Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Tuesday, 8th December 2009 Change Date

Mouthpiece: Society must act as one to end booze culture

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 June 2009
MILLIONS of pounds are spent in Scotland each year dealing with the consequences of excessive alcohol consumption. Hospital admissions due to alcohol have increased year-on-year, and our death rate from alcoholic liver cirrhosis is now one of the highest in the world.
Although many acknowledge that Scotland has a problem with alcohol, most of us seem to think it has nothing to do with us personally – even though many of us are drinking more than we'd like to admit. All too often, the finger of blame is pointed at
young binge drinkers or the desperate figure of the alcoholic on the park bench.

Whatever our personal drinking habit, alcohol concerns us all either in terms of our active engagement or passive acceptance of a drinking culture that promotes heavy drinking and drunkenness. From the hospital staff who see their workloads increase every weekend, to the communities for whom parks have become no-go areas, the families who mourn the six people killed by alcohol each day and the children who live in dread of parental drunkenness, there can't be many in Scotland who have not felt the negative impact of alcohol. Unless we start to "own" our problem with alcohol, and act together to address it, we will fail to get to grips with it.

We would urge our politicians to show leadership at the forthcoming alcohol summit, to set party political differences aside, and act together in the interests of the health of the people of Scotland. We know that increased harm is linked to our increased alcohol consumption and that the main solution lies in cutting the amount of alcohol consumed. The evidence is also very clear that the most effective way of doing this is by increasing its price and limiting its availability.

Scotland's drinking culture has become an embarrassment and attempts to reduce alcohol-related harm have not worked. We can turn our current situation around, if we have politicians with the courage to back policies that work and a society willing to support them.

• Dr Bruce Ritson is chairman of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 June 2009 10:05 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Alcohol & binge drinking
 
1

Popper,

12/06/2009 13:00:42
Anti-alcohol lobbyists have been arguing that reducing availability is the key to reducing alcohol-related problems for decades. However they tend to lump all aspects of availability together and ignore the evidence that some aspects of availability show little relationship (if any) with consumption and harm. Licensing laws are a good example of this - the Daily Mail likes to hammer the Government on 24-hour drinking but the facts are that the liberalisation in England (we already had liberal laws here) did not lead to 24 hour drinking or increased consumption.
There is a bit more evidence regarding price, but it is just correlational - which essentially means unpredictable. The unexplained variation in correlational relationships means that only 'average' effects can be estimated. As there are not countless years 2009 in the UK to average over the results of a price hike could be counter-intuitive.
It is well-known that alcohol consumption is relatively price inelastic, and much more income elastic. Thus, while the real price of alcohol in the UK has not fallen, real incomes have risen , and people have chosen to spend the increases on drink. The argument of Dr Ritson boils down to 'people have too much money and spend it unwisely'.

Anecdotally the price of alcohol in the Republic of Ireland went up faster than incomes in recent years but because incomes were increasing (albeit more slowly) consumption went up!

By the way - the availability argument is logically flawed - as availability is a condition not a cause. Did Hitler shoot himself in his bunker during the last days of the Reich because he had a gun?
2

,

12/06/2009 13:06:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Popper,

12/06/2009 13:16:35
Precisely! The question can only be posed *because* he had a gun - a condition not a cause - get it??

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.