So do we have a duty to seek to reduce the health burden to society from alcohol or is this giving in to the ‘nanny state’ they ask"
They point out that damage to third parties from exposure to alcohol misuse dwarfs that from smoking. For example, drinking alcohol is a factor in over half of violent crimes and one third of domestic violence.
Furthermore, evidence shows that the most effective and cost effective measure is to increase the price of alcohol. Between 1980 and 2003 the price of alcohol increased by 24%, but disposable income increased by 91%, making alcohol 54% more affordable in 2003 than in 1980.
To suggest, as producers and retailers do, that increasing the price of alcohol would not reduce alcohol related harm goes against not only the evidence but also the fundamental principles of marketing, they argue.
Banning alcohol advertising and restricting opportunities to purchase alcohol are also effective, although less so than tax and early intervention, as has been the case with smoking. One wonders, conclude the authors, how many more lives will be damaged by alcohol in the UK before our Governments decide to tackle the problem with measures that are likely to work.
Another article in this week’s Christmas issue of the BMJ reveals that the ancient Greeks had a sophisticated understanding of the effects of alcohol, both in moderation and excess. |
