Guy Beres

It is of concern to hear that new figures released by NSW Health suggest that there has been a 59% increase in alcohol-related emergency department cases in NSW from 2000 to 2007. Let’s be blunt; in today’s modern era of global financial upheaval, governments across the country can scarcely afford to continue to fund people’s alcohol-related stupidity. We are perhaps at the point now where some new measures need to be introduced to try and turn this concerning trend around. NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca has expressed a willingness in recent days to do just that, although the proposals he has floated as possibilities so far seem only to be targeting the advertising arm of the alcoholic beverage industry (e.g. the introduction of warning labels and a full or partial ban on alcohol advertising).

To be honest, I am not sure either of these measures in isolation will achieve anything near the desired result. If the campaign that has been waged on tobacco over the last decade by both the public sector and NGOs has taught us anything, it is that a co-ordinated campaign has the best chance of making long-term inroads. It is of course a difficult task for a government in any country to “crack down” on a national pastime that has gotten somewhat out of control. The liquor industry and powerful industry organisations like Clubs NSW and the Australian Hotels Association would no doubt fight any measure from the government that threatened to eat into alcohol sales. Unless a bipartisan approach to the issue was forged by Labor with the Coalition, there is also little doubt that the Liberal Party would seek to fight any measures that could conceivably damage the alcoholic beverage industry, citing their doctrine of individual choice and responsibility. A frighteningly stereotypical rag-tag mob of yobs, publicans and anti-regulation zealots would then almost certainly jump on the Liberal Party’s bandwagon, and the NSW Government would suddenly have a difficult fight on its hands given it’s extremely vulnerable political position at the present time.

What I would encourage the NSW Government to pursue is a long-term, multi-tiered strategy for reducing alcohol abuse in the state. Policy measures introduced to begin with should be relatively moderate, with pre-legislated increases in the rigor of measures if annual targets are not met on an ongoing basis. While limitations or outright bans on advertising in some sectors should be considered as part of this strategy, I think the government also needs to attack alcohol abuse from other avenues. Carefully conceived information campaigns (such as the Quit for Life campaign) and the more recent punitive negative advertising introduced by the Howard Government in relation to tobacco also clearly have a role to play. People across the country (and in particular young people) need to be reminded and understand that they will turn into blithering morons after a certain number of drinks, and that it’s not “cool” to be in that state, it’s actually pretty sad.

Despite the prevailing economic orthodoxy, it remains true that targeted increases to taxation can also be a powerful part of a co-ordinated government strategy. I think there are grounds, given these recent figures, to increase the amount of excise on alcoholic beverages in NSW, particularly if the excess funds gained are pumped straight into programs that seek to minimise alcohol abuse. Given the increasing scale of costs, private and public damage, injuries and death that alcohol abuse causes every year in this state, surely it is only fair to expect that alcohol consumers cover more of the public costs that their hobby generates when it is taken to excess?

It’s probably fair to say that alcohol is both a social good and a social evil in modern society. On the positive side, a moderate intake of alcohol allows people to relax and disconnect from the stresses of their everyday lives. Although it varies from person to person and also depends on just how much you drink, there is a fairly broad consensus that drinking the “right” amount of alcohol is good for your physical health. On the flip side of the coin, alcohol use and abuse is broadly responsible for thousands of deaths each year. The negative influence that alcohol abuse has on society spans the spectrum of one’s imagination; from causing motoring accidents, through to physical assault and rape, poor financial decision-making, degraded social responsibility, and long-term illness such as coronary disease. When one considers in full the many and varied ills that alcohol abuse brings to the table, it is hard not to compare and contrast the vehemently strong anti-smoking sentiment that is palpable in modern Western societies to the fairly lackadaisical gaze with which we view alcohol abuse. It’s okay to be a raging drunk, but don’t you dare smoke!

Of late, there have been some soft murmurings around the traps that perhaps this broad public tolerance of alcohol abuse might be slowly coming to a close. In Australia, Kevin Rudd has recently announced a new advertising campaign targeting binge drinking, which is welcome, but of course, is not going to be enough in itself to make deep inroads into the problem. Over here in the UK, in handing down his first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling has put his neck out with a slightly more practical measure and one that seems unthinkable in the political climate back home; a tax hike on alcohol:

British finance minister Alistair Darling announced on Wednesday that alcohol duty will increase by 6 percent above the inflation rate with hefty rises in beer, wine and spirits coming in at midnight on Sunday.

In his first budget, Darling told parliament that beer will rise by 4 pence a pint, cider by 3p a litre, wine by 14p a bottle and spirits by 55p a bottle, marking the first rise in duties on spirits in more than a decade.

The lift on the duties on spirits is by no means insubstantial, but one has to wonder whether these increases are really going to do anything other than increase the volume of funds flowing into the government’s coffers. An extra 4 pence on a pint of beer is not going to make anybody (particularly if they are drunk!) think twice about ordering another round. Nor is another extra 14 pence on a bottle of wine going to force the country’s chardonnay socialists and blue-bloods call it a night after the first bottle or two. You could buy seven bottles of wine before noticing that you’ve even spent a pound more than usual, which is more than enough to send most people into cloud cuckoo land.

Clearly governments have it tough politically when tackling issues related to alcohol abuse, but making inroads on this issue is a worthy endeavour for any government in today’s belligerently hedonistic world. Practical measures like tax increases might be the right path to take if implemented sensibly, in a way that people can understand and comprehend. A hardline education campaign reminding society just how much trauma is caused by well-meaning folks having too much to drink is probably just what the doctor ordered. Such a campaign has worked wonders over a period of several decades in relation to tobacco. The right campaign with strong backing from civil society can do the same for alcohol abuse.