One of the most common arguments I read against the government control and regulation of the currently illegal drug markets is that we have so many problems with alcohol. Were cannabis for instance to be “legalised”, authors presume its use will increase and create new social problems to rival those that alcohol inflicts.The simple counter-argument employed by myself and other drug policy reformers is that alcohol is a very poorly regulated drug. Were any of the other currently illegal drugs to become regulated by the state, the alcohol model is one model it would be extremely unwise to replicate. Alcohol is aggressively marketed, education on its potential for harm is insufficient, it is available at prices as low as 12p per unit, and it is far too easy for children to get hold of.It is therefore very heartening to read of David Cameron’s apparent enthusiasm for a minimum price per unit of alcohol. This is a measure that the SNP government in Scotland have been trying to pass into law for some time, and that received the backing of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at our autumn conference. It is also supported widely within the healthcare and criminal justice professions, who recognise the potential for the burden of work that alcohol creates for them to be reduced.
There are serious concerns however that minimum pricing will impact upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society to a far greater extent than the rest, while lining the pockets of producers and retailers rather than raise much-needed tax revenues.
These concerns may well be unfounded. For example, in a 2 week 2009 Living Cost and Food survey only 29% of the household decile with the lowest expenditure spent money on alcohol, while 83% of the top decile did so. Likelihood of alcohol purchasing rose fairly steadily as you progress through the deciles. Alcohol is not a daily staple for the poorest in society. It is a luxury that the majority already sensibly choose to do without. Indeed the IFS regard minimum pricing as broadly progressive in its impact as a result.
If you factor in the likely behaviour changes of retailers in response to the measure, it’s quite possible the poorest who don’t drink will benefit even more. With the removal of discounting alcohol as a means of attracting customers into supermarkets, it is very likely that the supermarket price wars – that were thought to be partly responsible for November’s fall in inflation – will need to be entirely waged in the pricing of non-alcoholic beverages and groceries. Researchers project that those who drink moderately or not at all will see their grocery bills fall as a result of a minimum price for alcohol being set: “moderate drinkers should no longer be effectively subsidising the alcohol purchased by the harmful and hazardous group.”
On the issue of taxation versus minimum pricing, if minimum pricing is the most effective way of saving costs to government through policing or health expenditure then that is the route we should take. I’d take £1Bn in costs prevented over £1Bn in revenue gained if those prevented costs are for the resolution of criminal proceedings or traumatic injury or illness.
What is most important in this endeavour though is the impact the measure will have on the most vulnerable in our society. For those existing impoverished alcoholics who might see the cost of servicing their addiction double or treble, it is absolutely essential that we couple minimum pricing with effective investment in outreach and treatment services in order that their life doesn’t suddenly become an intolerable struggle. The short term pain of these individuals should hopefully be worth it for the number of people minimum pricing prevents from following them into addiction.
Perhaps the single most important effect of this policy will be on our children. There is a very strong correlation between the amount of money 15-16 year-olds have to spend each week and the amount they drink and the risks they take. Making the drinks they drink more expensive (and under-age drinkers share the “the cheaper the better” instincts of alcoholics) should significantly affect the incidence of dangerous drinking and offending by teenagers, and so impact upon the likelihood of them making a success of their lives.
One problem minimum pricing might struggle to overcome is European competition law, and it is here where the UK government has to take a principled stand. Dangerous drugs should not be regulated according to the standards of free market capitalism. Where strong scientific evidence suggests a nation’s citizens can be better protected from the harms of an addictive drug, that nation should have the right to take whatever measures the evidence indicates. Once this principle is established, we can kick on and challenge the drug conventions that restrict our ability to protect our citizens from the currently illegal drugs.
Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol have had it too easy for too long. We’ve taken great strides in protecting our citizens from Big Tobacco. Minimum pricing could start to turn the tide against Big Alcohol. Once we demonstrate that the harms caused by legal drugs can be effectively diminished through evidence-based policy, we can then take the fight to the criminals and terrorists of Big Illegal Drugs. It is a fact the government urgently needs to confront that we can only ever win the “War on Drugs” if they are legal. Only then can the policies of government have a significant moderating impact upon the market.
* Ewan Hoyle is a West Scotland list candidate for the Scottish Parliament election next May
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Roland
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
61 Comments
I think with education we can do a lot as well as advertising laws etc. However, when it comes down to it I dont see how a policy that will only effect the poor can truly work or be fair. Yes, there are facts that the wealthier may not have the same issues but thats not the point. The point is the principle that you’re making it harder for a poorer alcoholic to purchase alcohol whereas a rich alcoholic can continue as they wish. We need money invested in the help needed for alcoholism and to ensure there are projects to support and look out for youths especially with alcohol problems. I seriously dont think nannying the public on this will really help at all.
Excellent article Ewan.
I know this will be attacked by those who think they are defending freedom from the Nanny State.
However when people are addicted to certain substances then they cannot make the choices they want to make because of their addiction. Once you are addicted to something then that, rather then the state, diminishes your freedom.
In answer to Joshua, the price of something depends normally on supply and demand and there are many things that the poor cannot afford as a result. The poor cannot afford to buy lobster for example, but that in itself is not an argument in favour of subsidising the price of lobster. There are other products that the poor can eat instead and that is dictated by market forces, which in itself is arbitrary in determining what people can afford. There is a separate issue here that the government does need to make sure that benefit claimants can afford a healthy diet and there are concerns that food prices are going up more than inflation and benefits are not keeping up.
The net impact in increasing prices for alcoholic drinks is one that benefits everyone because as the research shows it reduces the amount of alcoholism in our society.
I only want to quote a liberal hero of mine. David Laws.
If freedom means anything it must surely include the freedom to engage in activities which others may consider unwise. This includes smoking, overeating, not exercising, driving “off road” cars in cities, even winning goldfish. A Liberal society is one where people should be free to make their own mistakes
I don’t think it is a liberal society where on a large scale people suffer the consequences of becoming gamblers, obese, alcoholic and want to give up but can’t because of their addictions.
Liberalism should be about choice, but addictions take away choice.
Alcohol is made by consenting adults, bought by consenting adults and drunk by consenting adults. If you wake up in the morning with the goal of inserting yourself into that situation and then you are the one with a problem. The most harmful addiction in the UK is politicians adddicted to telling people what to do.
I’ve never understood how people equate and increase in price to being “told what to do”.
I expect that most of us enjoy moderately priced alcohol and won’t even be affected by it. According to the evidence Ewan. presented in the article, the main group hit will be alcoholics and those buying on a pocket money budget.
I wish people would save OTT. “assault on our freedoms” rhetoric for the real deal…
It is just a pity the LibDems could not find it within themselves to vote with the SNP last time this was proposed in the Scottish Parliament rather than following on like sheep and voting against, a fat lot of good their opposing for opposing sake done them,maybe the have learnt a lesson
Moderate drinkers who bulk-buy alcohol when it’s reduced in price will suffer. I can accept the argument that health costs, in a system of aggregated social insurance, should be covered by taxation on alcohol. Though this is certainly a subsidisation by drinkers who do not drink to a health-damaging level, there is some level of uncertainty as to which drinkers will suffer ill-effects in their health. However, the argument for policing is more spurious. While drinking is used as an excuse for much terrible behaviour, the vast majority who consume alcohol, even in what would be considered large amounts do not act in a way which requires the attention of the police. This is not internalising an externality. It’s sending the bill to a group of people who share the same habit for a minority’s actions. Most drinkers should have no more responsibility for those who need policing than a teetotaller does.
I fear that we’re looking at the best way for government to cover its costs in areas like policing (without levying them on the individuals who need policing) and not at which is the best option to take as maximises choice: both for individuals and for enterprises. In terms of the prices which supermarkets choose to sell their goods at, I resent much intervention. Supermarkets reduce prices on alcohol in competition with each other because it drives sales, because people choose to purchase. If driving down prices in non-alcoholic products is what consumers want, isn’t it what supermarkets will do? I don’t think most need a centralised instruction into how to profit and compete with one another.
As for individuals: the move towards minimum pricing punishes two groups. People who purchase cheap alcohol but do not behave in the manner which others who purchase the same do, and people who bulk-buy alcohol. We shouldn’t regard cheap alcohols as a universal ill. People who buy cheap alcohol are not a hazardous group, they simply happen to contain individuals who are. This measure will affect them all, and I think Cameron’s ‘nudging’ of behaviour is something we should be against. We’re in danger of pooling people into groups based on shared purchases, rather than seeing them as individuals. In this case, also in danger of falling into the belief that alcohol is a cause of poor behaviour, rather than a cultural excuse.
As for the point about young drinkers, doesn’t that show what I’m getting at? The amount they spend on alcohol relates closely to the amount of money they have to spend, meaning this move would only affect those who have less to spend. Affluent teens won’t have their behaviour nudged. It might reduce the amount of drinking by teenagers, but only those with parents in certain income brackets.
I take your point about alcoholics, that is an issue which needs close attention. This is the best piece I’ve seen in support of MAP, by the way.
Minimum pricing seems more sensible than rises in duty, which never seem to provoke such vocal reactions:
“General price increases were effective for reduction of consumption, health-care costs, and health-related quality of life losses in all population subgroups. Minimum pricing policies can maintain this level of effectiveness for harmful drinkers while reducing effects on consumer spending for moderate drinkers.”
And as ever, I hope those who consider minimum pricing an unwarranted attack on our liberties find the total prohibition of many other drugs – some less harmful to individuals and society than alcohol – even more repellant.
Will the last liberal leaving the LibDems turn out the lights.
Alcohol is a drug that has a whole slew of negative externalities for society. It is right that the government takes efforts to ameliorate the worst of these problems, and ensure that those who consume alcohol contribute towards the cost it produces.
Of the ways of doing this we already have very high duty. Raising general taxes further will just punish moderate and responsible drinkers and do too little to counter the most damaging impacts of alcohol.
Minimum pricing will do this quite effectively. It will raise the price of the cheapest alcohol without affecting the drinking and prices faced by the responsible majority. As long as the minimum price is set at a reasonable level it will only affect those places where sellers are deliberately cutting prices as far as possible for the purpose of getting those drinkers who are not looking for a decent drink but only looking at getting as drunk as possible. These drinkers produce a vastly disproportionate amount of the damage and cost that comes with drinking. As well as fueling addiction and homelessness.
Minimum pricing will stop retailers directly targeting these people in this way. In doing so it can dramatically cut down on the most problem drinkers and drinking without affecting the price of a drink the ordinary majority for whom alcohol is not a major problem. It is as good a policy as we can get, and far more targeted than just raising duty. It will also tip the balance from mass supermarket drinking towards social pub or drinking, and away from those clubs offering cut-price drinks to people just intending to get as drunk as possible on our high streets.
It’s a win, win. The SNP were right to pursue it in Scotland and the government is right to pursue it here. It is a sensible and proportionate way to regulate a substance that can be dangerous if abused without resorting to crude tax increases or prohibition. Those who support a sensible, liberal approach to the regulation of drugs should support this move. It is a blow to all those who suggest the choice with drugs is either libertarian anarchy or outright prohibition.
Stephen, you are pushing the false dichotomy that cheap alcohol = irresponsible drinkers, while moderately priced alcohol = responsible drinkers. If I choose to spend the part of my salary that I can afford on cheap alcohol, but drink responsibly, how dare I be punished for the actions of another who uses the alcohol for a completely different sort of drinking?
@Guido/Paul you wouldn’t know a Liberal if one slapped you in the face (if only). This is about balancing the liberty of the individual against the liberty of the majority. Personally I come down in the case on the liberty of the individual as I see minimum pricing as illiberal and ineffective.
Liberalism is about the choice, even the choice of those people who want to waste their life. It’s good if then they would come back and throw their addictions away, but for this reason there are appropriate locals. Intervening in individual choices isn’t liberal at all, it’s a procedure of a nanny state and it’s an unjustifiable distortion of markets.
Banning the free exchange of alcohol for money at certain prices is telling people what to do. A third entity such as the state simply does not belong in that situation.
Collective punishment of a group of people in advance of any crime is never legitimate. When a small minority of that group break a law then you punish them and them only.
This story about UK alcohol culture is interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317
Sorry, first part of previous post is @Daniel Henry
Sorry, I disagree with you Ewan. I don’t think the evidence is there. We are irrational beings capable of something resembling rational thought.
I don’t think it will help with alcohol abuse. I honestly think it will only affect those who choose to cope with the amount of drink before they go out for the night or those who allocate a certain amount in their monthly budget for alcohol. Or those who can manage their irrational behaviours that we all have towards drink.
I personally don’t drink and there a few reasons why:
1) I don’t want to end up like my mother
2) I don’t like the taste of alcohol
3) I don’t want to find alcohol that I like because I doubt I’ll be able to moderate it. My irrational decision making will take over. I have a hard enough time moderating my irrationalities towards food and non-alcoholic beverages that I don’t want to add a beverage that is far more dangerous to my health. In fact not wanting to find alcohol that I like is probably a contributing factor in to why I don’t like the taste.
It is my choice to avoid alcohol. I don’t want to impose that on everyone. The reason why people are proposing this policy is because this is a problem. It is damaging to the individual’s health but to societies health. Alcohol abuse including binge drinking causes harm in drink driving, poor judgement because of drinking causing people to perhaps not just harm themselves but others.
Other people have mentioned crimes due to alcohol abuse and not to mention the number of hospital admissions because of alcohol abuse.
It is my opinion, that minimum pricing will penalise those who are capable of moderating their behaviour. It will do very little else. We need different approaches, preferably ones that have a chance of working.
The ignorant answer of “we can’t do that, that’s illiberal” complete ignores that people are DYING, and if we fail to act then they will continue to. Now, if you want to argue it won’t work then that’s a different story, but all the medical expertise says that it will, and it certainly won’t do any harm. We have to try something.
“On the issue of taxation versus minimum pricing, if minimum pricing is the most effective way of saving costs to government through policing or health expenditure then that is the route we should take.”
Excuse me, where is it explained WHY minimum pricing is the most effective way of doing this?
I’m mainly against minimum pricing as I can’t see why this is going to work – plus why, if we must do it don’t we follow the model that seems to be working for smoking – cutting down on where it is sold and taxing it out of existence?
Callum, i think all the people who are saying its illiberal are more libertarian than liberals.
John Susrt Mill explained 150 years ago why these taxes are illiberal ” “Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means to not come up to the augmented price”,….. “To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition, and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable.”
No, it isn’t a nominalist question. If the State introduces minimum pricing, it justifies this action with the argument of prevention something bad (diseases, crimes and the like). But these bad things are of two kinds: a) caused by individual choices (like diseases); b) causes of illegal actions already considered illegal (like crimes). Now, for the first kind I think that it’s one of the most prominent liberal issue to safeguard individual choices (and if anyone doesn’t think so, well, let’s see the counter-argument); for the second there is already a legislation about and it regards law and order problems, so if there is a problem there, also the solution is there (and not in economic sectors).
So I totally agree with Simon and obviously John Stuart Mill ;).
The ignorant answer of “we can’t do that, that’s illiberal” complete ignores that people are DYING, and if we fail to act then they will continue to.”
We could massively reduce road deaths by outlawing private ownership of cars. I look forward to you advocating such a policy.
No, I do not think it is the duty of the state to prevent the working class man from drinking cheaply. Nanny state alarm.
Simon, minimum pricing isn’t a tax because the Treasury doesn’t get the money although the state is interfering in the price.
I would also say that our understanding of the way we decide what to buy has moved on considerably in recent years that I don’t think that the argument “every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means to not come up to the augmented price”
That being said, i don’t think the state should be saying what anything is worth.
We, as human beings we are notably incredibly bad at defining worth. Every price is an arbitrary number, we base whether we would buy it at the price based on the price of something similar elsewhere.
Bertie: diseases aren’t individual choices. Nobody chooses to get a disease. Individual choices may lead to it but there are alcoholics without liver disease and there are alcoholics with liver disease (or other diseases) so to say its individual choice is misleading also there are plenty of diseases that aren’t caused by “lifestyle choices” including heart disease, some liver disease, cancer, malaria. Again to say its down to individual choices is misleading.
Don’t we as a society have a duty to protect people from crimes. if people commit crimes under the influence don’t we have a duty to prevent those people from committing a crime when they are at their least rational and ruining their life with a jail sentence.
Oh dear, oh dear.
There are clearly many in the party who do not react to the classical liberal argument against the introduction of minimum pricing, but I wonder if many have thought through the effect this would have on family finances. The simple bottom line is that by introducing minimum pricing, cheap alcohol will go from being a loss-leader to a cash-cow for the supermarkets. This would mean that more cash from nearly a third of households in the bottom decile (your figures) and much more from households slightly above that group will flow in to Tesco’s coffers. For those households where drink is a problem this will not mean a reduction in spending on alcohol, it will mean a reduction on spending on other items – including spending on the kids. How do you justify this?
To call this policy ‘evidence-based’ surely is a joke. Alcohol is more expensive across most of the rest of northern europe, but price rises have been shown to have done little to stop the problem drinking which is evident across the region. Meanwhile, you can only suppose that minimum pricing will make other foods cheaper, whilst fitting in a ridiculous call that ‘something must be done for the children’. Here’s an idea, if parents are giving their 15-16 year olds so much money that they can get drunk, parents should give their kids less money, although I don’t believe that getting drunk at 15 has prevented many people from ‘making a success of their lives’.
To cast aside liberalism is bad enough, to do so in a way that will make the rich richer and the poor poorer is worse, to do so without evidence really is unforgivable. Furthermore, this stance is at odds with our sensible, liberal and evidence-based policies on illegal drugs.
Personally, I choose to drink on a reasonably regular basis and occasionally to excess. Since my tastes and wallet stretch to what might be called ‘the good stuff’, I am unlikely to be affected by minimum pricing though. That is, unless supermarkets decide that their increased profits on the previously cheap stuff justify stocking more of it at the expense of the better stuff. In which case, we all lose.
James Blanchard – excellent case. I think you should turn it into a “right to reply” piece against this nonsense policy. I’m not as attached to the liberal argument as some on this thread, tho I do see it, but I still repeat these two questions from the pragmatic standpoint:
1. Where has it been proven to work?
2. Why isn’t tax better than minimum pricing?
@Callum “People DYING”
If you wait long enough the survival rate for human beings is 0 percent, anyway. It’s not for you to decide how they are allowed to go. People know it’s unhealthy but the don’t care.
@Nicola “I think people who are saying it is illiberal are more libertarian than liberal.”
I tend to avoid what I call Dungeons & Dragons politics* but this time I am tempted to ask anyone who wants to answer, that if liberal means hiding the key to the drinks cabinet then what is the difference between the statist and liberal approach?
*by this I mean analysing problems and solutions not in terms of right and wrong, effective and ineffective but in terms of what we should believe as liberals, conservatives, socialists, greens or libertarians, similar to players in a role-playing game trying to work out “what would a Hobgoblin do in this situation”. This kind of thinking seems to be rampant in the other parties.
I’ve yet to see evidence showing that minimum pricing actually changes behaviour of those who consume the so-called problem drinks associated with binge culture. These people don’t drink supermarket brand cider because it’s cheap; they drink it because it’s the cheapest. If you hike the price they’re still going to drink it (or other drinks) in dangerous quantities. The only difference is they’re going to pay more for it, forfeiting other important things, like food, paying the electricity bill and more. If they have dependents, it’s them who will suffer.
Minimum pricing has no effect on most “middle-class” drinks which are often consumed in high quantities and still contribute to alcohol-related problems. Those who argue that minimum pricing will reduce consumption are making two mistakes. Firstly they’re creating a stereotype of what a problem drinker is (i.e. poor). Those who will suffer most are rational moderate low-earning drinkers. Their largely harmless lifestyle choice is effectively being subjected to an alcohol levy, only it all gets kept by the supermarkets selling them booze, who in turn will find ways to sustain demand by putting on mixed food-alcohol deals or will (very marginally) drop the prices of other products.
Secondly they’re trying to attach rational behaviour to a distinctly irrational drinking culture and a distinctly irrational mindset of someone who is alcohol dependent. They don’t drink cheap booze because it’s cheap. They drink cheap booze because it’s the cheapest.
It is of little consequence to them what it is: the objective is to get drunk. They don’t think “how drunk can I get for £x”; they think “I want to get drunk. How can I do this most cheaply?”. Indeed sometimes they don’t even ask “how can I do this most cheaply”. Those who “pre-bev” on cheap drinks all too often go on to drink at licensed premises, buying alcohol well above any proposed minimum price per unit. Price isn’t the dominant factor in the consumption of drink.
We need to accept that it’s an attitude problem. Countries with similar alcohol availability on the continent don’t have nearly the same problems. They have a different drinking culture and they have better treatment. The answer is better alcohol awareness initiatives, better enforcement of existing licensing laws and possibly another look at the tax system and the way alcohol duty operates. I’m no fan of taxes, but at least if your price mechanism response is tax-based you’re bringing in money to fund treatment and prevention initiatives instead of giving Tesco a nice wee windfall from the booze aisle.
All of this largely ignores the philosophical arguments about government moralising and the principle of bodily autonomy, which whilst equally applicable to other drugs like cannabis aren’t very popular in the external debate, where we need to change minds of social conservatives. Yes we absolutely need an evidence based policy; but evidence of a general drop in consumption of alcohol isn’t evidence of reducing an alcohol problem. There’s a lot of alcohol consumption that does no damage to society whatsoever, provides a lot of pleasure to many, and which is responsible for a lot of jobs in local communities, from the distilleries of Speyside to the ale breweries on the Tyne. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater and be clear about what the problem actually is, and what the evidence actually suggests particular policy proposals will have *on the problem* rather than the general phenomenon of alcohol consumption.
@Louise Thanks- who do I contact?
>There is a very strong correlation between the amount of money 15-16 year-olds have to spend each week and the amount they drink and the risks they take.
When did it become legal for 15-year-olds to buy alcohol? Instead of raising prices for everyone, how about enforcing the laws we already have?
The problem in Britain isn’t price: it’s the culture that somehow downing copious quantities of alcohol is big and clever. Bit of education at an early age might be a better approach: something like the Wings to Fly drugs prevention play performed in junior schools by older children in South Wales, perhaps.
Its perfectly reasonable to be a liberal and believe that markets need rules to avoid them being distorted. The market for beer is being distorted by the big 5 selling beer as a loss leader. Cases of beer are being sold at a £10 loss – that is about £2000 on a typical pallet of beer. Off licences, pubs and clubs can’t compete with that – big brewers are shifting capacity from the on trade to the off trade and off licences and pubs in particular are closing. You can make minimum pricing about whatever you want, protecting the pubs as community centres, reducing binge drinking and its associated costs, even heading off a future where with the competition and consumer choice severely shrunken, supermarkets are able to make huge profits on beer. For me this is not about a nanny state, this is about curbing the destructive power of the supermarkets to annihilate other markets at will and then whack prices up later.
Well we must do something. And this is something therefore we must do it.
Seems a fair summary of the argument. These days of course you must quote some research (there always is some) that says that it might work a bit and the unintended negative consequences probably won’t be too bad, and so on.
I don’t know how many people here have ever been poor, ever struggled to find the money for a bit of one of life’s few pleasures. It is bad enough without also being regarded as a problem drinker, purely on the basis of your income level, and targetted by a punitive policy “for your own good”. It stinks to high heaven.
This measure does not target problem drinkers it targets poor drinkers. It is bigotry with a smile.
I thought that was a really unfair summary Joe.
Ewan laid out several arguments and you’ve not addressed any of them.
An excellent article Ewan, with which I whole heartedly agree. You write so well on this topic – I hope we’ll all benefit from you being an MP and in government some day.
For those who are claiming that a minimum price on alcohol would be an infringement on individual freedoms I make two points:
1) Increasing the price of something by internalising the external costs is not a ban on someone doing something – instead it’s a logical, economically liberal thing to do.
2) Liberalism would ask that we balance the rights of individuals to do as they wish with the harms imposed upon others by such choices – financially on a frequent basis, socially and occasionally physically, problem drinkers and those that abuse cheap alcohol impose costs and harms on the rest of society.
I’m all in favour of evidence based policy making. But my criticism of this is that there is precious little evidence presented to support the case.
Which of his premises do you reject?
If you specify which claims you suspect he lacks evidence, perhaps he can provide his sources.
Andrew,
The implication being that the tax imposed actually does fall on the individuals imposing the external costs. In some situations, these hypothecated taxes work quite well. For example, if you use a duty on fuel to raise money for road maintenance, you are broadly placing the charge on people who use the roads. Even more so in the case of using such a duty to deliver action intended to combat climate change, because the amount of fuel used increases the environmental damage.
However, in the case of drinking, it’s much shakier. As I’ve said, I’m willing to accept some of the argument as to the cost of treating alcohol-related diseases, even though it penalises those who drink a healthy amount, because there is a relative uncertainty as to who suffers from alcohol-related illness.
In the case of other costs that the government wishes to bring to bear on consumers of alcohol, like policing, the case gets even worse. The vast majority of people do not deserve to be burdened with such a cost proportionately to how much they consume, rather than their earnings, because they have no more responsibility for the requirement to police such people than anyone who doesn’t drink. Simply for the fact that I share a habit with someone who levies a financial cost on the state, am I to pay for their actions? Alcohol does not cause people to require policing, the way in which they behave does. For which I am no more responsible than anyone else.
We’re not just asking ‘problem drinkers’ to pay, we’re asking everyone who drinks to pay. In this case, even worse than a progressively increased % tax on alcohol, we’re asking only those who can afford to least to pay, who are most frugal with their purchases.
Want an evidence-based policy on alcohol? As Graeme says, look at other countries, and the way their citizens behave when inebriated. Alcohol is not to blame for all social costs which are popularly associated with it.
Minimum pricing contradicts the evidence (countries such as France have far cheaper wine and far fewer alcohol related problems) and contradicts fairness (why should the costs be forced disproportionately on to those least able to pay?).
At least with taxatation the cost to the health service is (on average) proportional to the volume consumed by the individual, which is in turn proportional to the tax. With minimum pricing, the cost is regressive in the strict economic definition – those on the lowest incomes are disproportionately punished- the majority of whom will be responsible drinkers who in no way deserve to be punished by such ill-founded nonsense.
This just smacks of blaming the poor for the ills of society. It is bullying. It is as far from evidence, fairness and liberalism as any policy can get.
Daniel, er Ewan laid out a lot of speculation.
…concerns “may well” be unfounded…
…”quite possible” the poorest who don’t drink will benefit…
…”likely” behaviour changes of retailers…
…”if” minimum pricing is the most effective way… (where is the argument that it is?)
…short term pain of these individuals “should hopefully” be worth it …
I can see the good intentions. But good intentions alone are never enough. I have no argument against Ewan’s hope that MAP would work. But if he would give us some of the reasons he thinks it would actually work, then we would have something to talk about.
Perhaps the most damning is this:
“For those existing impoverished alcoholics who might see the cost of servicing their addiction double or treble, it is absolutely essential that we couple minimum pricing with effective investment in outreach and treatment services in order that their life doesn’t suddenly become an intolerable struggle.”
I.e. MAP will not work, but we must pretend as we introduce it that previously ineffective outreach and treatment will suddenly and magically become effective. Because something has to be done about alcoholism, while we’re busy demonising the poor.
Unfair? Possibly. I’m not poor any longer, I’m glad to say. But when patronising and infantilising the poor is proposed as a policy solution I still take it a little personally. Start a conversation by insulting someone if you must but don’t expect them to be fair.
Here’s a policy objective for you to ponder: To maintain alcohol as a cost-effective alternative to illegal drugs.
It probably will work as suggested by the quote to conclude this factsheet (factsheet itself is worth a read):
‘There is ample evidence that at the population level, alcohol consumption is
responsive to price…many studies have concluded that heavier drinkers are more
responsive to price than non-heavy drinkers. Other studies indicate that there is an
inter-relation between price and income, with young males on lower incomes being
more susceptible to price elasticity than those on higher incomes. However there
are still considerable gaps in the evidence….’
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/tax.pdf
There are only so many gaps you can fill without actually trying out a policy and seeing if it works. If the vast majority of the available evidence points to a policy being effective in achieving its stated goals then there comes a point where it is irresponsible to wait longer in the hope of more evidence being provided.
If there is evidence that minimum pricing won’t work then please do link to it. The more evidence the better in helping people come to a sensible conclusion that isn’t guided solely by ideology, whether penned by Mill, Laws or others.
I’ll write more in the morning.
@Daniel Henry
When I was younger I used to drink to excess most days of the week. Now I don’t so often because I don’t want to. The most wonderful thing about being a human being, rather than a machine or an animal, is that we have the ability to look at ourselves and decide to make changes. The premise of Ewan’s that I disagree with is his unstated premise that there is in fact no difference between human beings and animals, and therefore they need rational masters, such as Ewan Hoyle, to decide for them. This ignores, of course, that for politicians, moving the boundary between the public and personal is itself an addictive behaviour and last year’s dose is never strong enough for this year.
“James Blanchard
Posted 30th December 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
@Louise Thanks- who do I contact?”
You can contact LDV at the ‘write for us’ tab at the top of the page.
@Ewan
The ‘factsheet’ you provided is from a lobbying group, ‘the Institute of Alcohol Studies’ and only provides one actual reference to a peer-reviewed study, which is about the effects of decreasing the tax rate on alcohol in Finland in 2004 (claiming the decrease in taxation led to a <10% increase in sudden, alcohol-related mortalitity). That study was not about the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing. As such, you have provided NO evidence of anything.
Can you please explain why you think that hitting people on low incomes is (a) justified in the moral sense or (b) can be justified, in the absence of evidence, by a rational argument that links poverty with alcohol abuse (Presumably, you think there is a link between poverty and alcohol abuse – hence the reason why you wish to target this particular group.)?
How many deaths will result from the increased demand for bootleg alcohol? What will be the size of the increase in the black market for alcohol and what will be the loss to the exchequer in tax revenue? How many shopkeepers will lose their livelihoods to the black market? How much will the size of the black market for controlled drugs increase as the result of minimum pricing and what will be the health effects of the poor turning to cheaper, illegal drugs?
This is what happens when the poor can't buy well-regulated, sensibly-priced, legal alcohol:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/8957675/Bootleg-liquor-kills-more-than-100-in-India.html
Do you really care for the poor?
This is the evidence that the policy works.
The link opens a PDF file.
http://www.carbc.ca/Portals/0/PropertyAgent/2111/Files/385/CARBC_Bulletin7.pdf
I think the argument that the policy is “collective punishment” is ridiculous. You could argue that by not implementing the policy that is also collective punishment, because it is the taxpayer who has to pay the costs of binge drinking on the NHS and the police. In fact as taxpayers we have to pay for a police force even if we are law abiding citizens and have not needed to contact them on a personal basis. We agree to pay for them to mitigate the impact of a minority of people who break the law. If they didn’t break the law we wouldn’t have to pay so much for them.
There are alcoholic drinks that are too expensive for most people to buy but noone claims that the the effects of market forces and supply and demand are punishing people because this is the case. I remember a time when wine was too expensive for most people but the was nothing to do with the government. I don’t see why people should take it for granted that they have a right to always be able to afford alcoholic drinks.
I am only interested in the evidence. If the evidence shows the policy works as intended then it should be implemented. Otherwise it should not. The evidence so far suggests this is a good policy that works.
I think this should be seen as one weapon in the armoury.
Some of the others have been allowed to atropy over the years. I like beer (both lager and bitter), but I don’t like to consume too much alcohol at a time. Continental countries, especially the Czech Republic, have ready availability of palatable <1% alcohol beers (some on the English market are disgusting). In England we used to have low alcohol bitters (Lowes was one) but now these are unobtainable. The emphasis is on marketing stronger beers. We've lost choice here.
Marketing of alcopops and acceptance of a lad/ladette culture of excessive drinking were massive steps backward. We neededucation, propaganda and other efforts to counter these.
As for Scotland, should we now expect booze cruises from Cairnryan to Larne or Dunbar to Berwick?
Andrew Lansley is not well informed:
‘….My problem with a minimum price, well I have two problems. One is it’s regressive, so there are perfectly normal families who just don’t happen to have much money who like to buy cheap beer or cheap wine. Should they be prevented? No, I don’t think so and if you put in a minimum price, one of the journalists calculated that if you set it at 50p a unit it would add £600 million to the profits of retailers and drinks manufacturers which doesn’t seem to me to be the right thing to do in these circumstances.’
It is not regressive. The IFS calculate a rice in the price of alcohol is in fact broadly progressive:
“Given that worse-off households
are less likely to buy alcohol, it is not surprising that the impact of the
price rise across all households looks, if anything, broadly progressive.”
Also the large amount of money thought likely to be transferred from consumers to producers and retailers is likely to be much diminished as consumers reject the poor quality alcohol that would be highly profitable. No one will continue to buy white ciders for their flavour after they triple in price. When supermarkets are having price wars which are thought to contribute to dips in inflation, the “profits” are instead likely to be passed on to the consumer in the form of cheaper groceries.
It is estimated that 25% of the adult population drink to harmful or hazardous levels. If overall food and drink spend reduces for the other 75% as a result of this measure then it is a progressive, relatively well targeted measure that should have its desired effect in reducing harmful and hazardous drinking.
Off-sales alcohol has become an awful lot cheaper in the last 50 years, and use has soared in the same time period. While average regular drinkers might not incur costs to society through criminal behaviour or illness, their level of productivity and number of sick days are likely to be damaging to the economy.
@Richard: Heroin and guns have the same relationship to consenting adults as you describe for alcohol. Just as guns create harm, alcohol contributes to an enormous amount of violence in our society. This measure targets domestic violence especially, and is enthusiastically supported by the police as a result. It also targets the public drinking of youths and associated antisocial behaviours, which is a major source of fear for many of this nation’s citizens.
@Mike: Young drinkers, even those who are at the wealthier end of the scale, are still much poorer than the average adult, and likelier to drink cheap alcohol. Their behaviour will be affected by this measure.
If you drink moderately, as I state in the piece, the extra cost of your alcohol will likely be offset by lower prices for the other items in your shopping basket. If higher costs do cause you to drink less, you might even be happier and more productive. I know I’m less productive the next day even after drinking moderately the night before.
This measure isn’t removing people’s freedom to drink alcohol. It is encouraging them to drink less of it. It will only negatively affect those who drink more than is healthy. They will enjoy the freedom that greater sobriety and a clearer head in the morning brings. The rest of us will enjoy the greater freedom from domestic violence, vandalism, litter in the form of vomit, employees letting you down by phoning in sick, freedom from injurious and fatal alcohol-induced accidents, the freedoms that lower taxes or better services bring as money isn’t spent on policing or medical or psychiatric care. There are a great many freedoms in this world that could be enhanced by this measure that are far more important than the freedom to drink cheap booze. I will support any government that prioritises freedoms in an appropriate manner.
@Louise
A duty per unit would not target problem drinkers and teenagers as effectively as a minimum price. There is a case for say a 30p per unit duty that would increase the price of the cheapest drinks to the same level a minimum price does, but it is likely to be very politically unpopular. It would add around £5 to a bottle of spirits and 40p to a pint of beer in a pub.
@James
Cheap alcohol, far from being a cash cow for the supermarkets, will no longer exist. That is what minimum pricing means. White cider and own brand vodkas will cease to be economically viable. Customers purchasing at the minimum price will want value for money. This value will now have to come from flavour, not alcohol content. In a competitive market, any excess money that is gained from not loss-leading on booze and higher margins, will probably be directed into loss-leading on non addictive substances and lowering the prices of other items.
Getting drunk as a teenager has affected a great many people’s abilities to make a success of their lives. 76% of young offenders in Scotland admitted being drunk at the time of their offence. http://www.healthscotland.com/topics/health/alcohol/MinimumPricing.aspx
Add to that unplanned pregnancies, injury through accident and school work suffering and I think I’m on solid ground.
I have now provided some sources you may find interesting. I will forgive you if you don’t provide evidence to contradict them because I’m nice like that. The minimum pricing policy is consistent with my vision for the regulation of the currently illegal drugs and our drug policy, and I should know as I was the driving force behind it.
If supermarkets try to sell crap booze at the minimum price, their customers will vote with their feet. I’d advise you don’t submit an article to Lib Dem Voice until you’ve read more evidence and thought it through. Once you have done so, I will of course be interested in reading your thoughts.
@Graeme
Minimum pricing can change drinking culture by massively affecting the accessibility of drink at a young age and so encouraging teenagers to entertain themselves with other pursuits. I would obviously like the accessibility of other pursuits to increase at the same time. For those with already ingrained attitudes towards alcohol the effects will be slower, but I hope still significant. Alcohol minimum pricing should not be implemented in isolation. We do also need to employ more effective educational interventions, and the Strengthening Families Program shows a lot of promise in this: http://www.mystrongfamily.org/downloads/PDFs/alcohol-prevention-progs-parttwo.pdf
I recommend you read up on the price elasticity of alcohol consumption. I have to write a submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee on drug policy, so will try to disengage from this debate in the meantime. Sorry, would love to write more.
I’m afraid I disagree with you on this one Ewan. I’ve outlined my reasoning here:
http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-which-i-disagree-with-ewan-hoyle-on.html
Cheers,
Mark.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”
@Mike: Young drinkers, even those who are at the wealthier end of the scale, are still much poorer than the average adult, and likelier to drink cheap alcohol. Their behaviour will be affected by this measure.
If you drink moderately, as I state in the piece, the extra cost of your alcohol will likely be offset by lower prices for the other items in your shopping basket. If higher costs do cause you to drink less, you might even be happier and more productive. I know I’m less productive the next day even after drinking moderately the night before.
Of course they’re much poorer than the average adult, but how many responsibilities do they have? Are you honestly arguing that there’s not a relationship between parental income and the availability of moderately-priced alcohol to teens?
As I’ve said, I don’t think we need this sort of intervention. What if, for example, because of minimum pricing, some of the alcoholic drinks which are currently cheap are no longer produced and sold on to shops? That certainly seems like a likely outcome: why would someone buy something which has just been raised to the price of a better, more expensive drink? Then the supermarket is making no extra revenue with which to subsidise other products, which was always likely.
On the other hand, if the supermarket do wish to continue to stock the items which have now had their market price distorted, the producer will simply sell it to them for a higher price. Tesco makes the same profit as it previously did in such a case. What gets subsidised them?
This measure certainly is limiting people’s freedom to drink alcohol. If I raise the cost of something which someone enjoys, I am limiting their freedom. It’s not an encouragement to do anything, it’s a discouragement. They already have the freedom to enjoy a sober head in the morning. That’s their choice. If it’s now my only choice, how am I more free?
Vandalism, litter and domestic violence are not caused by alcohol. The implication being that if you simply drink enough alcohol you engage in such behaviours. It’s the demonisation of a substance that is used in the UK to justify a great many ills, but is responsible for none of them. What business it is of the government’s that people call in sick from over-drinking, unless the government is their employer, I have no idea. You’ve conceded yourself that in terms of the people most addicted to alcohol, all this will mean is a rapid expansion of the price of their addiction, which they’ll be forced to find a way to pay for.
And we won’t be free from any of it, of course, if the person engaging in the actions has enough money to avoid minimum pricing in the first place, will we? It’s a behavioural adjustment through government which is directed at only the worst off. No thanks. It seems the difference between you and I is that I want to let people ‘prioritise’ their own freedoms.
@Ewan
Thanks for taking the time to reply. A few points:
The argument that “poor people don’t drink as much anyway so if anything it looks progressive” is flawed on two levels. Firstly, it rests on the assumption that state interference (through tax) already putting alcohol beyond the reach of those on lower incomes isn’t itself regressive. Secondly the mere fact that the better off typically spend a higher proportion of income on alcohol doesn’t mean that the minimum price has any effect on the products they buy. Indeed you have to look beyond the veil of “who buys and consumes alcohol” and look more closely at “who buys and consumes dangerous amounts of alcohol”. Minimum pricing, when you look at the products it actually affects and those who buy them, isn’t a progressive policy. Indeed the very IFS premise of a price rise “across all households” is disingenuous. A MPPU only applies to households buying the cheapest of drink and they aren’t mid to high earners.
As for the economic viability of cheap booze with a minimum price, all it will serve to do is see people buy marginally “better” drinks, in marginally smaller but every bit as dangerous quantities. It’s little consolation to see someone kill themselves with 1L of Smirnoff instead of 2L of Tesco Value Vodka. A reduction in consumption of alcohol ≠ a reduction in dangerous levels of drinking. The correlation, if there is any, is at best weak and certainly not strong enough on its own to justify the nature of the intervention.
On the unpopularity of alcohol duty, there are ways of doing this. You don’t have to set the same duty on all products (see the disparity between cider and beers for example) and you could explore a form of “inverse” tax on retailers (rather than the producers) to disincentivise the selling of cheap booze. That way you either cause them to ratchet up the prices, or you at least raise more revenue from them to fund prevention and treatment mechanisms.
At the heart of the scepticism of the evidence spoken to MPPU isn’t a dispute that young people have too ready access to alcohol. Nor too is it even challenging the premise that a MPPU will reduce overall consumption of alcohol. Nor indeed is it arguing that price isn’t *a* factor in determining which and how much alcohol is purchased. What is being questioned is whether a MPPU actually changes the behaviour of those whose behaviour is undesirable or simply serves as a blunt instrument which either won’t change buying behaviour or else can only do so by hitting other responsible drinkers.
If young people have too ready access to alcohol the issue is enforcement of licensing laws and not how much it costs them. I’m sure you could run an evidence based study showing that fewer young people would drink alcohol if you imposed out of school hours curfews with armed guards on the streets and introduced the death penalty for those caught drinking illegally. It doesn’t mean it’s the most intelligent response or the one justified by the evidence.
Evidence based policy making doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Thanks for this article. I share your enthusiasm for policy based on evidence. This would be a welcome government resolution for 2012.
Others have pointed out a certain looseness in the writing (the “it’s quite possible”s and so on). This is a blog post, not a research paper, so I think we can be a bit more charitable given the time of year.
However, this piece does show the problems of working with numbers, both in terms of what is presented and the raw material itself. Particularly when you try to relate it to government action.
For example you mention that alcohol is “available at prices as low as 12p per unit”. That should raise more questions. Not not “where?” you thirsty lot. Rather, what percentage of total sales are at this outlying figure? Is there an incidence of areas or parts of the population that have greater access to “outlying” price alcohol? How does that map against a variety of offending patterns? And so on.
The study by “researchers” – they are both from the UK Alcohol Alliance- you link to is the most complete set of evidence you give us in the article. The link again:
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/minimum-pricing-paper.pdf
Even so something as potentially clear cut as a tracking of average trolly prices and percentages at mysupermarket.com show how slippery statistics can be. Tracking expenditure in 2008 is fluctuating. Of course- this is real life, the only truly anomalous result would have been precisely even distribution.
Quoting only one percentage only ever gives us a tiny snapshot, it is only a fragment of the evidence. If we look at the expenditure figures quoted for 2008 there is a scatter of results. The researchers give an average of 7.2% on alcohol per trolley throughout the year.
This is reached by adding all the year’s figures together and averaging them out. However, there is one result that is so obviously statistically unusual that it is surprising to me that they did not eliminate it. (I’ll come back to this). If you take the 2 results at the extremes out – 5.2% and 13.3% spend, well you get the slightly different figure of 6.7% average. So freaking what, I hear the doubters say.
The point is compare the 13.3% spend to the 6.7% number. This is the most dramatic difference in any of the literature you link to or quote. What could be causing this? This is the stuff of – binge drinking doubles shock- headlines in the Mail and the Express. Surely the only response can be to deal with such a spike must be to legislate.
The spike occurs in the month of December. I will leave Liberal Democrats to debate the right policy response to this threat to public health.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
@Mike
“Of course they’re much poorer than the average adult, but how many responsibilities do they have? Are you honestly arguing that there’s not a relationship between parental income and the availability of moderately-priced alcohol to teens?”
No.
You’ve rebutted the “more money to the supermarkets” argument quite well. But supermarkets also loss-lead on alcohol and need to recoup the money with higher prices for other items. Loss-leading would have to happen on other items as I’ve explained before.
You are focusing entirely on the freedom of the individual and neglecting the freedoms of other individuals who might suffer for the exercise of that individual’s freedoms. In restricting the freedom of the individual to consume alcohol, it’s quite likely we are also improving their welfare. Alcohol is not a nutrient essential for life, it is a depressant drug and a poison that gives temporary pleasure, but long term pain. By restricting people’s access to alcohol we are for the most part doing them a favour, and doing society a favour too. Yes it is a blunt instrument, and yes the wealthy will not be as affected, but poorer people already are less likely to purchase alcohol due to its cost, and more likely to die from excessive consumption. “People who live in the most deprived areas of Scotland are 5 times more likely to die an alcohol-related death than those in the least deprived areas.” http://www.healthscotland.com/topics/health/alcohol/MinimumPricing.aspx So are we trying to get poor people to drink less? Bluntly yes we are.
@Graeme
I don’t quite understand your argument that drinking less doesn’t necessarily mean less harm. On a population level of course it does.
I have provided links that answer your points I think.
I’d like to address something other posters seem to have skipped over when I’ve scanned the rest of the comments.
“For those existing impoverished alcoholics who might see the cost of servicing their addiction double or treble, it is absolutely essential that we couple minimum pricing with effective investment in outreach and treatment services in order that their life doesn’t suddenly become an intolerable struggle.”
I know an impoverished alcoholic, he’s my neighbour in the bock of flats I live in. I’d guess that Ewan, from the above, probably doesn’t. He had a stroke last year, that along with a few other bits I know about him make me strongly suspect that outreach and treatment services have already spoken to him. He still has a bottle of cider or a can with him and already resorts to stealing in order to ensure his addiction is met. One of his friends died recently from alcohol related disease, too.
You see, Ewan, you’re making the assumption that the alcoholic would love to stop drinking if only he or she had some support from the rest of us. I’m sorry, but that’s not what they always want to do, you know? How do you propose we solve this? If we force the alcoholic into treatment, how do we stop them going straight to the local off license to buy a bottle of cider when they get out? If we leave them be, are you going to be happy when they start commiting crimes to get their next fix or worse yet, die from withdrawal?
@callum Leslie oh Christ people are dying? Let’s ban alcohol. Whilst we are at it, let’s ban rock climbing, junk food and life (it has a 100% mortality rate)
It’s that kind of thinking that led to new Labours record on civil liberties.
It’s all very well to talk about “evidence-based policy”, and I’m sure we’re all agreed that it’s a good thing to take account of the evidence, but government isn’t an exercise in statistics. Evidence is only useful as a guide to how best to achieve an objective which is arrived at by other means – in other words, ideology.
It is my belief that if someone chooses to drink alcohol they are personally responsible for the consequences. I am not responsible for that choice (unless I am the person in question!), and neither is the government. That is what liberty means: an individual’s choices belong to that individual.
It is not, therefore, the government’s place to seek to stop its citizens from drinking alcohol, even to excess. It is legitimate to levy taxes to internalise externalities of doing so (i.e. cover the costs of increased demand on public services), but that is quite different to minimum pricing. (It is also important to note that once the cost is covered, it is covered: one cannot simply point to an externality and use it as an excuse to increase a tax which already exists to tackle it without considering whether it is already covered by that tax).
Addiction is a medical condition experienced by a minority and which therefore is not relevant to creating policy to affect everyone. In any case, even an addict is not under coercion, so drinking is still a choice – the condition merely makes the option much more attractive.
By all means apply evidence-based policymaking – but remember that its purpose is effective policy, not liberal policy. it can be used just as effectively to control and oppress as to liberate and empower. For liberal policy, we need to start from liberal ideology and then use the evidence to build a solid policy proposal.
@Andrew Tennant “1) Increasing the price of something by internalising the external costs is not a ban on someone doing something – instead it’s a logical, economically liberal thing to do.
@George Payne “I think the argument that the policy is “collective punishment” is ridiculous. You could argue that by not implementing the policy that is also collective punishment, because it is the taxpayer who has to pay the costs of binge drinking on the NHS and the police.”
i accept argument 1) but. as for the police (and hospital costs from fighting), we are choosing between a) Society pays collectively, b) People who happen to share a hobby with the troublemakers pay or c) The individuals arrested pay for the prosecution as in Belgium. Sorry, but choosing option b) over a) or c) looks like collective punishment of a group you don’t like.
With the NHS (liver disease etc) the argument for action is stronger. In some ways I don’t see why, if it is not acceptable to charge the person who comes in with a liver complaint for his own treatment, why it is acceptable to charge his co-hobbyists rather than society as a whole. Although, basically I agree a per-unit tax on alcohol would make more sense in this regard.
@Ewan Hoyle “Heroin and guns have the same relationship to consenting adults as you describe for alcohol. Just as guns create harm, alcohol contributes to an enormous amount of violence in our society. This measure targets domestic violence especially, and is enthusiastically supported by the police as a result. It also targets the public drinking of youths and associated antisocial behaviours, which is a major source of fear for many of this nation’s citizens.”
The difference with guns, at least from the point of view of a town-dweller, is that guns are made by consenting adults, and sold to consenting adults to be pointed at non-consenting beings, they don’t have much other legitmate use. Target shooting is really about the same thing (if it is really just about “training one’s skill” then why not play quoits instead?). There is no freedom to “go equipped”. (In country areas I know this is all seen slightly differently). What is your view on guns anyway? I hope you realise that the only way the state can police “crimes of consent” is by being willing to be not the protector (i.e. reacting to violence against citizens) but by willing as a last resort to be the initiator of violence against those who defy it. Put another way, you can only insert yourself into these situations if you have more guns and fists behind you than anyone else and you are willing to use them not to protect but to control.
In the case of Heroin then I have no problem with legalisation. That you don’t want other people to take it doesn’t give you a claim on my money to pay police to try to stop people buying it (as it’s illegal this is usually from the Taliban).
As for domestic violence then the answer lies in prosecution, (and getting divorced) and not in collective punishment. My understanding is that in your country there are large increases in domestic violence when Rangers play Celtic. Is that the fault of the clubs or the other fans? Absolutely not. We are not animals and we are responsible for our own choice and actions. Perhaps you also have a plan to make Rangers and Celtic play in separate leagues for the fans’ own good?
I don’t accept your premise that you are entitled to decide what’s best for others anyway, but you seem not to have thought about the following:
In the other thread you also mention that unclean below-price vodka would be immediately identifiable as dodgy in some way as it would be known that a bottle of vodka shouldn’t cost below X.XX pounds. This is true, but the dodginess could also be that it was being resold illegally after being brought over from France (this happens already), so that doesn’t mean people wouldn’t want to buy it. The evidence from Russia is that increasing prices creates a market for unofficially sourced alcohol, with the risks that entails.
Secondly, if there is a larger margin for brewers and/or supermarkets on alcohol, would this not increase the amount of money available to market it, affect aisle space allocation etc?
Here’s a nice piece of pertinent research:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/12/30/Study-When-Medical-Pot-Introduced-Alcohol-Consumption-Drops
Ewan:
Because not all alcohol consumption is harmful. You have to look beyond the total alcohol consumption by a population and look at who is drinking, how much, and specifically who responds and to what extent to a particular change in price to a particular range of products. As I said before, if the bulk of the drop in consumption with a MPPU is on the part of moderate drinkers, and the extent of the drop among dangerous drinkers isn’t actually sufficiently significant to mitigate the risk and extent of harm, then what you’re left with is an inadvertently punitive measure on sensible poor drinkers.
Someone who drinks 1L of Smirnoff instead of 2L of Tesco Value Vodka is still likely headed for the A&E ward. Meanwhile the low-earning responsible drinker who has a budget of £x to stick to has to make the choice between buying less alcohol or buying less food, isn’t going to be any less of a danger to society just because they’ve now bought alcohol in a marginally smaller quantity, especially given their original consumption wasn’t harmful in the first place.
Artificially mandating minimum pricing is a nasty step by a government who are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.
However, if we are to have minimum pricing, it must be progressive and not just hit the poor – if booze is available at 12p a unit now, and the target minimum is 48p, then that needs a new blanket 300% tax on all alcohol sold retail.
If everyone is willing to pay four times what they currently pay, then I’ll accept the sincerity of those proposing it – otherwise, as far as I can see, they are simply out to bash the poor ‘because they can’.