JIM Taylor (Letters, November 16) appears to imagine that the cheap alcohol he suggests we should be swilling at home is somehow less damaging than the alcohol we get in pubs – or have I missed the point? Or, perhaps, has he? Arguably the exact opposite is the case.
Alcohol is an addictive poison which has some merits if taken in moderation by people who can handle it. A good place to drink it is in the well-ordered social environment of a premises designed for that purpose and run by a sensible person who knows when any of us has had enough – and is aware that it is breaking the law if any more drink is provided in that circumstance.
What has happened now, however, is that the provision of very cheap alcohol from supermarkets has hugely damaged this useful social contract, and what our diminishing tribe of publicans now face is customers who have just consumed perhaps a six-pack of lager at home (purchased in a supermarket, which then gives around 75 per cent plus of the purchase price to the government in tax) arriving semi-blootered at 10.30pm or 11pm to enjoy, over a half pint or so, the friendly social environment that the publican has provided at considerable cost.
So, all over the country our pubs are closing. Particularly in small communities, where for generations little friendly pubs have been the centre of social activity, this is not a good thing.
The minimum pricing legislation will be an important first step in our battle against damaging binging on cheap, high-alcohol-content drink. A consequence of this, hopefully, will be that it won’t sell, and the producers of this dangerous rubbish will stop producing it, or at least retailing it, in Scotland. The problem we face and have faced for centuries is that alcohol is very attractive to those most at danger from it while being extremely cheap and easy to produce, which is why it was widely brought under control by a policy of licensing and high taxation.
Supermarket provision of alcohol has derailed the sensible intentions. They sell vast lakes of alcohol, often as a loss leader, and in reality are little more than tax collectors in the process.
A look round the world provides very many ways of dealing sensibly with this issue. In some countries, limited amounts of alcohol can only be bought in government-owned outlets. In others, supermarkets have to provide entirely separate checkouts.
The next step in the battle to control our drinking problem should be to remove alcohol from our supermarkets. Many of us can remember the days when the carry-out was acquired on a weekend evening as the pubs closed – at prices which reflected the price of a pint in the pub.
Make the sale of alcohol again the responsibility of licensed grocers and pubs, neither of whom have any interest in selling booze cheaply.
Dave McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll
THE fact minimum unit pricing for alcohol is coming to Scotland is to be welcomed as part of a long-term strategy to reduce alcohol harm.
Critics argue that it will not solve the nation’s horrendous alcohol problems. On its own, of course, it won’t. Evidence-based claims include that it may prevent, initially 20 deaths a year. Twenty people. It will also significantly curtail young people’s access to cheap booze.
What is sometimes overlooked is that, like the introduction of very low permissible alcohol levels for drivers, a law or regulation is also a statement, a message about values.
It is a recognition that alcohol is a hard and dangerous drug which must be used with great care.
Adrian Bailey
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here