I'm a libertarian at heart. By which I don't mean "I'm one of those people who calls himself a libertarian to mask and justify his inherent racism", or "I'm one of those people who calls himself a libertarian because 'extremely right wing' doesn't sound as good" or anything like that. No, I mean libertarian in the sense that it used to be used before the so-called politically incorrect brigade turned it into a confusing term that can just as easily mean "free thinker" or "total arsehole": essentially, that adults should be allowed, as much as possible, to do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't do harm to other people.
I find it wearyingly disappointing, then, to read about the Government's plan to outlaw 'legal highs' with the wafer-thin justification that some people somewhere have died after taking them (not necessarily from taking them). I imagine that even if no-one had ever died after taking them, they would still be cracked down upon: because it's not a crackdown on danger, or risk, or people hurting themselves, but a crackdown on the kind of unregulated recreation (or, as you might call it, 'fun') which the state disapproves of. So if you take a lot of these drugs you might die? It's the same with water, or carrots*, or anything. Too much of anything isn't good for you. Banning it doesn't make the situation any better, either.
But this Government, as every other Government has or will do, wears the Mr Mackey hat when it comes to drugs, and simply says they're bad, mmkay. It was the same when a drugs expert told Jacqui Smith something which went against this logic - something she didn't want to hear, which led her to put her fingers in her ears and screech that drugs were definitely evil and killed you, and that was the Government's position, no matter what anyone else might say.
Not that the Tories are very much better, despite many Tories claiming to be 'libertarians' of a sort. David Cameron's plan to cure all the problems of alcohol by making it more expensive - rich people who can afford more expensive booze of course never cause any problems whatsoever, for example smashing up restaurants and then chucking some money at the owners to get it fixed up; whereas the poor are vermin who can't be trusted and who therefore must be forced to pay more - was mooted some time ago, and I said then it wouldn't work. Now it's turned up again and it's fairly obvious which groups are being targeted:
Such tax changes would mean a four-pack of extra-strong lager such as Carlsberg Special Brew costing an extra £1.30, a bottle of powerful cider an extra £1.25 and a bottle of alcopop an extra 50p. But duty on low alcohol products would be slashed.
So there you have it. A tax on poor alcoholics, essentially, street drinkers rather than anyone else. Are they really the ones causing the most trouble with booze - really? Or are they just the easiest to target because they don't complain, because they're easy to villainise, because it's simple to make out that they're the problem, rather than the pint-and-a-punchup types out in town centres every weekend?
And yet if our masters looked at the evidence, and kept a sliver of an open mind, they might like to reconsider. Take this story the other day which means that kneejerk censorship and film classification legislation is completely worthless. Has anyone been harmed in the few days since this was found out? No. Has anyone been damaged by a rudey video? No. Was anyone harmed before that? No. Are we living in a scary hinterland where there are no laws protecting us from watching things in our own homes through our own choice, and in which we might unwittingly, because we're so frail and vulnerable, do serious damage to ourselves? No.
But that doesn't matter. It never matters. Drugs are bad. Booze is bad. We must be stopped from ourselves. We must be told what to do. Don't anyone think the Nanny State is going to vanish in a puff of smoke when the 'libertarian' Tories get into power, because it's not. It's going to be here for a very long time to come.
* I saw this in an episode of Casualty once. So it must be true.
9 comments:
Indeed.
But then you take a look at The Daily Mail article. The headline tries to steer its readers into moral outrage, and plenty of the commenter duly oblige.
But then take a look at the best rated comment:
"Will the Government please STOP telling people what they can and cant do. People should run their own lives.
Every action has a consequence - life is about self control. If you can't control then there are consequences - it's called LIFE!
Will you just leave people alone."
Public opinion is shifting around these issues, and eventually the politicians will catch up.
Carrots make you go orange or think you can see in the dark. Or something.
But you're not a Libertarian with a capital L are you? Like, a member of the Libertarian Party?
As they are a little bit mental and believe in a free-for-all that reminds me of World War Z.
As much as I agree with pretty much everything else that is said on this blog I have to disagree on the alcohol pricing issue.
I had to (long story) watch some of the Health Select Committee interviews on Alcohol, the most scientifically informed one being with Professor Gilmore (President of the Royal College of Physicians, chair of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance and a liver specialist) and Peter Anderson (consultant in public health with the WHO and the European Commission). Looking at the evidence (!) they argue that the "trouble with booze" is the large number of people dying of liver disease at an historically very young age, along with the social harm caused by binge drinking, underage drinking etc. Basically they advocate minimum pricing as the only practical solution to a serious problem.
Yes, it would affect the poorest most, but only as a side affect of targeting those who "go out and buy three litres of 8.4% white cider for £2.99 you are getting more than your weekly safe limit in one bottle". Now that's a rather small group of the population, the targeting is not gratuitous and the main beneficiaries will be the 3 million alcoholics. At least, that's what they argue the evidence suggests; as of right now I am inclined to believe them.
If they are wrong, what's the moral policy, and on what evidence?
Transcript is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/uc368-i/uc36802.htm
I tend to agree with Tom. An interesting link to the health committee. Our local MP raised the probs of strong cider/alcopops years back and see his local colleague Hesford is on this committee.
There is a particularly 'English disease' here and the drinks industry will never self-regulate adequately (as with tobacco and the press)
There's a fine line between self and societal responsibility.
p.s. The committee comment about the existence of female bouncers is a real 'beat combo from Liverpool, m'lud' moment!
I think we need to separate a few things. It's fine to say that the 'making cheap booze expensive' thing is for health reasons, but that's not how David Cameron is selling it. He's saying it'll stop antisocial problems and drink-related violence, and I'm not sure whether it will. And if it's important to help alcoholics, why only help the poor ones and why not all of them? I would like to see more state help for people with alcohol problems but is making it more expensive to drink really going to solve anything - especially when alcoholics will go without food in favour of drink if their funds are limited? I'm not so sure.
I meant to add one thing, which has already been commented on, but I may as well go ahead... While I agree with the interviewees comments, that of course does not condone either a) the presentation of alcohol, its problems and policies in the media or b) any cynically political stance taken by the tories. If "Dave's" policies match up to those of the health experts it's more likely to be pure coincidence than thoughtful policy.
I think making booze, in many circumstances, harder to sell/consume would reduce antisocial problems and drink-related violence. As Gilmore says "The harms that result from heavy drinking on a single occasion are really the harms associated with being drunk and losing control, so it is about accidents, violence, unwanted pregnancies, rape and so on. Some people sadly die each year of acute alcohol poisoning. Alcohol is the commonest cause of death in young men from 16 to 24 and that is mainly the result of acute intoxication rather than chronic consumption."
Obviously increasing the cost is only one method of several that they mention, such as "a wealth of evidence that early identification of people who are creeping into problem drinking and brief advice actually works". But they evidence they present (which may be limited, natch) suggests that price controls should play an important or even central role. Since buying alcohol accounts for around 5% of household incomes it shouldn't have that wide an effect on buying food etc. Apart from that is the alcoholics I know don't spend much on food anyway and the less alcohol they drink they more incentivised they are to lead 'normal' lives, including improving their diet.
The unfortunate fact is that many of those who are most affected by alcohol are very poor (for sound sociological reasons). This report http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/files/20030814_170620_social%20costs%20.pdf said "men aged 25 to 39 in the unskilled manual class who are between 10 and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes that those in the professional class"! If we are to take social inequality seriously, I would argue that health inequalities are of overriding importance, especially where they have secondary effects. Absolute income, in this case, contributes less to overall welfare than alcohol dependency.
Sorry for the rant, this topic's been bugging me recently!
I suppose it's not a million miles from making meths undrinkable. I don't like Cameron in general or on this subject in particular but perhaps there may be a benign aspect to this legislation, if it ever happens. I guess the people who don't have an alcohol problem but who happen to be poor and fancy a bit of cheap booze are just going to have to lump it for the greater good; we'll see. I can't help imagining that if this legislation were aimed at anyone else it'd be portrayed as WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.
"adults should be allowed, as much as possible, to do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't do harm to other people"
That's pretty much JS Mill's harm principle. You're not a libertarian, you're a liberal.
And I think "libertarian" has always meant what it means to today, certainly for the last 200 years.
Good rest of article though.
Post a Comment