Via the wonderful world of twitter I became aware of a couple of things on the internet worth a look. An article of the BBC here, that makes a fair argument regarding the direction of alcohol policy (further reading can be found here). Namely that demonising alcohol and controlling its price are ineffective tools to tackle the favourite tabloid story of “binge drink Britain”. Should you want to know more about binge drink Britain the Daily Mail are fond of such stories, and a good one can be found here. The best bit is always enjoying the excuse of publishing photo’s of pissed up kids whilst expressing the required level of disapproval at the whole “getting pissed and shagging a drunk fat bird” shenanigans of students that don’t yet know any better.
You don’t need me to tell you, but be wary of the Daily Mail. It can appeal attractive with its view that Kelly Brook on holiday wearing a new bikini is newsworthy, but if you’re not careful you’ll find yourself trapped in an insane asylum of your mind where immigrants are tearing at the very fabric of your reality.
If demonising alcohol and controlling its price are ineffective tools to tackle the apparent issue of binge drinking, then you have to assume a different motive for those proposing it, and if they cannot be honest about their motivation why trust them?
Thus you have to assume the true motivation of organisations like alcohol concern is one of gradual denormalisation of alcohol and eventual prohibition. You have to assume CAMRA are not interested in responsible drinking and are disingenuous in their statements and basically think that you are dumb enough to think pub prices are “great value” if only those damn supermarkets didn’t let you know just how cheap the products really are.
The beardies already have a sop for their middle aged and middle class affectation for the pongy products of small inefficient breweries in Small Breweries Relief. You wouldn’t think it acceptable for the small scale manufactures of elite sports cars or tailors specialising in bespoke suits to pay less tax. Why should products used by the better off be subsidised effectively by a higher rate of tax on those enjoyed by the less well off?
The beardies & the prohibitionists ought to be resisted in any attempt to impose higher prices on cheaper alcohol products. Boozer’s everywhere need to tell ‘em to stick it.