Consequences of minimum pricing

I AM writing in response to Alan Simpson’s article, “Dearer drink won’t cure the problems”, (November 25).

During COP26 I had the opportunity to chat to a young Glasgow policeman who worked in a deprived area of the city.

He talked about his daily work, which he loved, and which sounded to me a lot like social work.

I asked him whether he thought that the minimum pricing of alcohol had helped his patch, and was surprised when he said he was against it.

He explained that as a result of this measure, he had seen many people turn from alcohol to illegal street drugs because they were more affordable. But he considered the street drugs more damaging, both individually and socially, than legal alcohol.

It seems that in trying to solve one problem, a worse one was being made.

As I have not heard this commented on in any media reports, I wondered whether it has been researched.

Sue Harley, Dunblane.

WAS anyone else perplexed by Alan Simpson’s opinion piece on minimum unit pricing(mup) of alcohol? He seems to think “expensive tipples” are worst affected by MUP. Not so.

The reason people on Saturday nights out do not drink vintage champagne and 25-year-old malts is because each unit of alcohol in them costs well over £1. Therefore the proposed rise in MUP to 65p will not affect their price at all.

Those who binge-drink to get drunk, drink cheap beer, cider, wine, et cetera, because each unit of alcohol in them costs 50p.

A 30% rise in MUP will mean that they cost 30% more. Studies show that means, on a population average, we will drink a little less and a little less often, so we will be a little healthier. That is a good thing.

David Hill, Dumfries.