NATIONAL
LIQUOR NEWS – March 2006
What next?... by Gordon Broderick
If you take a look at any government directory – federal, state or local – you are likely to find an “Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Branch” or similarly worded bureaucratic unit. In fact there is a small army of specialist public servants dedicated to reducing alcohol and tobacco related harms. The only problem is that these specialists often take a very narrow view of what is required to reduce such harms: ‘ban’, ‘regulate’, ‘restrict’ are common words in their lexicon.
Over the last twenty years these bureaucrats have waged an unrelenting war against tobacco. Tobacco is now the most heavily regulated consumer product on the market. Restrictions apply to every aspect of its packaging, marketing and sponsorship. Tobacco is also the most heavily taxed consumer good in Australia. With the banning of smoking in pubs in most states well on its way, the health bureaucrats can claim a resounding victory. In fact, other than banning smoking in all public places and in private vehicles there is very little left that the health bureaucrats can do on the tobacco front.
So with tobacco regulated to the point of prohibition where do all these bureaucrats turn their attention? What is next? The answer appears to be alcohol.
In this column I have previously drawn readers’ attention to the plethora of recent government reviews that have been set up to inquire into alcohol. Many of these reviews have been driven by the bureaucracy.
At this point it is crucial to point out a very important distinction between tobacco and alcohol. Every cigarette damages a person’s health - there is no safe level of smoking. Passive smoking is also a major issue. Unlike tobacco, it has been demonstrated in numerous health studies that low to moderate consumption of alcohol has beneficial health effects. Also the vast majority of drinkers consume alcohol responsibly.
The problem with many of the recent inquires into alcohol is that it appears that the same methodology that was used to reduce smoking levels is being applied alcohol. DSICA considers that such policies applied to alcohol are entirely inappropriate for the reasons cited above – alcohol and tobacco cannot be equated in policy terms.
The application of restrictive tobacco policies to alcohol is not just an Australian phenomenon. In early 2005 the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted a resolution on ‘Public health problems caused by harmful use of alcohol’, and submitted it for consideration at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2005. This is the first WHA resolution specifically on alcohol for 22 years, and is significant because alcohol is being placed front and centre on WHO’s agenda.
The WHO resolutions represents the greatest global challenge to the alcohol industry in some time because there are calls amongst WHO and health advocates for an ‘International Public Health Treaty’ on alcohol, which would be modelled on the highly prescriptive WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Against this background, WHO recently released a paper (WHA - Paper A58/18) which outlines strategies to reduce the ‘alcohol-related burden’ on society. Included in its ‘best practice’ strategies were:
• government monopoly of retail sales;
• restrictions on hours or days of sale;
• restrictions on the density of sales outlets; and
• taxes on alcohol.
These strategies have gained wide currency amongst health bureaucrats and some levels of governments. While the first strategy is unlikely to occur in the Australian context, DSICA considers that restrictions on trading hours, a focus on liquor outlet density, and higher taxation will be firmly on the agenda in 2006.
Alcohol consumed moderately provides health and social benefits to the community. Health bureaucrats need to acknowledge this. By contrast there is no safe level of tobacco use. DSICA considers that it would be a mistake to apply the same policy template to alcohol that was used to reduce smoking. It is DSICA view that tobacco policy should be about ‘levels’ of consumption while alcohol policy should focus on ‘patterns’ of consumption.
Finally, it is worth recalling the words of Friedrich Hayek quoted in a speech by the Federal Parliamentary Secretary of Health and Aging, Chris Pyne, MP. Hayek warned of the danger of government delegating power to committees of experts to determine policy in their specific areas. To the expert, Hayek warned, his or her field of expertise is always the most pressing of problems, deserving of the greatest allocation of resources and the strictest impositions on society.
