Serious question: what if the answer to "why these people are making these choices" turns out to be "culture"? As in, this is the way lots of big Scottish people have behaved in front of lots of little Scottish people for generations, and absent any opprobrium from the rest of society (which is something this law provides, in addition to its purely economic effect), it will continue that way for the foreseeable?
At that point would it be reasonable for Scotland, as a society, to decide to put its thumb in the scale through a measure like the one discussed in the article to try to reduce the harm?
Note: I've never been to Scotland, don't know any Scottish people, and certainly don't have my finger on the beating pulse of Scottish culture, so the above is purely a hypothetical! I'm just always curious to see how people who emphasize the economic causes of problems think about possible non-economic factors.
Culture, and also despair. Perhaps similar to the US opiate crisis.
There are a lot of people in the UK who drink "too much", and a general distribution of people genetically predisposed to addiction. To drink yourself to death requires something more, usually falling off the edge of society. People who feel economically and socially unwanted, growing up in a "hard" culture.
Glasgow and Dundee in particular were cities of the Empire. When that came to an end in 1950 onwards there was a huge spike in unemployment, and a lot of the traditional heavy industries gradually left. This left a huge scar across both the physical infrastructure of Scotland (run down housing) and its culture. Trainspotting isn't exactly a documentary but it's a culturally appropriate portrait of how things were.
This is gradually changing as the country acquires 21st century industries (satellites, biosciences, video games, banking), but that on its own doesn't do a lot for the old drunks.
Just a note... Trainspotting was set mostly in Edinburgh, not Glasgow. Glasgow is worse off - it's a larger city that historically had a larger reliance on industry.
Rough stats... Glawgow's life expectancy is one of the lowest in the UK and lower than Edinburgh by 2+ years for both men and women. Its employment rate is nearly 10% lower than Edinburgh.
For Americans: comparing Glasgow to Edinburgh is a bit like Baltimore vs Washington DC. Not a perfect comparison, but close enough to get the general idea.
I am not emphasising the economic causes. I am saying precisely the opposite: this is a public health issue being solved by a civil servant like it is a problem in an economics textbook.
And yes, the issue is cultural. But that doesn't really matter either way (and if the issue is cultural then you can't solve it by increasing costs any way...you are just taxing people who have a problem).
Fair enough, I see that now on a re-read. Sorry for mischaracterizing your position.
But I still think taxing a thing, especially in this particular way where the policy is very clearly saying "we want to address this particular behavior" is a way for a society to indicate that it wishes to change. Stigma can be very powerful and useful for changing behavior and, through attrition, culture. Though obviously it can go overboard.
At that point would it be reasonable for Scotland, as a society, to decide to put its thumb in the scale through a measure like the one discussed in the article to try to reduce the harm?
Note: I've never been to Scotland, don't know any Scottish people, and certainly don't have my finger on the beating pulse of Scottish culture, so the above is purely a hypothetical! I'm just always curious to see how people who emphasize the economic causes of problems think about possible non-economic factors.