Bansturbator of the Day

CiF is a rich source of control freakery and illiberal bansturbators. Today’s egregious example is Chris Hawkey. Here we have the modern temperance movement railing against the demon drink. He opens with an example:

Last week, Stacey Rhymes from Derby, who died from alcoholic liver disease at 24, appealed from the grave for steps to stop enticing vulnerable young people into addiction, when her mother released harrowing photographs of her daughter’s decline. Hers is the human face of a huge statistical problem – research published yesterday foresees more than 90,000 lives lost to alcohol over the next decade. As a practising gastroenterologist, I regularly see patients whose lives have been wrecked by alcohol. The media have focused on binge-drinking, but consumption has risen throughout society and brought an epidemic of alcoholic liver disease with it. A third of patients on our wards are alcoholics, and these days many are in their 20s and 30s, like Stacey, or even younger.

Apart from the obvious observation that one alcoholic death doesn’t make a summer, I’ll respond to the point being made here. As someone who has witnessed alcoholism at first hand, I would perhaps be one of the first to detest alcohol. Actually, I do. I don’t like what it does – neither the loss of inhibition and control in the short term nor the long term effects of systematic over-consumption. Fortunately, the person I know managed to go dry and has remained so for a decade now. And, for alcoholics, cold turkey is the only real answer – although I am sure there are some who claim to have their consumption under control despite their alcoholism. I have seen the addicted personality and the behaviour altering affects of the condition and I loathe it. I do not drink alcohol and haven’t since I tried it as a teenager and decided that I didn’t like the taste. So surely, I would agree with Chris Hawkey, wouldn’t I?

Absolutely not, I have no desire to control others’ alcohol consumption – whatever damage it may or may not do. The vast majority of people enjoy the odd tipple or bottle of wine with a meal and no harm comes to them.

Thousands die from alcohol-related diseases every year. Moreover, compared to cigarettes, the effects of alcohol are worse because it destroys self-esteem and dignity before killing. This personal degradation and the accompanying family destruction does not generally occur with tobacco. Banning advertising of cigarettes has markedly reduced smoking and smoking-related illness. There is no reason for taking a different approach with alcohol.

In the case of the chronic alcoholic, yes, it can do just that. For others, it does not. They enjoy it and feel fine. I remain to be convinced by the assertion that banning advertising has caused a reduction in smoking related illnesses. Returning to alcohol, it is worth pointing out that HMRC figures suggest that Britons are drinking less anyway and have been for around four years. Make of that what you will.

But, then, Hawkey is one of those medics who think that grown adults need doctors to nanny them about, to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. If someone wishes to drink themselves to death, that is their business. What we put into our bodies is up to us – not the state and frankly, not unelected busy-bodies such as Chris Hawkey.

While opponents may argue that this is anti-libertarian,

Because it is.

they are in a minority. A YouGov Poll commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology showed 62% of the public think advertising of alcohol aimed at young people should be banned.

Ah, yes, the good old appeal to majority.

In the past, death from alcoholic liver disease in France was more than 10 times higher than in the UK: now the relationship is reversed. In France most alcohol advertising is banned, with a marked decline in alcoholic problems, especially among young people. In the UK rising spending on advertising is mirrored in rising consumption among 11 to 15-year-olds.

Well, it is worth pointing out the the French have come up against the old unintended consequences with that one. Also, Hawkey provides no definitive evidence to a causal link.

Moving on, Hawkey insists that advertising influences young people:

The ads also commonly feature animals, humour and music: no wonder teenagers interpret these ads as suggesting that alcohol is a gateway to social and sexual success.

Teenagers have always thought that – they don’t need advertising to influence them. It’s big, it’s grown up and teenagers will always want to experiment. Make it hidden and forbidden and you merely increase its appeal.

A charitable view is that the industry genuinely believes promotion is harmless. But I doubt many people believe this is anything other than sophistry in pursuit of profit.

Well, duh! Advertisers advertise their product in an attempt to increase profit. Who’d a thunk it?

The view that alcoholism is only a problem for a minority is more likely to be sincere, but it is erroneous: excessive alcohol consumption and increasing alcoholic liver disease pervade all ages and sections of society. In our survey 52% of respondents drank above safe limits: it is the “sensible majority” that needs protection.

It is only a problem for a minority. There are some people who cannot control their consumption once the first sip has passed their lips. This is the addict who needs the emotional crutch, this is the person whose body cannot break down the alcohol, leaving a craving for more. These people are most certainly a minority. The majority can stop any time they wish. They are not addicts. They may well choose to drink large quantities of alcohol and they may as a consequence damage their long term health, but they are not necessarily addicted.

As for the “safe limits” canard, I wonder how many times I and others have to point out that this is entirely made up, concocted, fabricated, a flight of fancy, in short; a lie. And we, the “sensible majority” most certainly do not need your protection. I and other sensible people are perfectly capable of ignoring advertising should we so wish.

Curbs on ads will have to be accompanied by restrictions on sponsorship and opening hours, minimum unit pricing, and a re-evaluation of the delusion that under-age drinking around the family table encourages responsible drinking.

You see here the totalitarian mindset at work – this isn’t just about banning advertising at all. Parents who allow their children to drink at the dinner table – introducing them to alcohol in a controlled environment, dissolving the myths that surround alcohol in a resoponsible manner are deluded. I’m sure my parents who did just this and have four children, one of whom is teetotal and the other three who are moderate drinkers will appreciate knowing this.

Any policy that treats alcohol differently to tobacco cannot be defended.

Well, that’s true enough – each is equally totalitarian.

At a time when the ad industry wants more trade and political parties want not to rock the boat, there are contrary pressures. But the problem is too serious for such considerations to hold sway.

Given the evidence-free twaddle from Chris Hawkey, the conclusion to be drawn is; no it is not.

———————————-

Update: This little gem from hermionegingold:

my 5 a day

1. coffee
2. ciggie
3. cheese
4. chips
5. wine

shove that in your pipe new labour. i pay tax on all.

Priceless.

———————————-

Update: Rab offers a similar point of view on Doctors and alcohol pricing.