IEA - One-size-fits-all alcohol policies fail to help problem drinkers
18 Jun 2014 10:14 AM
The problems with alcohol policy
in the UK
The cornerstone policies of
Britain’s alcohol strategy are failing to reduce heavy drinking amongst
the most vulnerable. New research from the Institute of Economic Affairs
outlines the significant flaws of advertising bans, licensing restrictions and
higher taxes, which not only fail to help problem drinkers, but punish the
majority of responsible consumers.
The government and health
campaigners have long favoured policies which aim to reduce per capita alcohol
consumption to reduce heavy and harmful drinking. This outlook is based on a
blunt model devised in the 1950s, and ignores countless studies which have
demonstrated that particular subgroups drink at extremely varied levels.
Attempting to reduce a national average ignores the obvious: that heavy
drinking amongst a minority drastically pushes up the average.
In Punishing the Majority, authors John Duffy and
Christopher Snowdon examine how a relatively small number of drinkers consume a
disproportionately large amount of alcohol, with close to 70% of alcohol
consumed by one fifth of the population. Using several examples, the authors
show the extent to which per capita consumption depends on the drinking
patterns of a minority.
The paper calls for politicians
and campaigners to wake up to the complex reasons behind problem drinking.
Instead of favouring political interventions on price, availability and
advertising, the health lobby should pursue harm-reduction and
rehabilitation.
The problem with current
policies:
- A discredited
mathematical formula - The public health lobby have taken the
wrong lesson from discredited statistical calculations. When they see average
consumption rising and falling roughly in line with alcohol-related harm, the
response is to reduce overall consumption. This is too simplistic. Averages do
not cause extremes, but extremes have a profound effect on
averages.
- Heavy drinkers are less
price sensitive than moderate drinkers - Current policies to curb
excessive drinking are based around price, availability and advertising. Price
rises affect the behaviour of moderate drinkers more significantly than heavy
drinkers, whilst restrictions on availability and advertising have very little
effect on anybody.
- A lack of complexity
– In the UK the poorest socio-economic groups have the
lowest average consumption, yet have the highest rates of alcohol-related
mortality, whilst the richest groups drink the most and suffer the least harm.
Lower alcohol consumption in the poorest groups disguises the presence of a
minority within the group, who are problem drinkers. These people are being
failed by current policies which only tackle overall
consumption.
Statistical
paradoxes:
- Between 1980 and 2000 alcohol
consumption rose only slightly in the UK (9.6 -10.4 litres per person) while
liver cirrhosis mortality nearly doubled. In Sweden, liver cirrhosis more than
halved while drinking fell by just 15%. It depends on which drinkers are
increasing or reducing their intake.
- In the UK, per capita
consumption has dropped by nearly a fifth in the past ten years, with barely
any decline in alcohol-related deaths.
Conclusion:
- Problem drinkers require
targeted interventions, rehabilitation and proper enforcement of the law; these
policies are expensive, time-consuming and sometimes take time. Lobbying for
political interventions on price, availability and advertising however, offer
campaigners achievable goals, a high profile, and an identifiable enemy in the
drinks industry.
Commenting on the
report, Christopher Snowdon, co-author of the report and Director of Lifestyle
Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:
“There is no reason to
think that getting moderate drinkers to lower their alcohol intake is going to
reduce levels of heavy drinking; individuals will not collectively adjust their
drinking habits to imitate a simple mathematical formula. The popularisation of
tackling total consumption is borne from a desire to replace individual
responsibility with collective responsibility, which patently ignores different
patterns amongst different groups of the population
“The UK’s
alcohol policy fails to help the most vulnerable. The one-size-fits-all
approach persists because it is clear and simple. It’s high time
campaigners recognised that the real reasons why some people drink to dangerous
excess are complex and varied.”
Notes to
Editors:
To arrange an interview about
the report please contact Stephanie Lis, Head of Communications: slis@iea.org.ukor 07766 221
268.
The full report, Punishing the Majority – The flawed theory
behind alcohol control policies, by John C. Duffy and Christopher Snowdon,
can be downloaded here.
The mission of the Institute of
Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of
a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving
economic and social problems.
The IEA is a registered
educational charity and independent of all political parties.