Hugh McLachlan: No taste for drink policy
Using the law to enforce how we drink is a bad move. Picture: AFP
Plans to use the law to influence our consumption of alcohol may or may not work, but they represent a poor state–citizen relationship, writes Hugh McLachlan
The UK Government and the Scottish Government are both concerned about the amount of alcohol that is consumed in these isles. It is not clear that they should be. The policies which they have adopted and which they propose are inappropriate. They do not cohere well with any plausible notion of what a proper relationship between a state and its citizens should be. They appear arbitrary, whimsical and paternalistic.
Governments have a legitimate role in passing laws regarding the production, sale and consumption of alcohol. However, governments in general often pass very bad laws regarding alcohol. Such laws often have unintended consequences. The instance of prohibition in the US is one of the best examples of a policy that had disastrous consequences.
David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond are united in supporting the dubious policy of minimum pricing with regard to alcohol. It might or might not turn out that such a policy would have good effects and no bad ones. However, public policies cannot always be justified merely in terms of their outcomes. It matters why things come about. It matters what is done, why it is done and how it is done.
It seems arbitrary and whimsical to seek to justify a policy of minimum pricing for alcohol when there is no attempt to apply the suggested rationale for the policy to the sale of all goods and services. Similarly, to charge all drinkers a minimum price per unit of alcohol because some drinkers are conceived to be a problem is unjust and unfair.
The main reason given in support of a minimum price per unit of alcohol is that it would save lives. This does not justify the policy. We ought to raise the minimum price to such an extent that very few people could afford to drink regularly if a reduction in deaths was a sufficient reason for introducing a public policy. However, it is not a sufficient reason.
We might reduce considerably the number of those who are killed by, say, cycling, parachuting or rock climbing if we made such activities illegal or, somehow, prohibitively expensive. It is better that we live in such a society where people are permitted and able to run the risks of killing themselves by taking part in such activities.
In terms of the monetary effect on particular drinkers, it might well not matter very much whether or not this policy were to be introduced. However, it matters in terms of the sort of society we live in and the sort of relationship between the government and the citizen we are prepared to accept.
Governments also have a legitimate role in compiling and disseminating information about the effects of the consumption of alcohol. However, there is a profound difference between information and propaganda. To present information to enable people to make informed decisions about their own behaviour is one thing. To try to induce them to make particular decisions and to act in particular ways is another thing.
It is appropriate for governments to try to rationally persuade us to believe particular things. In all but extreme and exceptional circumstances, it is not appropriate for governments to try to humour, dupe or cajole us into believing particular things.
The Alcohol Behaviour Change campaign was launched in Scotland on 7 February. According to Auriole Price, who designed an app for it that can be downloaded onto mobile phones: “The main aim of the app is to shock people into drinking just a little bit less. We are appealing to people’s vanity as the effects of alcohol can include red broken veins on the cheeks, bloodshot eyes, a bloated face and deeper wrinkles.” This clearly suggests that we can expect the tone of the campaign to be that of propaganda. Typically, such health campaigns in Scotland and the UK in general have taken such a form.
Both governments recommend that we do not regularly consume any more than the equivalent of about one and a half pints of beer per day if we are male and even less if we are female. They suggest that there is a significant risk of serious illnesses if we exceed these limits.
However, it is not made clear what the extent of the risks actually is. The information is not presented in such a way that any particular person can readily assess whether, for them, the risks of drinking more than the suggested limits are rationally worth running.
For instance, it is said that if one is male and drinks regularly more than about four pints per day, compared to a non-drinker, one could be, for instance, twice as likely to develop liver cirrhosis and 1.8 times as likely to develop high blood pressure. However, this is not useful information unless one knows how likely it is that someone who does not drink will suffer from cirrhosis of the liver or develop high blood pressure. It is propaganda.
After all, one can become twice as likely to win the lottery by buying two tickets rather than one. Since the chances of winning the lottery are remote, this increased likelihood would not be considered to be of any great significance to most who play the lottery.
The Scottish and the UK governments say that if we regularly drink above the recommended daily limits, we run the risk of damaging our health. However, if we enjoy particular activities, we are often quite prepared to run such risks. It depends on various factors including our attitude towards risk in general, and the extent of our actual and anticipated pleasure from the activity in question.
For instance, if we play football, climb mountains or ride a bicycle, we face risks, dangers and hazards. If we have sex, we run various risks including the risk of becoming pregnant. If we remain pregnant, we run risks. If we play golf, we very greatly increase our chances of being hit by a golf ball.
It would be absurd to talk about, say, a recommended limit on the number of mountains that we climbed or on the number of miles that we cycled in busy traffic. There is no particular wise or sensible amount for such things. So it is with alcohol. The notion of a recommended amount of alcohol is a very curious one. It is impertinence. We should resent it. Someone who gave up heavy drinking and took up cycling might greatly increase his chances of a premature death. However, it does not follow that anyone who did so would be acting unwisely or irrationally. Such a change in lifestyle might be a profound change for the better even if it were to prove to be fatal for some unfortunate people.
I now choose to consume zero units of alcohol per day and have done so for many happy years. I also choose to cycle zero miles per day. Nonetheless, I do not want to encourage any one to drink nor to discourage any one from cycling. Whether it is rational for other people to drink alcohol or ride a bicycle is not a question that I could answer even if I wanted to.
It is not the business of the government to raise such questions, far less to try to answer them for us. The law should be impartial in its dealings with citizens and impartial with regard to the legal lifestyle choices they make.
The state ought to treat citizens impartially as autonomous, rational adults. It should not treat them as children or as mere means to their political ends. The actual and proposed policies regarding alcohol consumption are misconceived.
• Hugh McLachlan is professor of applied philosophy in the Glasgow School for Business and Society at Glasgow Caledonian University
Email to a friend
Print this page- Scottish independence: I don’t want ‘separatism’ says Sir Tom Farmer
- Call for sleaze inquiry into peer’s expenses
- Craig Levein insists Scotland will recover from US thrashing
- Man arrested after woman found dead in subway pool of blood
- Rangers administration: Duff & Phelps ‘hopeful’ that Taxman will agree to CVA
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 34 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Kobi
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM#33 A few with access to cars kill people so it should be made more difficult for all access to cars. A few with access to motorbikes kill people so it should be made more difficult for all access to motorbikes. A few with access to prescription drugs kill people so it should be made more difficult for all access to prescription drugs. A few with access to dogs kill people so it should be made more difficult for all access to dogs. etc etc etc
Anagach
Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM22 Kobi #20 Those with a drinking problem cause problems so drinking should be made more difficult for all drinkers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A few with access to guns kill people so it should be made more difficult for all access to guns.
antiparasite
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:54 PMLegalise Cannabis!!
Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:25 PM#28 Kobi Many thanks to you, and to all other posters for your comments - whether you agree with me or not.
Kobi
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM#29 "A 2ltr bottle of white lightning industrial cider goes goes for £1.50" Very well aware of that thank you. "People who deal with the consequences of alcohol - induced crime see this every day." Not sure who you mean by that, but the research done on the serious offences (i.e. imprisonable ones) carried out by young males (15 to 24) by people far more intimate I suspect with those who offend than you, shows that they are not price sensitive, and adjusting the price of alcohol upwards would make little difference on the crime being carried out by them. There are arguable reasons for introducing a minimum price for alcohol (although personally I do not accept them), but reducing crime is simply not one of them.
Jamieboy12
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:48 PM25 Kobi Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM. A 2ltr bottle of white lightning industrial cider goes goes for £1.50 and for a 15 yr old will blow the head off. Consumption of this is high because it's price is low. Penny for penny it contains the most alcohol and young people know this. It's incredibly cheap. Thousands of gallons of it will be drunk in swing parks tonight and there will be tears tomorrow. People who deal with the consequences of alcohol - induced crime see this every day. We have a socially aware government that is intent on at least making a start in combating the problem. Like sectarianism it is not prepared to accept it as a way of life. This disturbs Scotland's deeply socially conservative elements of which the Professor spoke up for today.
Kobi
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM#26 "it is absurd that it is illegal to smoke in, for instance, private places such as golf clubs" During the passage of the bill, an MSP proposed that there should be an exemption for smoking clubs, where the members had joined together for the purpose of smoking, and acquired premises, and serviced them themselves, without using any staff who could be "affected" for the purpose of that activity. This was opposed by the Scottish Exec and most other MSPs on the basis that it would dilute the message. Excellent article BTW.
Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM#24 Jamieboy12'An alien from planet zorg landing on the streets of city centre Glasgow tonight would be amazed at what was in sight and astounded that a Professor of Philosophy would say there's nothing we can dae aboot it'. No, that is no what I am saying. Not all policies work. Not all policies that might work would be justified. Nonetheless, there might be some justifiable effective policies. However, I don't think that our health scare policies or the proposed mimimum pricing policy are among them. If there is nothing reasonable that we can think of doing, we should do nothing. We should not opt for the least unreasonable policy. The policy of making the sale and consumption of alcohol a capital offence would reduce the 'problem' in some places, including Scotland perhaps. However, it would not be a justifiable policy.
Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM#21 Cagey'The increase in tobacco prices combined with the public smoking ban has had dramatic results for cessation of smoking and public health.' Independently of the health claims - not all of which are plausible - some of these policies are justified, some are not. For instance, it is a good idea to make it illegal to smoke in confined public spaces. The smoke emitted is a nuisance whether or not passive smoking has a considerable effect on health. On the other hand, it is absurd that it is illegal to smoke in, for instance, private places such as golf clubs. It should be left to the members to decide whether or not smoking should be allowed in the club house and locker rooms. If people choose to work in places where smoking occurs, they should be allowed to do so.
Kobi
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM#24 "Some tragically commit horrendous violence....... ___________criticise those who dare to do something" Except that the best evidence is that those who commit the most crime, young males, are not price sensitive, and raising the price will not impact on their propensity to commit crime. So your proposed solution to your illustrative problem does not work, and innocent drinkers are penalised.
Jamieboy12
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 08:55 PM20 Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie Friday, February 10, 2012 at 07:26 PM "Some people behave badly when they are drunk. These people are the problem, not alcohol." What you will find is many of these people are young, normal , and decent but cannot handle the alcohol that they are buying for pocket money prices . Some tragically commit horrendous violence. An alien from planet zorg landing on the streets of city centre Glasgow tonight would be amazed at what was in sight and astounded that a Professor of Philosophy would say there's nothing we can dae aboot it which essentially is what you are saying. Think solutions and tell Scotsman readers what you would do about it rather than criticise those who dare to do something
Kobi
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 08:15 PM#21 "combined with the public smoking ban has had dramatic results for cessation of smoking and public health" Only if you believe the made up garbage put out by the promoters of the policy.
Kobi
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 08:14 PM#20 Those with a drinking problem cause problems so drinking should be made more difficult for all drinkers. Hooligans at football cause problems, so going to football should be made more difficult for all football fans. Those who ingest sugar to excess cause problems, so eating sugar should be made more difficult for everyone. Those who eat junk food to excess cause problems, so eating junk food should be made more difficult for everyone. Those Scots who go to football games in England and rip up the turf cause problems, so going to England should be made more difficult for all Scots. Those Scottish politicians who tell lies after meetings in Brussels cause problems for all Scottish politicians, so no Scottish politicians can have meetings in Brussels. Those cybernats who are abusive on the Scotsman forum cause problems for JP, so no cybernats should be allowed to post on the forum etc etc etc
Cagey
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 07:50 PMNonsense Hugh. The biggest problem is the difference in duty. It is far less fir Cider. Hence that is what is used to get loaded up before drinking what they really want to drink. There is always a balance between the libertarian and the nanny state view. It is pretty clear to most people that we as a society have to take sone action far short of punitive pricing. This us a start. The increase in tobacco prices combined with the public smoking ban has had dramatic results for cessation of smoking and public health. The we cannot or should not even try arguments simply will not wash.
Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 07:26 PM#8 Jamieboy12'This Prof needs to get out of his ivory tower and into a late night A& E ward on a Friday night then on the Monday evening visit a prison to see the admissions come from court ( 70% of whom will have been remanded or convicted for drink related crime). Fortunately for us we have a government that is determined to do something about it unlike this laissez- faire Philosopher who over analyses every issue.' I do not take a laissez-faire approach. The production, sale and consumption of alcohol must be regulated. However, it does not follow that all proposed laws and all proposed policies should be adopted. Some people behave very badly when they are drunk. They should be punished for behaving badly, not for being drunk. Some people behave badly when they are drunk. These people are the problem, not alcohol. it is unwise to curb everyone merely because some people behave badly when they are drunk. They often also behave badly when they are sober.The Scottish government might be 'determined' to do something about what they think is a problem. It does not follow that they know how to solve it.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.