Posts
There is an ongoing debate in Scotland on how to curb alcoholism among the Scottish people. The governing party, the Scottish National Party, is proposing to enforce a 45p per unit minimum price on alcoholic products. Apparently the number 45p is very scientific; the Scottish Government is claiming that this minimum will lead to 50 fewer deaths and 1200 fewer hospital emissions.
How exactly did they come up with those numbers?
I picture some academic or civil servant somewhere with a calculator (“Okay so if we make it 40p we will only save 35 lives, but with an extra 5p we can save 50 lives!”). Do they honestly think that human beings work that way? Do they really think that if they pull one lever or push a button they can direct society?
I have news for the Scottish nationalists; Scottish people love to get drunk.
This isn’t just a stereotype. I recently lived above a bar in Scotland. Believe me when I say that the Scottish people love to get drunk. There is absolutely no way that a price floor will make a difference.
How do I know that for sure?
Because it has never worked anywhere else no matter where or when it has been tried.
The opposition parties say that all this measure will do is hurt the lower income responsible drinkers, and they are right. Someone who drinks more lightly may be less inclined to pay more, but someone who loves to get drunk will get drunk regardless of how much money they have to spend.
Society and individuals just simply cannot be engineered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Regardless of what solution they come up with, the societal problems that recreational binge drinking is wreaking upon the population of the U.K. is staggering; it truly must be seen to be believed.
Isn't this a bit like saying all the alcoholics are poor people who possibly can't afford the higher prices? Is it okay to be an alcoholic if you're rich? Just more bureaucratic nonsense.
I'm pretty sure that McGuinty did the same thing here in Ontario in order to be "socially responsible" implying that only the poor who can't afford the higher prices are the irresponsible ones.
How is it that such stupid people perpetually get elected? Is it possible that the ability to get elected is inversely proportional to your competence in anything else?
Post a Comment