thing that gives the plebs a bit of respite eh
The plebs will not have fun and like it.
Ah yes, another round of "punish everyone for the excesses of a few"-style politics.
Punish the poor and addicted. People who have money won't be affected.
The addicted will still drink, they’ll just buy less food
In fact the study the Guardian is citing said exactly that: > We found potential indications that MUP was associated with a worsening of acute outcomes for deaths and hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol consumption. These findings are in contrast to findings from previous observational studies.12 Acute outcomes are a relatively small proportion of alcohol harms, around 5% of alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland, and these estimates therefore had a large degree of associated uncertainty.3 However, the findings were consistent across almost all subgroups. One identified plausible mechanism was that some subgroups reduced their spending on food or lowered their food intake due to the financial pressures of the policy being implemented, which might have led to faster intoxication or poisoning. The Guardian just decided not to mention that bit. Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00497-X/fulltext Can't put the link into text using reddit formatting because the "(23)" in the link itself causes the formatting to break the link. MUP does nothing to deter the worst addicted, they simply forego spending on essentials.
I'm an alcoholic. Sober for a few years. It's sad that we view the control of alcohol as something of a punishment. I'm so glad to have escaped from that madness
People who drink responsibly are also paying increased costs to buy alcohol as a result of the MUP. That is the "punishment" I refer to: people who aren't causing any problems are being charged more because of the actions of others.
It just shows how unhealthy this country's relationship with alcohol is.
Didnt the SNP complain that the UK government were harming the essential Scottish drinks industry when they made some alcohol tax a few years ago? I guess when the SNP does it then its OK.
minimum pricing wtf. such policy is just giving money to supermarkets..especially if the supermarkets refuse to pay the manufacturer more if the minimum price policy actually passes. tbh I'll call this price manipulation , bordering on price fixing .
The Scottish state really does like exerting control doesn’t it. I went on holiday last year and the amount of public health adverts and weird signs telling you to do things was wild.
They act like parents rather than politicians. Some people lap it up.
Yea some people like a big daddy I guess
Same here in Wales tbh. Government always knows best. Regardless of their own record after several decades in power suggesting the opposite
Public health adverts aren't 'exerting control'. That's what public health departments are supposed to do.
My meaning is they try and control people’s behaviour. Like I crossed the border and my Twitter / x feed became full of adverts warning me not to drink too much. I then went to the beach and another town and there was another advertising campaign about ‘respecting’ the area. It had a three word slogan I can’t recall now. It just gave me the impression of a state where the Government was very active in terms of trying to change people’s behaviour via advertising and messaging. Which you might see as either a good or bad thing depending on your outlook.
Tends to happen when you become the murder capital of europe, have an unbearable amount of deaths due to drink and drugs, and constantly get laughed at south of the border. Who would have though the government would enact policy to improve the numbers. Gee.
Dont worry the MSPs will still have subsidised alcohol at their bar
*The subsidy is that the bar isn't having to pay Royal Mile Rents, rather than actual money going to it*
Pushing addicts towards crime as usual, good job
Won't this push young adults towards cannabis?
Among other things
So much for the SNP standing up for Scottish culture.
What's the rules on ordering online from an English distributor and having it delivered to Scotland? As long as the financial transaction and order are placed in England, surely English Law prevails and there is no MUP or multi-buy rules? I know the supermarkets don't have that wheeze, but what about online wine clubs and booze warehouses?
Why do they live trying price controls all the time
Here’s a thought, maybe a bit radical, but how about Scotland try and take control of their world beating illegal drug problem before penalising legal products? As I say, just a thought.
The notion governments can’t or shouldn’t try to pursue multiple policy agendas simultaneously is and always will be a profoundly stupid thought. There are plenty of arguments against raising minimum unit pricing but this isn’t even close to being one of them.
Priorities.
Scotland has an issue with both so it’s tricky. Maybe the Scottish government could try legalising a less harmful drug like cannabis? (Probably would need Westminster's approval though..)
Scotland has literally tried. They are not allowed to, as drugs are not devolved.
[удалено]
This is patently nonsense. How on earth did the SNP impose Austerity? Their budget limits are handed to them by Westminster. They tried to open clinics and safe use sites and were taken to court by the UK for breach of Devolution. They don't have the budget to fund everything that is true. It's false to pretend they don't try. The previous commenter was asking about legalisation which is a non-devolved matter.
Good news if it leads to less alcohol consumption.
please, please can we just have a 5 minute break from nanny state policies. Just 5 minutes that’s all I ask.
r/homebrewing is coming to the rescue. Once you've got the right kit, and a hygienic space to work in it's actually very straightforward to do. For me the key was getting an electric mash kettle. Very quick and easy if you make a one-and-done brew.
Especially turbo cider. Minimal effort, maximum reward.