From the above today:
Jon Bannister, a criminology professor at Manchester Metropolitan University, said the reduction in the quantity of alcohol bought has had “minimal impact on the levels of alcohol-related crime, disorder and public nuisance reported in Scotland”.
Offences in each area were already found to be going down prior to the introduction of MUP.
“On the whole, the limited discernible impact of MUP on alcohol-related crime, disorder and public nuisance suggests that the reduction in off-trade alcohol sales that followed implementation is below that required to deliver a reduction in crime,” Prof Bannister added.
“Or, if crime did reduce, it has done so at a scale that the evaluation could not identify”.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58871427
In the Scottish Government’s minimum alcohol pricing rationale, the word ‘crime’ does not appear, even once, but ‘death’ is central:
Modelling estimates that over the first five-year period of minimum unit pricing there will be:
- 400 fewer alcohol-related deaths
- 8,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions
At full effect, after 20 years, there will be:
- 120 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year
- 2,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions per year
Evidence shows that as alcohol becomes more affordable, drinking and alcohol-related harm increases, and that one of the best ways to reduce the amount of cheap alcohol drunk by people in any country is by making alcohol less affordable. Affordability is one of the three World Health Organization ‘best buys’ for preventing alcohol-related harm, and is embedded into its SAFER initiative which aims to reduce death, disease and injuries caused by the harmful use of alcohol through using high-impact, evidence-based, cost-effective interventions.
The BBC Report does mention other research revealing a notable fall in the alcohol death rate, the overriding aim of the initiative. Success?
And, the minimal impact on crime, a bonus?
Who in their right research mind would have thought that minimum pricing was going to affect the small number of bams carrying out crimes while drunk. They’re bams; they get the drink as bams do.
What is the point of the MMU (Micky Mouse University?) research? Some readers will groan when I insist on my own research credentials but researching a public policy initiative and discovering that it does not achieve something it did not set out to achieve? FAIL!