Assignment Paragraphs Flashcards
Intro
Scotland has long had a difficult relationship with alcohol, which remains a deeply embedded issue in our society. 23% of Scots drank hazardous or harmful levels in 2022, putting more than 1 in 5 people at an increased risk of health issues such as liver and heart disease. Many people even die from the effects of alcohol, and in 2022 there were 22.6 alcohol specific deaths per 100,000 people compared to England’s 14.5. This really brings home the severity of alcoholism in Scotland, where we are losing almost double the number of lives as England. This is even worse in the most deprived areas, with death rates 4.3 times higher - a worrying level of damage to our societies’ most economically vulnerable. The cost extends beyond individuals to government spending of as much as £10 billion every year. Factors such as hospitalisations and lost productivity constitute a heavy drain on our economy. Alcohol related crime also costs the justice service, as seen in 2022, when 37% of offenders of violent crime were believed to be under the influence at the time of their offence. This shows the correlation between drinking and violence which impacts on the safety of the whole country. The National Centre for Domestic Violence also reported a 26% rise in incidents around the dates of national football matches. This shows how common patterns of heavy drinking can inflame abusive relationships and incite violence even in people’s homes. It is clear from the price of alcohol - in lives, economic cost, and safety, that action needs to be taken to mitigate its effects.
Presentation of ideas
I am presenting 3 possible government solutions to the issues posed by alcohol in Scotland. These are:
- Minimum Unit Pricing
Where a minimum price of 65p per unit of alcohol is enforced. - Policing Drink Driving
Where traffic patrols monitor and prosecute drunk drivers. - A Nordic Style Monopoly
Where stronger alcohol is only sold through specific government owned shops.
MUP 1
MUP is a policy the Scottish government implemented in 2018 to help reduce alcohol related damage by enforcing a minimum price for alcohols based on strength.
MUP acted as a financial disincentive, seeing a 3% decrease in consumption the year after MUP was implemented. Source 1 shows how stronger alcohols were much more affected, as the sale of ciders fell by 21.8%, over 7 times the average. This helps to target binge drinking, a severely harmful alcoholic habit, since binge drinkers frequently buy the cheapest strongest alcohols like ciders. This positive impact was echoed by public opinion, as shown by Source 2, in which 62% of respondents were either in favour of or neutral to MUP. This support of MUP shows valuable cultural acceptance and reinforces the idea that MUP has had a positive effect.
MUP 2
Another major strength of MUP is the minimal damage to industry. The Scottish Minister of Drugs and Alcohol Policy stated that, “There is evidence that reduction in sales volumes was more than offset by an increase in prices.” (Source 3) showing the positive economic impact of MUP through increased profits. Whiskey in particular was not greatly affected, since most whisky prices were already above the MUP. This is significant as Scotch whiskey exports were worth more than £6 billion in 2022 (Source 4), making whiskey a valuable economic asset.
MUP 3
Despite its general acceptance by businesses and the public, this need for compromise may be a key weakness of MUP. Although MUP caused a small decrease in sales, Scotland has continued to see persistently high alcohol-related deaths. Source 5 shows how deaths have surpassed 1,000 per annum for more than two decades now indicating that MUP alone is not enough to address alcohol misuse. COVID made an already bad situation even more critical, and deaths rose by 22% between 2019 and 2021, unaffected by MUP. This is reinforced by a study from the Centre for Public Health, which found “a significant decline in the consumption of moderate drinkers but not hazardous ones.” This suggests that MUP deters people who already drink less, whereas those most at risk may be dependent on alcohol and therefore less responsive, rendering it less effective in achieving reduced alcohol-related damage.
Overall, MUP has had some positive impact tackling the problems with alcohol in Scotland and is one of the most realistic policies considering its popularity. More is needed however to tackle such a deep-seated problem.
Policing Drunk Driving 1
A second policy which can make a quick and effective difference is policing drunk driving, since drunk crashes contribute directly to the alcohol-related death toll. In 2022, drunk crashes constituted a significant 5.5% of all motor vehicle casualties. Source 6 shows how we currently have the most common European drink-driving limit of 0.5% BAC, reflecting a widely accepted threshold which impactfully reduces accidents. Public opinion also supports this, with 67% of motorists in England and Wales in favour of adopting the Scottish limit (Source 7). This demonstrates the broad acceptance of the drink driving limit as a good way to improve public safety, in concord with both the general populace and businesses.
Policing Drunk Driving 2
Enhanced enforcement further reinforces the impact of our drink-driving law. A review by the College of Policing (Source 8) found that in 13 out of 20 studies, increased police patrols led to a reduction in crashes. This indicates that more visible policing acts as a deterrent for people who may otherwise believe they won’t get caught, and allows drunk drivers to be caught before they cause accidents. In combination with our current limit, increased traffic patrols could provide a good solution for drunk crashes.
Policing Drunk Driving Conclusion
Overall, policing drunk driving is a highly actionable policy which could have a quick and positive effect. However, it is somewhat limited in that policing drunk driving has little relevance to alcoholism across society or people’s drinking habits at home which can be some of the most damaging to health. These laws should still be put into action, but is undeniably a natural limit to how effective they can be.
Nordic Style Monopoly 1
A more radical example can be taken from Norway, where the government’s Vinmonopolet monopoly controls the sale of off-licence alcohol over 4.75%, restricting it to specialized, regulated shops to effectively reduce alcohol consumption and therefore related harms.
Firstly, selling alcohol on separate premises makes it less readily available than in grocery stores, making buying alcohol less casual and convenient. In Source 9, A Swedish study on replacing alcohol sales in government owned stores with grocery stores saw an increase in per capita consumption of more than 30%, a massive change which highlights the strong impact the monopoly stores were having on reducing drinking. This study also emphasised the directly proportional relationship between alcohol consumption and health and crime issues, showing how strictly reducing sales would really have a broader societal impact.
Nordic Style Monopoly 2
This monopoly could also restrict availability further by reducing opening hours. A study in Geneva showed that a ban on sales between 9pm- 7am led to record lows of young people with alcohol poisoning with drops of up to 30%. In Scotland we already have a limit on sales between 10pm and 10am, but even tighter restrictions in monopoly shops could limit sales and alcohol related harm even more.
Nordic Style Monopoly 3
Shops specifically dedicated to alcohol can even be easily regulated, preventing alcohol sales to underage people, as opposed to the current system where cashiers may not be thoroughly trained or monitored. Source 10 shows how 34.5% of children in the UK have consumed alcohol by age 11, driving home the need for stronger safeguarding which could be achieved through trained staff in monopoly outlets. In Source 11, 79% of survey respondents in Scotland also identified alcohol as a problem for young people. This shows the importance of protecting young people’s health and reducing the threat of alcohol in their lives through thorough regulation.
It’s useful to note that harsh restrictions can result in a backlash of organisations of crime and poisonings.
Conclusion
My conclusion is that strategies like MUP and policing drunk driving are steps in the right direction but the best solution for combatting alcohol related damage is a nordic style monopoly. It would restrict alcohol consumption from multiple angles - reducing where and when alcohol is available, and policing who it is available to could provide a strict response to make a strong impact.
In comparison, policing drink driving limits crashes and related deaths but is limited to this. MUP has made some positive changes and may contribute to lowered binge drinking but is also less effective, as demonstrated by the death rates which have continued to rise in spite of it.
Source Evaluation
One of my most reliable sources was Source 2 which was a Scottish Government publication of a survey of opinions on MUP. The government commissioned Ipsos Mori to conduct this survey - an established, politically neutral polling organisation most likely to have done a professional job of the survey. Ipsos Mori is also bound to the Market Research code of conduct, adding even more to its reliability.
My least reliable source was Source 11 which was a survey I conducted. It only had a sample size of 100, meaning a higher sampling error and less representation. All respondents were also from the same school, which also reduces the diversity of opinion available.
