Clearly, the prisms through which governments, societies and indeed individuals across the world view drugs are incredibly distorted. It’s not over-egging it to suggest that triple or quadruple standards are in play. In the red corner, we have dangerous, illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine which are almost universally considered globally to be “bad” drugs, with stiff legal penalties imposed for both possession and trafficking. About the length of a good jab away, we have cannabis: still an illegal substance in most jurisdictions, but broadly becoming acceptable for medicinal purposes, and widely viewed as a much less dangerous drug than so-called “Class A” drugs, as they are known in the UK.

Taking a few more drowsy steps across the ring, we have tobacco; once upon a time, a wildly popular, publicly accepted drug, but now suffering from pariah status. It’s widely accepted that prohibition is not a reasonable or workable solution, so instead governments across the world have sought to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to incrementally legislate tobacco towards the margins of society, through advertising bans, usage restrictions, and even, more recently, packaging controls. There is a general sense in the public that governments are doing the right thing in engaging in these sorts of “soft touch” draconian measures. Of course, when it comes down to it, smokers are effectively being instructed that they are only allowed to poison themselves and others in a strictly regulated environment according to certain conditions – which in a more straightforward world, wouldn’t pass the laugh test as a final solution to a public policy problem relating to a specific product. Let’s not even get started on government’s implied preference for smoking over euthansia.

In the blue corner, finally, we have alcohol: the widely available, gloriously advertised, practically unrestricted opiate of the masses. The short-term health implications of alcohol usage are negligible, but the long-term health implications and indeed the sociological implications are very slowly coming to be understood as disastrous. We have to assume, given its ubiquity, that alcohol touches many more people’s lives negatively than either heroin or cocaine. It’s the questions that we don’t really know the answers to, or don’t really care to know the answers to, that provide the kicker. What proportion of assaults, domestic violence cases, thefts, killings, rapes and car accidents have alcohol abuse at their root? What is the annual cost to the health sector of treating patients who have suffered one of the wrongs mentioned, developed liver disease, or indeed a form of alcohol-related cancer? How can we ever hope to measure or quantify the distress and pain caused by people (particularly in struggling socio-economic areas) who abuse alcohol and make decisions that emotionally or physically damage their friends, families, and communities?

I am sure that in the heyday of tobacco, during the middle of the twentieth century, the idea that one of the world’s favourite substances would eventually be unmasked as a “bad drug” would have been laughed off by many. It’s hard not to wonder what the next fifty or sixty years will bring for the alcohol industry, given the pressures being applied to governments across the world to be “tough on crime” whilst also reducing public spending, impacting areas of public policy like health and policing. These pressures directly collide with the enormous popularity of alcohol and its acceptance as an everyday recreational substance.

If the somewhat rapid stigmatisation of tobacco is any guide, today’s blockbuster alco-dollar ads and “drink, drink, drink … spew” popular culture could eventually recede into the annals of human history; just another of those crazy, stupid things that people did back in those days before they knew any better or society chided them into behaving differently.

No, (sadly) I’m not holding my breath either… er, drink?

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2011. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Health.

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?

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Health, Rees Labor Government.

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.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2008. | Permalink | 4 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Rudd Labor Government, UK Politics.