Tom Miers: More restrictions on alcohol will just infantilise us all

This time it comes from the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, who said this week that Scotland faces an "apocalypse" of crime unless the country tackles its booze problem. No-one disputes that there is an issue with drunken youth in Scotland. Nor can we deny that price is a factor in consumption. Of course it is. If the cost of something goes up, then people can afford less of it.

But follow the logic of this and you eventually arrive at prohibition. Why not simply ban the stuff, and then, presumably, alcohol-fuelled crime would disappear.

So what is wrong with governments forcing us to look after our bodies? First, most people consume alcohol responsibly, so punishing everyone with higher prices is unjust. Second, pushing up the price of drink encourages smuggling and bootlegging, and the criminality that accompanies both.

But there's an even more serious point. If the answer to every problem is to ban or restrict activity, how can we expect individuals to adopt a responsible attitude to anything?

The state plays a role in society that to some extent has replaced institutions such as the family, community and self-help organisations. Anti-social behaviour is partly a product of the breakdown of the social structures that used to restrain us.

Banning alcohol would further infantilise society by removing an important choice in life from adults. Such a ban or restriction is counterproductive, because it reduces responsibility.

Ms Angiolini claimed that the attempt to move towards a more mellow caf culture had failed. If this is the case then the proper response is to wonder why some people cannot drink responsibly in public. The answer should not be to restrict our freedoms, but to try to reverse the damage done to our social structures over the years.

l Tom Miers is editor of the Free Society (www.thefreesociety.org)