There seem to be many small rebel factions working against the Government. Alcohol has inspired the latest.
Six health organisations have walked away from the Coalition's new proposals to regulate alcohol designed to reduce drink-related illness and deaths. The deal is supposed to see supermarkets, pubs and drinks manufacturers all pledging to do their bit to reduce harmful drinking, for example by labelling items with the number of alcohol units.
The Royal College of Physicians, the British Liver Trust, the British Association for the Study of the Liver, the Institute of Alcohol Studies, the British Medical Association and Alcohol Concern have all rejected the deal. In my book, those are bodies that ought to be listened to.
One of their main concerns - to me, entirely justified - is that in formulating these plans the Government has allowed the drinks industry to drive the pace and direction of the policy.
The cost to British society occasioned by alcohol is estimated at £25 billion each year. That includes both health and crime and disorder costs. When I investigated this myself for a television programme it was clear that most drinkers have no idea how many units they consume at each sitting, or even how poisonous alcohol can be at high levels. It follows that clearly labelling cans and bottles with easy-to-read information about the number of units within them, safe drinking levels and a warning message about not exceeding these levels is a must, but it is not a solution.
The World Health Organisation has stated that action on alcohol must fall into three areas: affordability, availability and promotion. I'm not sure it is that simple. Look at countries that have strict alcohol laws and expensive drinks and it can be seen that the populations binge-drink more than in the UK and have high levels of alcoholism. The only difference is that levels of alcohol-related crime and violence are lower, almost certainly because the drinking is covert.
While I know it sounds pessimistic, I rather think we irreparably screwed up when we first legalised and promoted alcohol. It is a crippling example of exactly how hypocritical and ill thought-out our stimulants laws are. Just look at our drink-driving laws where the public has basically been told that a bit is OK, a lot is not, and left to try to figure it out for themselves. They don't, and people die. Sadly I fear that now it is too late, that we can never back-pedal fast enough to reverse the damage and that there is now no satisfactory solution to this problem.
The attitudes in many western Governments in relation to alcohol are odd. The Australian Federal Government introduced an "Alco-pops tax" in 2010 that drove the price of an average six pack of mixed drinks up by roughly 40%. The tax was supposedly designed to deter underage/youth drinkers.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a young person with a limited amount of money looking to fit in my weekend's binge drinking session, would it seem more likely that I'd spend $24 on six pre-mixed drinks, or that I'd spend $32 on a 375ml bottle of spirits and get roughly 11 standard drinks instead? The Government here must surely have come to this conclusion themselves.
The lax attitudes of many regarding the over consumption of alcohol is demonstrated in the mixed messages that society receives about alcohol: Drinking is bad if you hurt other people vs. You're not "cool" if you don't drink. Until Governments legislate more clearly around alcohol, then the consequences of alcohol related violence, addiction and other detrimental behaviours will continue.
It's depressing, really.
There is a solution and it's called personal accountability. You have a responsibility to yourself not to drink yourself sick or to death. If you decide to do otherwise, you're out of the evolutionary equation and hopefully before you've had time to reproduce. It's the natural order—the strong replace the weak.
ReplyDeleteI agree drug laws, in the UK or anywhere else, are generally hypocritical and ill thought out but only because they exist in the first place. If you want to drink or drug yourself to death, you're going to find a way to do it anyway. It's absurd to think that if something like heroin were legalized, people who had never done it before or had any desire to do so would become dope fiends overnight.
You said it yourself, residents of countries with strict alcohol laws binge-drink more than Britons and have high levels of alcoholism. What you're failing to do is follow your own premise to its logical conclusion. When it comes to self indulgent consumption, a law telling someone what not to do is only going to encourage them to do it more, if anything.
Interesting blog you've got here, by the way. I may disagree with your conclusions but I respect the fact that you obviously care about people enough to be upset by their self destruction.
ReplyDeleteThe key word being "self," nonetheless...