Monday, 15 October 2012

The Minimum Alcohol Pricing Car Crash

After months fighting against common sense, statistical evidence, public opinion and EU law, the Scotsman reported yesterday that minimum alcohol pricing has been shelved for now by the SNP government.

With any luck, Cameron might notice this bloated bluebottle in the ointment and rethink his idea to replicate the silly, junk science-led policy in England.

However, in Australia, a similar move is providing interfering health groups with some smashing orgasms.
CHEAP wine will be banned under a federal health agency's plan to make drinkers pay at least $8-$10 (£5.10-£6.38) for a bottle of booze. 
The Federal Government's Australian National Preventative Health Agency will advise this week that a "floor price" and new taxes be calculated as a way to make alcohol dearer. 
The prohibition plan to stop cheap drunks binging on discount drinks - including cask wine and cleanskins - has delighted health groups but sparked an alcohol industry revolt.
Listen. It's Australia's business, I suppose. If people there are happy to buckle under and be dictated to by joyless pecksniffs, who are we to argue? I did enjoy this hilarious juxtaposition, though.
[The Agency] has found "strong community support" to change the existing alcohol tax system, so that wine would be taxed on the basis of its alcohol content rather than its price.
Hmm. There's a poll to the right of that comment. It would appear that the ANPHA's definition of 'support' is quite different to that of people who aren't paid to advance an agenda.

Still, who cares what the public think, eh? It's never mattered to bully-boy health groups before.

H/T Angry upside-down bloke


James Pickett said...

Strange, isn't it? I've always regarded the Aussies as practical and clear-headed on most things, but they seem to voted for some bizarre politicians. Perhaps it's the result of general cynicism about government and our version of democracy, which is why we are saddled with a similar problem?

Michael McFadden said...

"It would appear that the ANPHA's definition of 'support' is quite different to that of people who aren't paid to advance an agenda."

Heh, where's Andre The Giant when we need him?


ivandenisovich said...

Are you sure this is really happening Dick? It's just that the BBC, which covers all things minimum price related has not even mentioned it. The diligent and impartial health team have found space for yet another piece on smoking in cars but I can find nothing on minimum pricing at all. Am I missing something?

Rob said...

Note the language used: 'booze', 'drunks', "alcohol industry revolt", as if only evil capitalist drug pushers are against this.

This is a news report?