Cause or effect?

I recently reported on the call from Alcohol Concern for alcoholic drinks to be confined to separate areas in shops. While I certainly wouldn’t say I’m in favour of this, taken in isolation it wouldn’t really make much difference to anything. Other countries (notably Australia) have similar restrictions and don’t seem to be notably abstemious societies. Indeed, we drank more beer, and had a society in which alcohol was more “normalised”, when most off-sales were through stand-alone off-licences, or separate counters in supermarkets, when pubs closed for three hours in the afternoon and at 10.30pm during the week, and across large areas of Wales were closed all day Sunday.

Rather than being a cause of increased at-home drinking, isn’t the rise of alcohol sales in supermarkets, and the increased use of price promotions, primarily a result of a growing market which has over the years become potentially much more valuable for retailers? Business reflects changes in society, it doesn’t in general drive them.

Another factor, of course, is that the rise of beer drinking at home is closely linked with the growth in ownership of cars and refrigerators. Regardless of price, the working man of 1955 would have struggled to get a slab of Carling home from the outdoor, and would have had nowhere to keep it cool once he had, whereas, even in those pre-lager days, most pubs had naturally cool cellars for their draught ale.

I’m also far from convinced that having alcohol on general display increases overall consumption to any significant extent. Yes, it may encourage people to buy particular wines or beers that are being promoted, but I doubt whether it very often persuades people to buy a bottle on impulse when they wouldn’t otherwise have bought any at all.

No safe level

I’ve often seen the argument advanced that there is a fundamental difference between tobacco and alcohol, in that tobacco is harmful to health at all levels of consumption, whereas alcohol in moderation has no adverse effects and indeed for some people may be mildly beneficial. This has led to a different approach to the two in public policy, with governments being much more willing to impose severe restrictions on the advertising and consumption of tobacco products than alcohol.

Of course the official “safe drinking guidelines” have no scientific basis, and don’t reflect real-world consumption patterns, but at least they have given a fig-leaf of respectability to the brewing and distilling industries and the licensed trade. So long as they only appeal to “responsible, moderate drinkers” then they’re OK.

However, Professor David Nutt, the scientist who a couple of years ago masqueraded as someone proposing a more rational approach to illegal drugs while actually advocating draconian anti-drink measures, has now stuck his head above the parapet and claimed that there is no such thing as a safe level of alcohol consumption.

This is very effectively demolished by Chris Snowdon, who points out that many of Nutt’s claims are profoundly unscientific and bear a close resemblance to the shrill rhetoric of 19th century temperance campaigners. This includes statements such as “alcohol is a poison” and that people can become addicted to alcohol from their first drink, together with the description of the alcohol business as a “toxic industry.” I wonder if your typical man-in-a-shed brewer or freehouse operator recognises himself from that description.

Nevertheless, this isn’t going to be the last we will see of this particular line of reasoning. So expect to see the argument advanced more and more in the coming years that, as there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, the alcohol business is not a “legitimate” trade and it is a reasonable objective for government to seek to reduce consumption as near to zero as possible. So any calls for government help for pubs, or small breweries, or distilleries, or wineries, are going to fall on deaf ears.

You can’t really imagine anyone today producing a video saying “I’m proud of British tobacco products.” In twenty years’ time, might it be equally unthinkable that British brewers could do the same about their “toxic industry”?

Being executed with a bacon slicer

I was tempted to post about the government plans to require tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging, but in the end decided there’s only so much outrage I can summon up in a day. But I was struck by this rather despairing post by IanB on the Counting Cats in Zanzibar blog:

I feel scared. I can see the world I grew up in being dismantled, bit by bit. There are times I wish they’d just get it over with. In a sense, it is the gradualism that is unbearable. There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

You do have to wonder when it’s all going to stop. Will there ever be some turn of the tide, some popular uprising against all the nannies and the bullies? Or will all of our freedom and individual responsiblility continue to be dismantled, agonisingly slowly, piece by piece?

And the truly galling thing is that so many are happy to stand by and applaud as others lose their extremities to the blade, even though they must know, deep down, that one day it will be their turn.