Search

Background and Aims: The Scottish Government introduced minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol on 1 May 2018. This means retailers in Scotland cannot sell alcohol to consumers for less than £0.50 per unit (1 UK unit = 8 g ethanol). The Government intended the policy to increase the price of cheap alcohol, cut alcohol consumption overall and particularly among those drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and ultimately reduce alcohol‐related harm. This paper aims to summarise and assess the evidence to date evaluating the impact of MUP on alcohol consumption and related behaviours in Scotland. Argument: Evidence from analyses of population‐level sales data suggest, all else being equal, MUP reduced the volume of alcohol sold in Scotland by ~ 3.0% to 3.5%, with the largest reductions affecting cider and spirits sales. Analyses of two time series datasets on household‐level alcohol purchasing and individual‐level alcohol consumption suggest reductions in purchasing and consumption among those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, but offer conflicting results for those drinking at the most harmful levels. These subgroup analyses are methodologically robust, but the underlying datasets have important limitations as they rely on non‐random sampling strategies. Further studies identified no clear evidence of reduced alcohol consumption among those with alcohol dependence or those presenting to emergency departments and sexual health clinics, some evidence of increased financial strain among people with dependence and no evidence of wider negative outcomes arising from changes in alcohol consumption behaviours. Conclusions: Minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland has led to reduced consumption, including among heavier drinkers. However, there is uncertainty regarding its impact on those at greatest risk and some limited evidence of negative outcomes, specifically financial strain, among people with alcohol dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti‐smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non‐government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi‐day face‐to‐face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]