Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge has something to say about this, defining what it calls “liberal paternalism” or the idea that the life can be organised so that people can exercise choices, but that governments and other agencies can subtly steer the presentation of those choices in favour of people doing the “right” (in this case, healthy) thing.

It could be argued, I suppose that this is even more objectionable than coercing people to do the right thing. Or you could simply acknowledge that people are rationally self-interested far less than most economic models allow, and that gentle nudges here and there help to deliver good outcomes without bullying people.

If someone wants to drink themselves to oblivion, no amount of education is likely to deter them because their reasons will be powerful for them. If anyone can intervene it should be their friends or family, state intervention won’t work.

And I think part of the problem with ‘education’ is that it is too moralistic at the moment and not based on the sound evidence I have discussed in the article. They imply if you have more than 2 drinks, you are on the road to ruin. Most 18 year olds will not believe this and subsequently become a generation that is distrustful of their education, no matter how well intentioned it was.

Some of these finding seem very odd indeed. That a teetotaller is more likely to die younger than a drinker?

Just remember the tobacco lobby would fund studies to show smoking is not detrimental to health.

The oil companies would fund studies showing that global warming is not happening.

The thing is not to believe statistics as irrefutable. But to have a healthy open mind about mind about stats and who is compiling them, and the power that money has to achieve a statistic report that is somehow in keeping with what the funder requires.

The bottom line is that there’s no easy answer to getting people to make healthy choices. Personally I am not convinced that minimum pricing will have an impact, if people want to drink then they will still do it. I see no evidence pointing to massive reductions in consumption based on rising prices. I do think there’s a couple of things we could do.

Firstly people need to understand the consequences of long term alcohol use, the potential for Liver cancer etc. Education and information is key. Secondly it shouldn’t be so easy for clubs and bars to offer big promotions which are everything to do with their profits and less to do with people having a good time. Thirdly licensing should be devolved so we can better plan our town and city centres, the current Act is weighed heavily in favour of obtaining/extending a license. In fact St Mary’s Street in Cardiff is one of the most heavily populated streets in terms of drinking establishments. 24 hour licensing is a joke and all the evidence is that people drink more and for longer.

Isn’t that something to do with journalism?…

Hey, hold on, why can’t I post anymore…

Quite. It’s all a bit like pontificating that “Something should be done” but without much clue of how to go about it. Taxation alone won’t do what the government seems to want it to in terms of discouraging consumer behaviour. Yes it’s a factor but, as tobacco taxation has shown, it doesn’t provide necessarily speedy returns.

The thrust of recent government policy seems to be aimed at younger drinkers with challenges to happy hours and alcopops, as if they are the biggest social menace. Perhaps that priority has something to do with the visibility of very drunk young people in most urban centres, and not just every weekend. But if their behaviour when drunk is bad the criminal justice system is there to deal with that, and not the licensing laws.

“Or alternatively, the recent advice change to pregnant women that they should now drink nothing at all during pregnancy. The CMO office actually admitted that there was no new evidence, but that some people didn’t know what “moderate” meant. What?”

What a perfect illustration of the patronising, illogical and unsubstantiated attitude taken by those who think they know better but consistently fail to persuade. Until they start engaging in rational and supported argument, I will keep their weekly recommended alcohol unit intake as a daily target.

Excuse me if I rant a bit, but a related issue was seen with the recent recommendation from the English Chief Medical Officer that no-one under 15 should ever drink any alcohol. The arguments put forward in the document were things like “children who drink are more likely to truant”, (hardly cause and effect), and some quite spiteful comments made about the “middle class obsession with watering down wine” – a common practice in many other countries, but apparently harmful in Britain.

Or alternatively, the recent advice change to pregnant women that they should now drink nothing at all during pregnancy. The CMO office actually admitted that there was no new evidence, but that some people didn’t know what “moderate” meant. What?

In short, the discussion seems to be more about agenda than any particularly well thought out policy. Having said that, I don’t think its an intentional class issue. Its more like the 10% tax rate abolition – incompetence.

By the way, what have I missed? I thought the limits had been put up to 28 and 21 units. Have they been reduced again?