Double drink prices, urges doctors -

Doctors called yesterday for the price of alcohol to be almost doubled in an attempt to reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, an independent body of senior doctors and researchers, has concluded that attitudes to drinking need to change.

Click to enlarge The best way to cut the amount people drink is to limit the affordability and availability of alcohol, they say.

The doctors' leader, Prof Sir Michael Marmot, said: "Alcohol is a good friend and a bad enemy. We are not against alcohol. It gives pleasure and also confers health benefits."

However, the academy argues that drinking levels should return to those of the early 1970s when the population drank on average seven litres of alcohol per head a year. This compares with the 11.1 litres now consumed. The figures represent a rise of 50 per cent in 30 years.

They say there is a direct link between the relative cheapness of alcohol and the increasing amounts consumed.

The doctors have called for the price of beer, wine and spirits to be increased to 1970 levels. In relative terms alcohol was nearly twice as expensive 30 years ago, they say.

Sir Michael, professor of epidemiology and public health at the University College London, said such measures would have a greater impact on the pockets of young people who drank too much than on people who drank sensibly. "We believe that if you can reduce the average you will also be able to do something about the heavy drinkers," he said.

"A strategic programme is needed to curb the nation's escalating level of drinking in the interests of individual and public health. The country has reached a point where it is necessary and urgent to call time on runaway alcohol consumption."

The academy's report, Calling Time, also proposes limits on the amount of alcohol people can bring in from Europe and lower drink driving limits - down from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg and to zero for drivers younger than 21.

The report says the current travellers' allowance gives a heavy drinker a 272-day supply.

They say this should be reduced to the permitted level of nicotine imported for personal use which gives a 20-a-day smoker a 40-day supply.

"Educational approaches have been disappointing but this may be swamped by contrary advertising," the report says. "Price modulation usually through tax increase is highly effective, particularly in under-age drinkers.

"A 10 per cent rise in the price of all alcoholic beverages has been estimated to reduce mortality from alcohol-related conditions by seven to 37 per cent."

Prof Ian Gilmore, registrar of the Royal College of Physicians and a member of the working party, accepted that their recommendations would not please politicians. "The report makes it very clear that targeting problem drinkers is not sufficient," Prof Gilmore said.

"It collects the compelling evidence that one of the most effective ways of reducing harm to individuals is to reduce the escalating national consumption of alcohol.

"This challenge makes alcohol an issue for society as a whole, and we encourage a wide debate on the policy options of proven benefit, such as increasing price and limiting access, unpalatable to politicians though they may be. The doctors said that drinking at levels of one or two drinks a day provided proven health benefits but that higher amounts began to do harm.

Deaths from chronic liver disease had risen from 124 in men and 86 in women, aged 45 to 54, in 1970 to 805 and 405 respectively in 2000. Alcohol is responsible for 70 per cent of cirrhosis deaths.

Prof Gilmore said: "I now see liver cirrhosis in people in their 20s and 30s, pretty women, who think they will get a warning sign. But the first thing you know is that you go yellow and your belly swells up. People are not just drinking more, they are drinking younger."

The report says that over 30 years chronic liver disease has escalated by more than 450 per cent.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the Cabinet was producing its own report on reducing harm caused by alcohol in the next few weeks.

So, by allowing the continued encroachment on our lives with government growth through taxation, we allow the government to become dependant on the revenues. They will never decrease and if the revenues are lost, they will find something else to tax. Now it is taxation of soda as a "sin tax". You support that and soon your ox will be gored. When all other substances are taxed out of existence, and the revenues are lost, water WILL be taxed.

It has happened in my state. Tobacco and alcohol taxes have been increased to the point that both consumption and illegal purchasing is up, depriving the government of their "revenue". Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

BTW, you confused your threads. This one is not about tobacco, it is about alcohol.

Pragmatically there is nothing I can do about this kind of taxation, except not buying said taxed item. Could the government get so large and rediculous they tax water - it a possibility - BUT a tax on water and a tax on alcohol (or tabacco) are not moral equivalents. You won't get any sympathy of consequences for bad health choices - BTW - isn't the "slippery slope" argument a fallacy . . .

It has happened in my state. Tobacco and alcohol taxes have been increased to the point that both consumption and illegal purchasing is up

Doesn't surprise me - notice these folks with their civil disobedience are NOT paying the tax.

Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

Cut your hair at home, wash your clothes at home, do your own home repairs - no ones forcing you to get haircuts, dry clean your clothes, or pay someone to fix your house.

Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

Correct - my bad

"BUT a tax on water and a tax on alcohol (or tabacco) are not moral equivalents."

Yes, the tax on alcohol or a tax on water is morally equivilant. Any tax is immoral. The use of the products may have moral differences, but the tax on either is immoral. A tax is nothing more than theft of unearned cash. It is immoral. That seems to be the difference in our philosophies. You think a tax is acceptable as long as it is on a behaviour/product you find to be immoral.

The problem with that thought process is that every $1 gained by taxing the immoral behaviour will be a new $1 for spending. After the immoral behaviour declines, and the revenues with it, the $1 spent is still spent. They will then move on to a new behaviour to tax. They can't unspend their $1. Sooner or later, a necessary behaviour (drinking water) will be taxed.

"Doesn't surprise me - notice these folks with their civil disobedience are NOT paying the tax."

Yep, and the government can catch them and put them in jail. They can enforce their taxation by the barrel of a gun!

"Cut your hair at home, wash your clothes at home, do your own home repairs - no ones forcing you to get haircuts, dry clean your clothes, or pay someone to fix your house."

Great response. What happens to the people that run those businesses? You just advocated the abolition of small service businesses. What a great thing, taxation drives people out of business, then we can grow government dependence via unemployment.

Remind me what a real patriot is again.

Yes, the tax on alcohol or a tax on water is morally equivilant. Any tax is immoral. The use of the products may have moral differences, but the tax on either is immoral. A tax is nothing more than theft of unearned cash. It is immoral. That seems to be the difference in our philosophies. You think a tax is acceptable as long as it is on a behaviour/product you find to be immoral.

Consumption taxes are not immoral because one only pays when one choses. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the product. A tax of my income directly, that is immoral.

Great response. What happens to the people that run those businesses? You just advocated the abolition of small service businesses. What a great thing, taxation drives people out of business, then we can grow government dependence via unemployment.

No I advocated not paying a tax, not the abolition of small service. Perhaps the two could be related if there actually was a terrible tax on hair cuts, but there isn't. So your wild speculation here is rather moot. However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can.

"Consumption taxes are not immoral because one only pays when one choses. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the product. A tax of my income directly, that is immoral."

Every tax is immoral. To deny this is the same as saying that some theft is moral, while others are not. It is the same as saying a crime was deserved. Would you blame the victim of rape because she dressed a certain way? Would you blame the victim of a mugging because they chose to go to a certain area of the town?

Every tax is the confiscation of money earned by someone else. Every tax is confiscation of productivity of the productive to fund some government agency. No government agency is required to be efficient and competitive. In fact, the accounting practices forces them to be as inefficient and uncompetitive as possible.

Theft is immoral, tax is theft!

"No I advocated not paying a tax, not the abolition of small service. Perhaps the two could be related if there actually was a terrible tax on hair cuts, but there isn't. So your wild speculation here is rather moot. However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can."

Your lack of logic is quite clear in this statement. The only way to avoid paying the tax is to no longer consume the service. If the tax is high enough, the number of consumers chosing to no longer consume the service will increase. That will directly result in a smaller market. The number of suppliers of the service will be smaller to meet the smaller market demands. That means people will lose their businesses and become unemployed. Therefore we create a new class of persons dependant on the government for handouts.

My "wild speculation" is not moot. The proposal to implement a "service tax" has been made. It is real. Why don't you admit that every $1 in taxation is $1 spent. When the taxed decide to not consume the taxed product/service, the government must find another way to steal that $1? They will never not spend it, they will find a different way to collect it!

You misunderstanding of the result of taxation on the market needs to be pointed out:

"However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can."

Government intervention in the market will cause the costs to be inflated. No longer will the market be able to bear what it can, instead the government is dictating prices with a tax policy. What other aspects of socialism are you complacent about?

Theft is immoral, tax is theft!

If I could live in a world without taxes that'd be great, but it's not realistic. The two certainties in life are death AND . . .

Furthermore some taxes are moral - the ones you pay when you want to - (consumption taxes) because the government is the objective agency that sees that legal contracts between free moral agents are carried out in full. In order to act in this regard the government needs money, so consumption taxes - which are paid only when one makes a choice to buy said taxed product - provide the money necessary for the government to act in it's contract compulsatory role. Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in today's world (primarily because humans generally tend to be nasty creatures) to enforce contract, otherwise. Therefore not all taxes are immoral. We can agree that a direct tax of earned income is immoral.

Your lack of logic is quite clear in this statement. The only way to avoid paying the tax is to no longer consume the service. If the tax is high enough, the number of consumers chosing to no longer consume the service will increase. That will directly result in a smaller market. The number of suppliers of the service will be smaller to meet the smaller market demands. That means people will lose their businesses and become unemployed. Therefore we create a new class of persons dependant on the government for handouts.

Like I said it could happen - I admitted that - but currently . . . nada. I'll make you a deal, when they start taxing haircuts so bad that I can't afford to get my hair cuts anymore, I'll get back to you (we'll make signs and protest!). Remember a haircut is not a vice - this is the distinction. A haircut is not a habit. Haircuts do not contribute to healthcare costs of people who get haircuts. There's a difference.

"If I could live in a world without taxes that'd be great, but it's not realistic. The two certainties in life are death AND . . ."

I agree.

"Furthermore some taxes are moral -"

Wrong. Any and all money not earned, yet confiscated/stolen is immorally gained. However, the use of that money may be necessary. i.e. defense of the nation.

"because the government is the objective agency that sees that legal contracts between free moral agents are carried out in full."

Wrong again. The only thing the government can do is make a ruling. The actual adherence to a contract is between the two private entities. If one party breaks the contract, doesn't pay for products/services, the other party is free to withhold their products/services.

"Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil .........Therefore not all taxes are immoral."

Evil is always immoral, regardless of necessity.

"Like I said it could happen - I admitted that - but currently . . . nada. I'll make you a deal, when they start taxing haircuts so bad that I can't afford to get my hair cuts anymore, I'll get back to you (we'll make signs and protest!). Remember a haircut is not a vice - this is the distinction. A haircut is not a habit. Haircuts do not contribute to healthcare costs of people who get haircuts. There's a difference."

How about protesting the average $0.60 government taxation on gas? How about protesting the cost of a gallon of gas? We all know that government regulation at the fed and state level is the real reason the cost is going up. The environmentalist wackos have been successful and now we are paying the price.

Let's try and wrap this up - point, counter point, is starting to take up too much time (it's my obsessive compulsive personality)

I support an added tax on cigs and alcohol (other drugs as well, if made legal) to help financially support the healthcare problems that each toxin created. While I don't buy your slippery slope argument (taxation of cigs/alcohol will lead to a tax of haircuts and water), the argument is not without logic. I think you have a real concern here outside of having a "cheap habit" (although I don't think you would mind if smokes costed less either). The governmet's misuse of these funds is an entirely different issue IMhO.

The reason gas prices are high in the first place is because of taxes and added extra ingredients, especially in Kali (I paid $2.22/gal when I filled up on Sunday). However, the current rise in gas prices more closely relates to increased demand, less supply, and a weak dollar. I don't expect gas prices to come down too much - we're running out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.