Minimum price per unit alcohol: Myth fight!

With David Cameron apparently warming to the idea of introducing a minimum price per unit of alcohol in his fight against binge drinking, the battle of rhetoric between supporters and opponents of the scheme is hotting up. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond's Scottish government is planning to set the minimum price in its own scheme in Spring.

The favoured rhetorical device emanating from both sides of the 'debate' will be familiar to anyone who followed the slagging match which led up to the AV referendum: Put weak points in the mouths of your opponents and then demolish them. This is known as a 'straw man', because rather than fighting the real, sometimes quite tricky arguments made by your opponents, it is as if you are attacking a pitiful scarecrow of your own construction.


A favourite way of presenting this line of attack is in the form of a series of 'myths' supposedly relied upon by the opposing team, and going on to 'debunk' them (is anything other than a myth ever 'debunked'?) by contrasting them with the so-called 'facts'.

Photo: Flikr/Sergis Blog

In the red corner, then, in the beer-soaked shorts and spoiling for a brawl, clutching bottles of cheap plonk in each oversized glove, we have the retail industry which sells cut-price booze by the gallon. Paul 'Chase on the Case' Chase steps in to defend cheap, strong alcohol by providing us with 'The Myths on Alcohol'.


Myth 1: Alcohol is cheaper than ever before


Fact: Chase pedantically points out that alcohol is not cheaper, but only 'more affordable' than it was in the 1980's.


Myth 2: A minimum price of 50p per unit would significantly reduce alcohol misuse in the UK.


Fact: Here Chase cherry picks research showing that the effect on "a young binge drinker" will be to spend £1.14 more per week to drink the same amount of booze. Many studies indicate it would have a significant impact.


Myth 3: Medical campaigners claim that there has been an increase in alcohol-related admissions to hospital.


Fact: The statistics are nothing more than an estimate. "The research wasn't even conducted in Britain!" he splutters, "but by some poky operation called 'the World Health Organisation'." Anyone ever heard of the WHO?


Myth 4: Britain has one of the worst rates of liver disease in the world.


Fact: 16 out of 27 EU member states have worse liver disease rates than us. What Paul Chase doesn't tell us, however, is that this puts us mid-low table in a by far the heaviest-drinking continent in the world.


Myth 5: Underage and teenage drinking is getting worse.


Fact: The number of 11-15 year olds who drink has actually gone down slightly in the last few years. Could this be linked to a fall in pocket-money?


Myth 6: We're drinking more and more each year.


Fact: Average consumption is actually slowly decreasing - however this figure could easily hide growing 'booze inequality', where binge-drinkers are cancelled out by an increasing number of tee-totallers.




So, apart from retailers of cheap alcohol, who else is against this policy? A few free-market ideologues, perhaps, shrieking about state intervention.


Meanwhile, in the blue corner, wearing the white shorts and a stethoscope and demonstrating an uncanny ability to walk along a straight line without falling over, we have drug and addiction campaign organisations, medical academics, the Scottish Government and now, it seems, David Cameron too!


Commentators who oppose alcohol advertising have in the past also drawn up lists of myths supposedly promoted by the alcohol industry, such as that on the New Zealand Drug Foundation website. Expect more of this kind of thing from both sides and focusing on minimum pricing itself as the debate gets fiercer.


I take a more moderate line, however. I very much enjoy a drink, but I understand that it is not fantastic news for society when great hoardes of pissed people routinely destroy city centres, each other and their own bodies, leaving behind a trail of blood, broken windows, vomit and urine in their weekly search for elusive, brief, blurry euphoria. As such, I have drawn up my own myth-busting list, from the perspective of someone who truly cherishes a good, honest booze-up now and then, but also supports the minimum price of alcohol. A contradiction? I believe not:


Myth 1: Minimum pricing will only affect the poor.


Minimum pricing will of course affect those with limited incomes and those who currently choose the cheapest, strongest drinks, the most. What this means in reality is, however, that it is unfortunately only the poor that it will help, by discouraging them from ruining their lives with alcohol. Patronising? Maybe a tad, and I'm very sorry about that but I still think it's the truth. Still, helping only the poor is preferential to helping no one.


Myth 2: It will mean the least well off will have to cut back on essentials to fund their drinking habits.


Will the poor actually find themselves out of pocket? Supermarket chains currently lose money promoting cut-price alcohol as a 'loss leader' to draw people into their stores. If their legal ability to do this is curtailed, the surplus funds will just be sloshing about in their promotions budgets, looking for a new home. Marketing departments will therefore have to think of more creative ways of spending it (and thereby justifying their salaries) and this should lead to promotions on more essential items like food.


Myth 3: Pubs are already closing down at a rate of knots, why put more pressure on the industry?


The supermarket industry is very different to the pub industry. I am convinced that minimum pricing, if it is bold enough (above 50p/unit) would save pubs from closing down, since it would not affect the price of beer sold in them, making them relatively better value for money. As things stand now, pubs which used to be the hubs of working class communities risk becoming yet another 'plaything of the rich', with poorer people lured by low prices into drinking at home, in parks and in the streets.


Myth 4: It's a nasty Tory policy aimed at the poor as revenge for the fox-hunting ban
The Tories have been dodging this for ages because of their close links to the drinks industry and big business (the same could be said, depressingly, of New Labour) and because of their ideological opposition to state interference in markets to make people's lives better. Now that they feel compelled through desperation to act, we should support it.


Myth 5: People who drink in moderation will also be hit
Quite simply, the less you drink, the less you will be affected by minimum pricing. Not only that, but if you drink in a pub rather than at home, or if you tend to drink higher-quality beverages, the price you pay for alcohol will not change. I hope a rebalancing of the pricing of different drinks will lead not only to reduced rates of binging on cheap, plastic 2-litre bottles of potent cider, but also to the discovery by people who used to engage in this kind of behaviour of new, far superior beverages, and more sumptuous surroundings when they drink it.


This is essentially why I support minimum pricing: It will help people to see that it's not how much you drink that is so satisfying, but what you drink and where.

Photo: Flikr/Timothy Valentine