On the other hand...

Well, this makes sense...

For many years, I was confounded by my blackouts, but the mechanics are quite simple. The blood reaches a certain alcohol saturation point and shuts down the hippocampus, part of the brain responsible for making long-term memories. You drink enough, and that’s it. Shutdown. No more memories.

On the bright side, I may be 37 but my memory tells me that I'm still about 24...

An economic solution I can get behind...

... comes from the Daily Mash...

DRINKING at least three pints of beer at lunchtime could put Britain’s economy back on track, it has been claimed.

As the country sinks further into a double-dip recession, economists believe the decline of lunchtime drinking could be the cause of its economic woes.

Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: “Throughout the 80s and early 90s, office workers would flee the office like rats out of a trap at half twelve – twelve on Fridays – heading straight for the pub.

“However bosses fell under the influence of soulless foreign ‘business experts’, particularly Americans, who believed that drinking several pints of beer in the middle of the day could negatively effect productivity.

“But it’s only after the shift away from midday alcohol binges towards eating a sad little sandwich at one’s computer that everything went to shit.”

Professor Brubaker believes a mandatory minimum lunchtime beer consumption of three pints could restore Britain’s economic vigour.

Yup—I think that'll work very nicely!

As I always say, the glass is half-empty—and it's your round...

A open letter to David Cameron

I have just sent the following email to the office of the Buttered New Potato...

I have attempted to send said email: alas, the only way to contact the Buttered New Potato electronically is to use the Number 10 submission form—which limits you to 1000 characters. So, do I break it up into several emails, just send him the link or shall I print it out and post it in the old-fashioned way?

Or, since all the Tory grandees seem to be reading him at present, perhaps Guido would be kind enough to ask on your humble Devil's behalf...?

Answers on a postcard or, preferably, in the comments below.

Anyway, on with the fun...

Dear Mr Cameron,

I am writing to ask you—as politely as I can—what you think you are playing at as regards the minimum pricing of alcohol?

Since you are Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I assume that you have a great many researchers and advisors (who will, no doubt, be the only ones who read this); as such, I am forced to assume that you also know that:

1. the amount of alcohol consumption has been steadily dropping over the last ten years;


2. the proportion of people drinking more than their recommended weekly units is also on a solid downward trajectory;


3. this is true even amongst "the young";


4. the nation's alcohol consumption has dropped by about 20% in 5 years;


5. these figures come from your Office for National Statistics' General Lifestyle Survey—helpfully summarised by Chris Snowdon.

Further, you will also know that:

1. about 4 years ago, Richard Smith—a member of the Royal College of Physicians group that produced the report on which the recommended weekly units are based—told The Times that "... it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t... we don’t really have any data whatsoever... Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee" (no longer generally available online but also reported by The Register);


2. the ONS changed assumed that people were drinking bigger glasses of stronger alcohol in 2007, thus producing a strong upward trend where none actually existed (as measured in volume of pure alcohol)—Myth 1, here;


3. although you were recently quoted as saying "When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home...", this is, in fact, not true. Alcohol is not cheaper than water, even bottled water—Myth 5, here;


4. alcohol is roughly 20% more expensive, in real terms, than in 1980 (the year often quoted as a yardstick)—Myth 2, here;


5. that alcohol, smoking and obesity actually cost health systems less money than "healthy people" due to their tendency to die younger.

Finally, for the moment, I will also assume that you know that the EU has already said that minimum price fixing is illegal under Free Trade rules—for both alcohol and cigarettes, e.g. media reports here (Ireland's attempt to set a minimum price for tobacco), here (Scotland's minimum alcohol price), here (an EC Council Directive on tobacco which lays out the judgement on minimum pricing of anything), and references to two other cases here.

Let us leave aside whether the minimum pricing of alcohol is a suitable policy initiative for a man who said, in 2008, "The era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end". Yes, we'll leave that—no one actually expected you to keep such a promise, nor any others about restoration of our freedoms.

No—what I am asking is why you would adopt such an illegal, regressive and illiberal policy when you yourself must know that the problem that minimum pricing is supposed to solve simply doesn't exist?

And given that you must know all of the above, why you continue to tell lies to the public?

Regards,

DK

I look forward to publishing the Prime Minister's response.

Minimum price for alcohol

So, David "buttered new potato" Cameron—the man who once said "The era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end."—has announced that he intends to pass a law setting a minimum price per unit for booze.

The Prime Minister is to say: “Binge drinking isn’t some fringe issue, it accounts for half of all alcohol consumed in this country.

What? How the fuck can he possibly determine that? I call "bollocks" on that one.

“The crime and violence it causes drains resources in our hospitals, generates mayhem on our streets and spreads fear.

Sure, alcohol-fuelled crimes are deeply unpleasant. So, the solution is to stop accepting drunkenness as mitigation when convicting people.

“When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home before they even set foot in a pub."

Oh, this old canard lie again. As my colleague, the Filthy Smoker, pointed out in his Five Myths About Alcohol post (back in 2009), alcohol is not cheaper than water.

This doozy is a favourite of pretend charity Alcohol Concern and has been repeated many times...
...

Let's ignore for a moment the obvious point that someone wanting to buy water is hardly likely to buy lager on an impulse instead. Let's even ignore the fact that water comes out of the tap for 0.02p per glass.

Instead, let's look at Tesco's own brand lager. Here it is.

It costs 91p for a 4-pack, or 5.2p per 100ml.

And here's Tesco's own brand mineral water.

It costs 13p, or 0.7p per 100ml.

So please can we put this one to bed now?

Apparently not, because the leader of this country is repeating it. Again. Given the number of advisers the man must have, it's hardly even worth applying the Polly Conundrum* because Cameron must be lying.

So, what else does the scumbag has to say to justify this massively illiberal act?

“So we are going to introduce a new minimum unit price—so for the first time it will be illegal for shops to sell alcohol for less than this set price per unit.

“We’re consulting on the actual price, but if it is 40p that could mean 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year by the end of the decade."

So they're "consulting on the actual price", are they? So, given that we know the usual suspects, let's think who they'll consult...

• The BMA and other assorted medical charlatans: they'll be for a much higher price, because their massive salaries will bear it and they are a bunch of interfering, self-righteous, patrician arseholes.


• Alcohol Concern, Alliance House Foundation, and other fake charities: they'll be for a much higher price because they are insane, temperance supporters and, besides, telling the government what they want to hear is what the government funds them for.


• Drink companies, pubs and off-licences: they'll be for higher prices (within limits) because they will get a fuckload more cash.

So, the ordinary people of this country are going to get royally stitched-up, eh?

“I know this won’t be universally popular."

Well, it'll be popular with those groups outlined above.

"But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.”

The right thing, you pompous prig, would be to leave people to go to hell in whatever way they choose, frankly. As your Deputy Prime Minister once said, "Taking people’s freedom away didn’t make our streets safe."

In the same article, Clegg also said...

... the Government wanted to establish “a fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge”.

Excuse me whilst I let out a hollow, derisory laugh.

As ever, the brilliant Chris Snowdon has done some sterling work on this issue, so forgive me whilst I quote large chunks of this neat round-up post.

I have written much about this subject on this blog in the last two years—that campaigners have used statistics dishonestly to promote the policy; that it is very likely to be illegal under EU law; that pub chains have gone all bootleggers 'n' baptists in their rent-seeking; that the BBC has bent over backwards to amplify the voice of temperance groups; that the government has used public money to lobby itself.

I see minimum pricing as a sister policy to plain packaging in that it will give the government an unprecedented right to impose its will on the free market. Sin taxes and health warnings are one thing. Having the government setting prices and seizing control of a product's entire packaging is quite another. These are powers that the government has never had in our peacetime history (correct me if you can think of an example to the contrary) and they are being taken without any kind of rational debate. The binge-drinking 'epidemic' is a modern moral panic which will baffle sociologists for years to come, and the packaging of cigarettes would be trivial if it were not such a blatant trampling of private and intellectual property.

As James Nicholls wrote recently:

That it is the Tories, rather than Labour, who have been first to throw their weight behind minimum pricing is remarkable enough: it is, after all, a concept entirely at odds with free market principles. 

Indeed. It is especially disappointing—though not surprising—of a government that came to power promising to restore freedom to this country. The so-called Freedom Bill seems to have been shelved and, whilst the Coalition seems to suffer less from legislatory diarrhoea than their predecessors, they are quietly carrying on with the job of removing more of our liberties.

Chris goes on to make this prediction...

Nothing—absolutely nothing—is more certain than that within weeks, perhaps days, of minimum pricing being introduced, you will hear the usual shrill voices complaining that 45p, or 50p, is mere "pocket money" and the minimum price should be 60p, 70p, 80p, £1 a unit. What hope can we have that the government will stand up to them then?

... and, sure enough, this little gem appeared in the Telegraph on Friday.

Minimum alcohol price 'could be higher than 40p per unit'

Drinkers face paying more than 40p per unit of alcohol under a minimum price scheme to tackle the country's binge-drinking problem, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has indicated.

Now, Chris Snowdon has studied the tactics of temperance loons—and published two excellent books about them: Velvet Glove, Iron Fist and The Art of Suppression**—but most of us, I think, would easily have predicted this move.

See, it's brilliant for the temperance movement: it's a campaign that they can continue to fight (thus continuing to justify their existence and, thus, their dollops of taxpayer-extorted cash) through demands ever higher prices, until eventually moving in for the ban.

Hmmm, that tactic sounds somewhat familiar...

Did I mention that fags have got even more expensive in the Budget?

Anyway, over at the ASI, Timmy is incensed...

This is the most monumentally insane, stupid and illiberal nonsense that we've had imposed upon us in years. There have been things more illiberal, yes, but not insane at the same time. I'll leave you to fill in the (...)s in the title there for I'm afraid that my carpet biting outrage at this silliness might lead me to become intemperate in my language. Idiots just isn't strong enough.
...

As Sam points out a lot of the detailed heavy lifting on this has been done by Chris Snowden, sometimes of this parish. Alcohol consumption is falling, definitions of "binge drinking" are ludicrous, the statistics on alcohol related hospital admissions are nonsense (they are assumed, not counted or calculated), boozers, smokers and lardbuckets save the NHS money, not cost it and anyway, what is this interference in our charting our own way from cradle to inevitable grave? Not to say that it's regressive in distribution.

There is worse though than just entirely shakey evidential support (much of it cooked up by people paid by the government to lobby the government) and gross illiberalism. There's actual stupidity as well in at least two points. The first is that minimum pricing is almost certainly illegal. We even have case law on the point.

The second is so glaringly, inanely, stupid that it even has the European Commission on the right side of the point. And yes, you know someone has to have been really barmcaked to have managed to get them on the right side of any question more complex than the cuteness of kittens:

The European Commission sounded a warning to Britain about the policy, saying it believed “minimum tax rates to be preferable to minimum pricing for alcohol”.

“Minimum tax rates put all products on an equal footing from a market perspective, whereas minimum prices can increase the profit margin of products with the lowest production cost,” a spokesman said.

Let us assume that all of the evidence is in fact sound: that there is an outbreak of binge drinking, that this is doing harm and that higher alcohol prices will reduce these evils and harms. How magnificently chocolate teapot do you have to be to insist that that extra money from the higher prices goes to brewers and supermarkets rather than into the Treasury? If you're going to sting the boozers because they've been naughty boys and girls then the least you can do is reduce the tax burden on others, no? Instead of pumping up the profits of some favoured sector?

Me? I am so tired of this crap that I can barely summon up the energy to curse them all as a pack of cunts.

But they are a pack of cunts.

P.S. As a special bonus, let me introduce the Turn-coat of the Day—one Andrew Lansley—who, in May 201o, said this:

All our decisions must be evidence-based, and on that basis, we do not currently support an introduction of minimum pricing.

It seems that Lansley has been bought off because, on Friday, the following was reported:

Mr Lansley said last night that he had changed his mind about the wisdom of minimum pricing.

He said: “I think it is important to send a signal that we will not have a situation where people are being continuously prompted to drink to excess.”

What's that jingling sound coming from your pocket, Andrew? Gosh—are they solid silver...?

* The Polly Conundrum is named after Polly Toynbee, of course, and asks this simple question: "are they pig-ignorant or are they lying?"

** DISCLAIMER: I did the covers for these books, and I stand to make a few pennies if you buy them.

And so it goes on...

As the laziness of the festive season has started to wear thin, your humble Devil has woken up and noticed that the Coalition have quietly pledged to implement some spectacularly stupid policies.

The first of these is the Vickers Report which, amongst other pointless remedies, suggests splitting the retail and investment arms of banks. Despite the fact that this ignores the fact that the collapse started amongst the government-guaranteed retail arms of said banks, the government has said that it will press ahead with the recommendations in full.

The second piece of colossal stupidity is Cameron's reported commandment to implement minimum alcohol pricing: this suggestion really grips my shit for a number of reasons—not least that it won't work, that it will be illegal under EU law, that there is no drinking problem in this country, and that the massively-foreheaded twat has finally shown his true colours.

Most irritating of all, of course, is that we know that Tory aides read many blogs voraciously—and that, therefore, CCHQ are aware of all of the above. And they know that we know that they know. As such, they are pissing into our open mouths.

As such, I feel that some of these issues need to be addressed by your humble Devil—if only for my own catharsis. But, it is late, and so this post is a bookmark, an aide memoire for myself and a menu of things to come for my remaining readers...

It's in our their DNA

Over at Orphans of Liberty, Longrider lists a good number of ways in which this government—supposedly devoted to civil liberties—has utterly failed to curb the state's intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives.

There's one particular part that I want to touch on, and that is the retention of DNA.

The retention of the DNA of innocent people is illegal. It took the European court to tell the previous shower that it is illegal. I was not surprised when Labour chose to ignore the ruling. I cannot say I am over surprised that the current lot are doing likewise. Forget all that stuff about the Human Rights legislation, it is a basic violation of the individual to take something by force and to keep it on record when they are innocent of any crime.

I would go further—the police should not take DNA unless they are dealing with suspects of a crime. And, once the perpetrator of the crime has been established, they should destroy said DNA records.

When your humble Devil was done for drink-driving, back in February, the police took a DNA swab. Why?

They lifted me from my car, and breathalysed me. I was bang to rights, no doubt about that.

So why take a DNA sample? What possible motivation could they have for taking a DNA sample of a drink-driver whose guilt was beyond doubt—and who had entered a guilty plea at the station?

At this point, no doubt, someone will pop up and shout something about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".

Except, of course, that there is. DNA is very far from being the unique identifier that people think it is—especially when the routine analyses are so imprecise. The amount of DNA that separates us from pigs is remarkably small (which is why they used to take insulin from pigs for diabetics); in actual fact, we are—genetically—not so far away from bananas.

When taking the whole of the human genome, the differences between individual humans is something like 0.1%.

Longrider is exercised by the idea that innocent people's DNA should be retained; I argue that, even if found guilty (especially if the suspect pleads guilty to the crime for which they have been arrested), the police should have no mandate to retain an individual's DNA.

I was arrested for a very specific crime. I pleaded guilty to that crime, both at the police station and in court. It was not a crime of violence, nor any one where it might be thought that I had committed others. That crime is the only one that I have admitted to in a court of law, or been accused of.

Why then should my DNA be held?

The Art of Suppression

The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition since 1800 by Christopher Snowdon.

Your humble Devil has received his gratis copy of Christopher Snowdon's new magnum opus, The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition since 1800.

In the last few years, Chris has become an essential authority on prohibition, Righteous campaigners and fake charities—mainly because he treats his subjects with a lightness of touch and sense of humour that those same authoritarian bastards do not allow us mere taxpayers. As such, I am proud to have provided the cover for the third of his publications...

A review will appear here fairly shortly but, in the meantime, I highly recommend wandering over to his place and ordering your copy...

In a right state (but not in the bar)

Via @DickPuddlecote, it's good to see bar owners in Michigan taking some decisive action.

In an act of solidarity, Michigan bar and restaurant owners have banned state lawmakers from their property.

Effective September 1, the group Private Property Rights in Michigan said in a release Monday that lawmakers will be persona non grata in over 500 Michigan licensed establishments, across the state.

PPRM said it believes, however, even more will take part.

The group says bar owners and workers have grown frustrated with the Ron Davis law; also known as the private property tobacco use ban. PPRM claims the ban has collectively cost the state an estimated $200 million dollars in lost revenue through losses in jobs, taxes, business closings and to the state lottery.
...

In Michigan, bar owners have said that despite there being a large number of lawmakers supporting them, that they, the owners, must provide a 'level playing field', and are forced to prohibit all lawmakers from their establishments.
...

Bars will be posting signs on their entrances, and providing workers photographs of lawmakers to identify them should they, the lawmakers, choose to ignore the ban. Owners have indicated they will have lawmakers charged with trespassing on private property under MCL Sec. 750.552. One Alpena bar owners said, "politicians will learn pretty quick that our bars are private property [if they choose to ignore the ban and enter]."

Good for them.

Quote of the Day...

... comes from Shuggy, as he tries to get to grips with "nudge" economics.

To avoid injury, people should not attempt to iron their clothes whilst still wearing them.

See, you were thinking of doing this but now you've been 'nudged' in the right direction. It's all very 'Big Society'. Think I'm getting the hang of it now. It's like the small society, only more stupid...

Naturally, he's referring to Richard Thaler's suggestion—accompanied, of course, with a not-so-veiled threat—that people should abandon rounds in favour of running a tab.

Richard Thaler, a professor at Chicago University, suggests that groups of three or more should set up a tab to be split at the end of the evening to stop each member of a party feeling obligated to buy a round for everyone.

Prof Thaler, a key adviser to the Prime Minister on behavioural economics or "nudge" policy, said of buying rounds: "It is just a tradition and it has this unintended consequence.

"So if I was giving advice, I would say if there were more than three of you I would run a tab. These are the kinds of things that policy makers and publicans should be thinking about."

Uh huh. Yep, it's "just a tradition" and we wouldn't want to hang on to any of those in this country, eh? Plus, as Shuggy also points out, only an American—and some of our more lippy doctors—would consider three pints to be "binge drinking".

Mind you, Thaler does make one useful point...

Prof Thaler questioned the usefulness of the minimum drinking age of 18. He suggested that some councils should see whether they could cut the legal age.

I quite agree: I think that people should be encouraged to drink in pubs from a much younger age—16 as a minimum, or lower when accompanied by a responsible adult.

"What are the limits on the abilities of councils to experiment? Could they raise or lower the drinking age?" he said.

Well, not as the law stands, no. And, if they did have the ability to change the law, the gits in local government would almost certainly raise the age rather than lower it. Because they're idiots.

So, given that Thaler's good suggestion is unlikely to come to pass, let us hope that his other suggestions are similarly ignored.

Prof Thaler is author of the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth And Happiness, which heavily influenced the Prime Minister in opposition.

Oh. Shit.

Mind-boggling hypocrisy

Having said that nothing was happening, I was perhaps a little premature: after all, I am sure that (if one looked) no day would go by without yet another example of our Lords and Masters' mind-boggling hypocrisy or Third-World levels of venality being exposed.

In this case, Our New Coalition Overlords™ have been using the money that they extort from us by force to stock up the Parliament booze cellars.

Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham revealed that Government Hospitality, which manages the cellar, had spent £17,698 on new stock since May 6—bringing the total value to £864,000—though he insisted the standard practice of buying wines young saved money for the taxpayer.

It isn't just that this bunch of crooks steal our cash so that they can drink wine that most of the rest of us simply wouldn't be able to afford, of course—although that's bad enough.

No. It's much worse than that. And, just to emphasise the point, here's Henry Bell-End-ingham again...

"Careful management of the Government wine cellar enables GH to provide wine for high profile events at significantly below the current market rate, making substantial savings for the taxpayer."

Substantial savings for the taxpayer, eh? That sounds jolly good.

But... Hang on a second! Isn't it you kill-joy bastards that are attempting to introduce minimum pricing and a ban on below-cost alcohol sales so that, in other circumstances, taxpayers can't make "substantial savings" for themselves?

But of course I can see that you people are different: you people won't cost the NHS anything—because you've all got private health insurance, I imagine (involuntarily paid for by us). Can't go mixing with the plebs and the MRSA now, can you?

And you won't cause any problems drink-driving because you've all either got chauffeurs or jolly nice flats within spitting distance of the House, haven't you (involuntarily paid for by us again)?

So, what you're telling me, Hank ol' chum, is that drinking large amounts of booze is bad for the proles, but good for MPs. That booze might damage us but, magically, does no harm at all to jumped-up little authoritarians in suits?

Or is it simply that booze bought with the sweat of other people's brows tastes exceptionally good and, despite all of the expenses scandals, you just can't wean yourselves off that sweet, sweet liquor?

Seriously, you people are just beyond the fucking pale: you would happily deny us the opportunity to make "substantial savings" on our own drink, but you try to defend the—frankly obscene—amount of money that you spend on booze by claiming that you are making "substantial savings".

So, tell me, Hank ol' chum, how much would we save if you bought no booze at all? Oh, and how much would be save if you stopped the booze subsidy in the House of Commons bars? Because, ladies and gentlemen, let us remind ourselves that in 2007/08*, our Lords and Masters subsidised their own booze to the tune of £5.5 million.

As my peripatetic Greek friend has noted, drinking is one of life's greatest pleasures; these bastard politicians are attempting to remove that pleasure—for our own good, of course. And not only do they spend our money on their own booze, they throw yet more of it at fake charities so that Temperance scum like Alcohol Concern can use half a million quid of our money per annum to persuade MPs to make laws to force the rest of us to stop drinking.

IT'S OUR MONEY, you bastards.

And the only reason that you can take our money in tax is because the vast majority of us are not hopeless, helpless alcoholics—we are working, productive members of society who like to have the occasional drink so that we can forget the fact that we spend nearly half the year working to pay for those who aren't.

How dare you rely on our industry and then use our own capital against us? How DARE you?

And there are still people who genuinely believe that people go into Parliament to try to make people's lives better; there are even those in Parliament who will tell you, with a straight face, that they genuinely want to make people's lives better.

The mind boggles—truly it does.

P.S. There's some more quality comment from Dick Puddlecote, Captain Ranty and Leg-Iron.

* I can't be bothered to hunt down more recent figures: if anyone has them to hand, please feel free to post a link in the comments.

Administriva

Your humble Devil apologises for his silence: not only have I been trudging around the country with work, I have also been revisiting my penchant for amateur dramatics. After lots of rehearsals and even more pints, I have been creeping the boards in a production of Great Expectations—in which I play a lower class shit (Orlick) and an upper class shit (Drummle).

Definitely no type-casting, obviously.

Ahem.

Anyway, blogging will probably continue light until after Saturday night...

The Change Coalition: lies and bullshit

When Our New Coalition Overlords announced a programme of cutting back the state and returning powers to the people, many of us were prepared to give them a chance—more in hope than in confidence. And, sure enough, they have neatly demonstrated that their promises were, in fact, all lies and bullshit.

For, in their latest Coalition Programme for Government [PDF], the ConDems have decided that one of their very first acts will be yet more controls on alcohol.

• We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.


• We will review alcohol taxation and pricing to ensure it tackles binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries.


• We will overhaul the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, any premises that are causing problems.


• We will allow councils and the police to shut down permanently any shop or bar found to be persistently selling alcohol to children.


• We will double the maximum fine for under-age alcohol sales to £20,000.


• We will permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing.

Commenting on the BBC article, The Nameless Libertarian explains why the minimum pricing for alcohol is such a bad idea.

Just for old time's sake, let's rehearse the reasons why this policy is both wrong and pointless. It won't stop binge drinking—that will continue, but people will just have to spend a little more on getting arseholed. It is an impingement on the freedom of business during a feeble recovery from a deep recession. Laws already exist that allow for the refusal to sell/serve alcohol to those who are drunk, and laws already exist that can deal with the anti-social behavior of those who are wasted. We should enforce those laws, rather than creating a new, illiberal rule to punish everyone in society who might want to buy alcohol at a cheap price. I don't think there is anything liberal, democratic or even particularly conservative about this policy—other than the fact that the Con-Dem coalition has jumped on it with unseemly haste.

This is, of course, one of the main points that I made when Boris banned drinking on the Tube—and the vast majority of commenters leapt upon me, supporting the ban. I maintained that the ban would punish responsible drinkers, and that we already had laws against being drunk and disorderly, etc.

"No, no," maintained the commenters. "Bans are fine when it's banning something I don't like or don't do." Now, how do you like them apples, guys?

What is the point of the Coalition introducing a Great Repeal Bill—designed to abolish thousands (ha! I bet it will be about ten) of "unnecessary" laws introduced by NuLabour—if they are simply going to replace those laws with other, even worse laws?

And if the Coalition can't work out by themselves why a minimum price on alcohol is a bad idea, this should give them a massive bloody clue.

Supermarket chain Tesco says it wants to see curbs on the sale of cheap alcohol during this Parliament.

Tesco has welcomed a promise by the coalition government to ban below-cost sales of alcohol in England and Wales.

The UK's biggest retailer goes further, saying it would back the more radical step of introducing a minimum price.

Here's the thing, Dave and Nick: Tesco doesn't need laws to introduce a minimum price on the alcohol that it sells—it could simply stop selling alcohol below cost price. If this massive corporatist organisation supports a minimum price on alcohol, then a minimum price on alcohol is definitely something that you should not introduce. Understand?

If Tesco wants a minimum price on alcohol, it is because the law is either going to give them an advantage over their competition or it is going to allow them to gouge the public for more money—or, of course, both. And propping up the proficts of Tesco is not—repeat, not—in any government's remit.

Never mind, I'm sure that Dave, Nick and their merry Coalition will carry on regardless.

Say "hello" to the new boss: same as the old boss.

The Big Questions #1

As some may know, I was on The Big Questions this morning, a sort of populist Sunday morning talkshow. In essence, I was asked to debate the question "should we lower the drink-driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs"—and to defend the status quo. I'm going to cover the experience in a few posts, for clarity, but there are a few general comments that I'd make...

First, I was incredibly nervous when it came to it. I am not usually so on-edge when doing speaking gigs; but usually I have a reasonable billing (and thus reasonable time to get a nuanced point across). Another factor was that I knew that I was being asked to defend a position that was potentially very emotive—and, sure enough, they wheeled on some couple whose son had been killed in a drink-driving accident (of which more later).

Second, although I had made extensive notes and had, I believed, a well-structured argument, this was thrown out slightly by that fact that, when the section finally came up, they had changed the question to "should we ban any drinking before driving"? Although I had anticipated this as a counter-argument to some of the points that I might raise, I had not expected to have to kick off defending that position.

Third—and this is what this post will deal with—I was ambushed by figures that I had, quite simply, never heard before. These came, most specifically, from Dr Valerie [someone or other] from the British Medical Association.

The first claim that she made was that, with 80mgs in the blood, reaction time was impaired by 12%. Sensibly, I should have asked "so what is the average reaction time, in milliseconds?" because, when I asked her afterwards, she had absolutely no idea. She waffled about lots of extenuating circumstances, blah, blah, which would probably have satisfied the audience—but her not having the figures would have put her on the back foot—as would the audience understanding that 12% of, say, 10 milliseconds is utterly insignificant.

However, the most important claim that she made was that the risk of being involved in an accident with 80mgs of alcohol in your blood (the current limit) was ten times that of someone with none.

I have found out since that this was, quite simply, a lie.

Again, talking to her afterwards, I challenged her assertion and asked her where she had got her data. Valerie had not, in fact, got the data herself (her researcher had) but the graph that she showed me was this one—and seen exactly as below.



On production of this artifact, the conversation went something like this...

"This came from the World Health Organisation. And... Well, I don't have another graph but I know that this has been replicated all over the place." She stabbed at the graph's y-axis saying, "see, there's 20.00."

"Yes," said I. "But that point at 0.8 is nowhere near ten times the likelihood of crashing."

Having noted some of the details, I have tracked down the WHO paper that it came from—the WHO Drinking And Driving, A Road Safety Manual For Decision-makers And Practitioners. Oh yes? Those discredited IPCC synthesis reports are always described as "for decision-makers"—it usually means that they are rather more political documents than nuanced science.

Anyway, you can find the graph that she was referring to in the section entitled Chapter 1: Why is a drinking and driving programme necessary [PDF, 397kb] which is not a title that fills me with the confidence that this is going to be, in any way, unbiased. For those who cannot be bothered to download the damn thing, here's how the graph appears in situ.



The first thing to understand is that this is a relative crash risk: if you drink no alcohol at all, the risk of crashing is, quite obviously, not zero—otherwise alcohol would be a factor in 100% of road crashes, rather than the 6% (2008) that it actually is.

The second point is that this is the outcome of a number of studies, starting with one in Michigan, US, in 1964, but is the one featured in the most recent of those, from 2002.

In 196 a case-control study was carried out in Michigan in the United States known as the Grand Rapids study (15). It showed that drivers who had consumed alcohol had a much higher risk of involvement in crashes than those with a zero BAC, and that this risk increased rapidly with increasing blood alcohol levels. These results were corroborated and improved upon by studies in the 1980s, 1990s and in 2002 (16–18). These studies provided the basis for setting legal blood alcohol limits and breath content limits in many countries around the world.

The real point to note is the second paragraph of the accompanying explanation... [Emphasis mine.]

The studies found that the relative risk of crash involvement starts to increase significantly at a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.0 g/dl and that at 0.10 g/100 ml the crash risk relative to a zero BAC is approximately 5, while at a BAC of 0.2 g/100 ml the crash risk is more than 1 0 times the risk relative to a zero BAC (see Figure 1.2).

In other words, at 100mgs, the risk of crashing is five times higher than at baseline. Valerie from the BMA was claiming an increase of ten times at 80mgs—which is, to say the least, a little creative.

Or, as I like to call it, a lie.

One of the things that we would obviously like to know is, roughly, what is the baseline? Presumably it is not zero, because five, or even ten, times zero is zero. So, in actual percentages, what is your average chance of crashing when you are sober? If you get in your car and drive somewhere, what is the chance that you will have an accident?

I have had an inordinate amount of trouble trying to quantify this: if I could even find an estimate for the number of road journeys made every year, that would help. If anyone knows where to find such figures, please, let me know.

Otherwise, I shall proceed to try to piece the bits together in my next post...

Cosmo: stupid name, stupid guy

Cosmo Landesman in the Times has a very silly pop at smokers. There's not much of originality in there—mostly it's the usual bitching about butts and smells—but there are a couple of sentences worth pulling out.

I notice that right-wing critics of the nanny state never call for the legalisation of drugs on the grounds that adults should be free to choose to be addicts or not.

Er... I do. Indeed, I was at Exeter University last week, giving a speech advocating that very thing.

When it comes to choice, we demand to be left alone; but when our choice leads to cancer or liver failure we demand that the state — in the form of the NHS — takes care of us.

Er... I don't. I have private health insurance. It costs me about £51 per month for the very best cover that they could offer me. And, interestingly, Cosmo, the fact that I smoke does not affect my premiums.

Some years ago, I was researching what my National Insurance premiums cost versus what those same services would cost privately. Inevitably—and even at the lower wage that I was then earning—taking out private insurance for medical care and unemployment, and paying into a private pension cost far less than the NICs*.

However, when talking to the insurance rep—to whom I had given the background of my research—I got a quote (which was based, mainly, on my age) and asked whether the fact that I was a heavy smoker (a fact that I had to volunteer) made a difference to the premium.

The answer was that, no, it didn't: basically, because I was likely to die earlier—even if I needed treatment for a smoking related disease—such treatment was likely to be considerably cheaper than having to spend years in a nursing home. Oh, and the insurance companies also recognised that there was an inverse correlation between smoking and Alzheimer's (one of the most expensive diseases as far as insurance companies are concerned).

Just thought I'd share that with you...

But the idea that we are living in a Britain where personal freedoms are curtailed as never before seems bizarre. I never hear young people complain about the nanny state. Why? Because they’re all out of their heads on booze or stoned on weed and having a wonderful time.

Uh huh. Which is why such a high proportion of the Libertarian Party is made up of people under 30.

And being consistently sober is tedious and stressful. Which is why, when you ban various drugs, it doesn't stop people taking those drugs, or looking for legal alternatives—such as the hilariously named "meow meow".

So, tell you what, Cosmo: you fuckers let me opt out of the state healthcare system entirely—let me keep my NICs and stick with my private insurance—and I'll not be a burden on your precious NHS.

Except, of course, that isn't going to happen, is it? Because, for all your whining, National Insurance is a fucking Ponzi Scheme and it is actually my subs that are going to pay for your treatment.

So shut the fuck up.

* There are caveats that I'm sure A&E; Charge Nurse will, no doubt, point out. However, my medical insurance premium could double and I would still be paying less for those three services privately than I am under NICs.

Den of liars

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

Years of lies and half-truths from the temperance movement culminated in a parliamentary debate on Wednesday. Regular readers will know how the supine media, the fake charities and the quacks have been drip-feeding the public scare stories and bogus statistics about the pretend alcohol epidemic since—oh, let's think now—shortly after the smoking ban. In all that time, barely a word of truth has escaped their lips and on Wednesday it all paid off. The venal cretins in the House of Commons fell over themselves in their rush for legislation.

Dick Puddlecote has already filleted the debate in expert fashion but, as the psychiatrist said of Basil Fawlty, there is enough here for an entire conference. The campaign for minimum pricing is being led by Kevin Barron MP, an anti-smoking weasel and temperance nut who has been well briefed on demonising the drinks industry and playing the think-of-the-children card. While regurgitating every myth about alcohol, he accused everyone else of making myths of his myths:

Kevin Barron (Rother Valley, Labour): A myth is widely propagated by parts of the drinks industry and politicians that a rise in prices would unfairly affect the majority of moderate drinkers.

It would, you devious fuck. Even assuming you would keep the minimum price at 50p unit—which I seriously doubt—everyone would pay more for their drink.

It would effectively mean that a woman who drinks the recommended maximum of 15 units a week could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6. Of course, probably not everyone drinks industrial white cider only.

Well, precisely. But we soon will be if you get this illiberal and illegal law through.

Unlike rises in duty, minimum pricing would benefit traditional pubs—the on-trade, as Greg Mulholland suggested—so, unsurprisingly, it is supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, which also gave evidence to the Committee.

CAMRA can suck my balls, the thick-headed, narrow-minded, pot-bellied, do-it-to-Julia cunts that they are. It's only a matter of time before the head of CAMRA gets off a plane saying that he has a piece of paper in his hand. As Mr A points out at Leg-Iron's place, CAMRA should be a verb:

I wonder if "doing a CAMRA" will become an accepted phrase for stupidly rolling over, attacking your potential allies and cosying up to the enemy when they are clearly out to get you, like the term "Quisling" did?

Sorry Kevin, you were saying...

We are all concerned about the closures of public houses in this country.

Are you concerned, Kev? Are you really? Let's see shall we?

How Kevin Barron voted on key issues since 2001:

Voted strongly for introducing a smoking ban.

I thought not.

They are closing for many reasons, not necessarily just the price of alcohol...

No one look at the elephant. The room is going to be just fine so long as we don't look at the elephant.

According to calculations undertaken by the Treasury at the Committee's request, for our report, if the duty on a bottle of spirits had increased since the early 1980s at the same rate as earnings, it would now be £62.

That statistic reeks of bullshit, but let's go with it. Surely you're not proposing that the price of a bottle of gin should be £62?

Neither I nor the Committee recommend an immediate leap to those levels of duty on spirits, but we should certainly make a start.

Are you fucking insane?! Your ultimate goal is to make a bottle of spirits cost £62?

We think that a start should be made. We recommend that duties on spirits be returned in stages to the same percentage of average earnings as in the past.

Ride my face to Chicago, you're really serious! Listen Kevin, waste of eggs and semen that you are, tax on alcohol has risen above inflation since the 1980s. If alcohol is more affordable today, it is because the working wage has risen and living standards have improved. These were—as your daddy might have told you—the aims of the Labour movement before it became infested with paternalistic cunts like you.

Being able to afford things was once since as a good thing, even by the pricks in your party. If you start setting a minimum price for everything you don't like, just because the working class can afford more than a crust of bread and a copy of The Morning Star, you will be doing it to everything. But then you'd like that wouldn't you, you sordid, totalitarian lefty cunt?
And what do Cameron's hip young Tories have to say on the matter?

Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative): I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 earlier in the week about marmalade.

Next!

John Grogan (The turgid member for Selby, Labour): A couple of years ago, I suggested that Sir Terence Leahy was in danger of becoming the godfather of British binge drinking, given the low prices at Tesco. Some alcohol was being sold more cheaply than water.

Liar. Next!

Howard Stoate (Dartford, Labour): When I was last in Washington on a Select Committee inquiry, I was refused alcohol on the grounds that I could not prove that I was over 21 as I did not have my passport with me. I was not sure whether to feel flattered or insulted.

Fascinating. Next.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): My hon. Friend is obviously very youthful looking. No one challenged me, I have to say, but other staff were challenged, and the age limit was rigidly enforced.

Look, dickheads, we're trying to have a debate here. Have you got anything other than feeble anecdotes to contribute?

Indeed, not so long ago, two British sisters were on holiday in Florida, one over 21 and one under. Their holiday flat was entered by the local police who found them both drinking. The older sister was sent to prison for corrupting a minor-that is how seriously it is taken. I am not suggesting that we should be so draconian, but there are countries that take the issue a bit more seriously than we do. We have a long way to go.

"A long way to go"? Cops bursting into houses arresting people for drinking. That's what we're working towards, is it? God, I hate you.

Anne Milton (Shadow Minister, Health; Guildford, Conservative): I know a little bit about Canada, which has quite vicious laws on alcohol. Instead, it has a significant problem with cannabis misuse.

A salient point, at last. Crazy drinking laws in North America have only led to endemic, tedious pot smoking by the under-21s. A bit of an unintended consequence there?

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): In Sweden, they have had serious problems with alcohol.

Yes, yes. Another avenue of sanity has opened up. Time to grab the bull by the horns. Sweden has the highest alcohol taxes in the whole EU but serious problems with alcohol. Riddle me that, fuckers.

No? Nobody? No one even going to respond?

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): There is an argument even for raising the minimum drinking age. In America, it is 21, but it is much lower in Britain. That is something that we should consider, and in time we may do so—but not at the moment.

You people really are the pits.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): The minimum price argument is overwhelming. The Chief Medical Officer said that it should be a minimum of 50p per unit of alcohol. I would be happy with that.

Let's be very, very clear about this. Liam Donaldson has been the most deceitful, scare-mongering, incompetent, unhealthy, dishonest, unscientific, pus-filled, overweight, pasty, waste-of-space turd polisher to ever rise to the high office of Chief Medical Officer. From the smoking ban to minimum pricing and from bird flu to swine flu, there is not one thing this pernicious ball-licker has touched which hasn't turned out to be based on a shit-heap of lies. When the crank dies I will cry tears of joy, so do not even think about quoting him as an authority on anything.

It would also save a valuable cultural feature of our society—the great pub—which is suffering greatly at the moment from cheap alcohol being drunk elsewhere.

Can't think of anything that might be making pubs suffer, Kelvin? Maybe a little ban that you, too, voted for? So, how can we find a way of forcing people back into the pubs that your smoking ban has crippled?

We should make all cheap alcohol sales techniques, such as happy hours, illegal, and enforce that rigidly.

More bans. More bans will make everything all right. We're only ever one ban away from Utopia.
And then we have the voice of the esteemed medical profession, Dr Richard Taylor, to give us the measured and rational facts upon which less learned members of the house can base their judgement on what is, after all, a complex issue.

Richard Taylor (Wyre Forest, Independent): Dr. Stoate did not do this, but my job in these debates is to terrify people.

So speaks the medical man. Of course your job is to terrify people. You are, after all, not only a doctor but a politician, and therefore—in your own eyes—God almighty.

If women drink heavily at the end of pregnancy, their babies can be born addicted to alcohol and will have to go through the withdrawal process. That is absolutely horrendous... Alcohol in excess is a drug of addiction. It is a poison in excess, leading to comas and things that, in the past, have led to deaths in police stations... Alcohol is not a stimulant; it is a narcotic... jaundice, cachexia, a grossly swollen stomach and distended veins, and vomiting blood...

Christ, that balanced and objective overview is enough to make anyone give up drinking. You are, I presume, a teetotaller?

However, I am with everybody else: not consumed in excess, alcohol can bring a great amount of pleasure, and I would never miss out on the House of Commons claret, for example, or several of the other potions that we can have here.

Gloating about the claret in the subsidised House of Commons bar while you scheme to rob the public of yet more of its hard-earned money. I hope your constituents tear you limb from limb.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, I studied and taught economics, so I know about a thing called a demand curve, which shows that if the price is raised, consumption goes down.

Just think about that for a minute. That is the whole quote. I haven't edited it. He actually interrupted a debate in the mother of all Parliaments to recite the most elementary piece of information in the field of economics. That he felt the need to do so says something about him or it says something about the stupefying ignorance of his fellow MPs. I fear it may be the latter.
And then there's this asshole:

Pete Wishart (Perth & Perthshire North, Scottish National Party): Let me clarify: everybody in Scotland is for minimum pricing, whether they are health professionals, chief police officers and the licensing authorities. The only people against minimum pricing in Scotland are the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament, the Liberals in the Scottish Parliament and of course the Conservatives, as we would expect.

That's quite some support you've got there, Pete. Everyone's on board except the Labour party. And the Liberals. Oh, and the Conservatives. Apart from that, everybody.
And what do the Conservatives think about all this anyway?

Anne Milton (Shadow Minister, Health; Guildford, Conservative): In 1947, we drank 3.5 litres of alcohol per head in this country; now, the figure is well over 9.5 litres.

So what? As Dick Puddlecote has pointed out, we were under the yoke of rationing in 1947. Is that Tory party policy now?

The British Medical Association believes that we have some of the heaviest levels of alcohol consumption in Europe

In that case, the British Medical Association are lying cock-suckers to man. World Health Organisation figures show that the UK drinks less than the Czech Republic, Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Finland. That puts us firmly mid-table, no?

Minimum pricing is regressive in that the capital made by increasing the price of alcohol will go straight to the supermarkets and shops that sell the alcohol. Instead, why not tax the alcohol so that the profits of any increase can, as the report says, go back to the Government.

Aside from the fact that this woman has no idea what the word 'regressive' means, you have to admire the Tories for being up-front about it. They want to screw the punter just as much as Labour, but they're going to make damn sure that it's the government, not the retailers, who get the money.
So, not a cigarette paper between the Tories and Labour on this issue, as usual. In a three hour debate, only one voice of sanity emerged from this den of liars and thieves. In these dark days it is only proper to give credit to a man who exhibits some balls and principles. To that end, I give you Philip Davies MP...

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative): Given the Chairman's lack of complaint about his own colleagues appearing and intervening in the debate, I suspect that his concern with me is not that I am contributing to it after having arrived late, but simply that he will not agree with what I am about to say. I am afraid that I am going to disappoint him again.

The report is certainly a useful contribution to the debate on addiction—not, unfortunately, on addiction to alcohol, but on this Government's and the Health Committee's addiction to the nanny state. They have already helped to dismantle the pub and club industry with their smoking ban. Pubs are closing at the rate of 50 a week—many because of the ban on smoking in public places—and the same fate is being felt by many clubs, such as working men's clubs. It seems that the Health Committee, not satisfied with dismantling the pub and club industry, now wishes to direct its fire in other areas, such as at cinemas and commercial broadcasters, to try to close down those industries. Many sports will also be adversely affected if its recommendations are introduced.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is this fellow bang on the money?

All that would not be so bad if I thought that, in the end, if after all the Committee's recommendations were introduced, its members would say that they were satisfied. The problem, however, as with all these matters, is that the report panders to the zealots in society who are never satisfied. I guarantee that if all the recommendations were introduced, Committee members would, within a few months at most, come back with further recommendations because the previous ones had not gone far enough. This lobby is impossible to satisfy.

How did this fellow sneak into Parliament? Security!

The problem with the political classes generally, particularly in this House, is that when they are faced with a problem—there is no doubt that there is a problem with excessive drinking of alcohol—the solution that they propose has to be constituted of two particular themes. The first ingredient in any solution that politicians propose is that it must show that they are doing something; they have to be seen to be doing something. The second ingredient, which we always see, is that the proposal must not offend anyone and must be superficially popular. Once again, that approach applies to many of the recommendations, most of which would not make a blind bit of difference to excessive or under-age alcohol consumption.

Goddamn. That was good. I think we're going to need one less lamp-post. Naturally, the government's response was dismissive and patronising.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour): It is clear that the hon. Gentleman and I come from polar opposite positions, but he is making the classic freedom speech. He is saying that we have the freedom to do what we want, without intervention from the state.

"The classic freedom speech". That's what centuries of political thought boil down for these fascists. John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill—it's all just a bit of verbal jousting to them.

The same speech will have been made against the breathalyser, crash helmets, the compulsory wearing of seat belts and a whole range of traffic regulations that are designed to save lives. Freedoms affect other people, not just the person exercising them.

No. No. No. Wearing a seat belt and a crash helmet does not affect other people and never has. It was with those laws that the rot set in. I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again, but when Ivan Lawrence spoke in 1979 to oppose compulsory seat belts, he predicted exactly where this would all lead:

Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

When will we realise that laws not only cannot cure every evil but are frequently counter-productive? Here the harm done to our criminal process may well exceed any good that the law can do. We can see that in advance, so why do we persist with it? If there was a law which made it a criminal offence to smoke or to drink alcohol, neither of which, of course, do I advocate, just think of the amount of bereavement that would be saved, the number of hospital beds that could be put to better use, and the time and energy of our doctors and nurses which could be more usefully employed. Yet we do not consider doing that. What is it about the motorist that requires him to be singled out and subjected to this sort of legislation?

The harm to justice caused by this legislation will be far more substantial than we think. When will we realise that every little infringement of liberty, for whatever good cause, diminishes the whole concept of liberty? If life is the only criterion, why did we sacrifice so many millions of lives in two world wars? Why did we not in the Second World War lie down and say "Because millions of people may die, we should let our liberty be taken away before the onset of the Nazis?" The answer is that more important than lives is the concept of liberty.

Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.

And he was dead right. If people had opposed that little law back then we would never be in the situation we are now, with authoritarian scumfucks like Kevin Barron citing is as a precedent to justify the state fixing prices. And once we accept that the state should fix prices for our own good, what will come next? Even now, with overwhelming evidence that these bastards will never stop, the basic principle of individual liberty is drowned out by the spastic yelps of the temperance zealots. Even now, a photo of some tart pissed up in a town centre carries more weight than centuries of hard-fought liberty. Even now, there are people thinking that it's only the cider-drinking plebs who will lose out from this bullshit law. From making it a crime to not wear a seat belt to banning happy hour in one generation. Silently but inexorably, the state marches on.

Never mind that, think of the children. You don't want babies being born addicted to alcohol do you? What kind of a monster are you? Look at our statistics. Feel my sincerity. Alcohol is cheaper than water. Is that what you want? Is it, eh, murderer? Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

No one heeded Lawrence's warnings in 1979 and no one will heed Philip Davies in 2010, because it's just one little law, isn't it? It's not as if thousands of little laws add up to one big tyranny, is it?

Richard Taylor (Wyre Forest, Independent): When parents are not providing adequate control, the nanny state has a place, if it is thinking of the good of all the people.

Fuck you, Taylor, and fuck your nanny state. I wish nothing but harm on you and your kind. Nothing.

Minimum pricing—absolutely illegal

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

So. Three cheers for the EU, then?

Cigarette price-fixing infringes EU law

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Irish legislation fixing a minimum retail price for cigarettes infringes EU law.

The legislation here breaches Directive 95/59 which has rules on excise duty affecting the consumption of tobacco products.

Which goes to prove what many, many people have long been saying—minimum pricing is illegal under EU law. That applies to alcohol just as much as cigarettes, so why does Don Shenker, Nicola Sturgeon and Janet-fucking-Street-fucking-Porter keep flogging this dead horse?

It falls to the evil drinks industry to state the obvious:

Gavin Hewitt, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said: “Given this latest evidence, the Scottish government must now recognise the legal realities. It cannot introduce a trade barrier in breach of the UK’s European obligations by imposing minimum pricing on alcohol in Scotland.”

And it falls to the evil tobacco industry to point out that the real effect of raising cigarette prices is that cheaper tabs become more widely available:

In a statement, cigarette manufacturer PJ Carroll welcomed the ruling saying: "The reality is the set minimum price for cigarettes has become irrelevant. Packs of cigarettes are being purchased up and down the country for as little as €3.50 on the black market. This is under half the current minimum price of €7.75."

Don't believe him? Check here, here and here.

The reaction from anti-smoking campaigners is classic fingers-in-the-ears stuff:

Anti-smoking group ASH also said it was concerned with the ruling.

Dr Angie Brown, ASH, said: "We will be in contact with the government on this vitally important matter."

Lucky old government. I bet they can't wait for you swivel-eyed lunatics to start bitching about the price of cigarettes again. Between me and you, Angie, the government's getting a bit tired of your bare-faced lies, which might explain why they told you to fuck off last time you came a-calling. Besides which, it should now be obvious that the Irish government has its hands tied on this matter. 

The Irish Cancer Society said the Government must take steps to guard against below-cost selling on cigarettes.

Do try to keep up, Irish Cancer Society. That is exactly what the EU says you cannot do. 

“First, they must continue to maintain high prices by increasing tax on cigarettes and loose tobacco,” head of advocacy with the society Kathleen O’Meara said. “Second, they must bring in legislation immediately to prohibit tobacco manufacturers from selling tobacco products at a loss.”

Are you lot simple or something? Even if cigarettes are being sold at a loss—which they're not—national governments have been explicitly forbidden from doing anything about it. It's EU law. You remember the EU, don't you? You inflicted its Constitution on us recently, so suck it up.

Now that the EU has made its position clear (again), can we drop the idea of minimum pricing for booze? Apparently not...

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “We have already made clear that this long-running case concerns tobacco and a specific directive on tobacco. It does not relate to minimum pricing for alcohol. We consider that the introduction of minimum pricing for alcohol is capable of complying with European law.”

I think you're missing the point of the EU here, petal. It's not that they want people to smoke and drink—far from it—it's just that they view independent action by member states in the same way as the Scottish government views independent action by individuals, ie. with utter contempt. And while alcohol does not fall under Directive 95/59, it certainly falls under Article 28...

... which states that restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states.

And the European Commission has made it pretty clear that it will not tolerate minimum pricing for alcohol:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (“the Court”) has ruled that national rules fixing retail prices for alcoholic beverages could constitute measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports contrary to Article 28 EC. This would be the case if, for example, prices were set at such a level that imported products were placed at a disadvantage in relation to identical domestic products.

Which, by definition, they would be. So please can we stop all this now?

Booze consumption

As someone pointed out on the last post, booze consumption in this country is slightly over-egged. Luckily, John B has looked at a report on the whole situation.

The BBC has an article based on an interesting House of Commons report on alcohol consumption… well, more accurately, it’s a very bad report on alcohol consumption with some interesting data.

The data shows that, before the global descent into miserable puritanism around World War I that led to prohibition in the US and draconian licensing rules in the UK, alcohol consumption was around its current level.

It then spiked after the war ended, fell during the Depression, rose slightly during the mid-late 1930s and WWII, fell in the austerity period, and then rose fairly consistently from 1950 onwards—accelerating slightly since 1995 due to increased wine consumption. We’re now at about 9 litres of pure alcohol per head per year, compared to 11 litres in 1900.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that, with miserable busybodies out of the equation, 10ish litres per head is the natural level that Brits want to drink, that this is all well and good, and that the puritans should be deported to America on pain of pain, as we did in the good old days.

The House of Commons report instead draws the conclusion that OMG FFS AAAGH the sky is falling. Particular stupidity lies in:

Ten million adults drink more than the recommended limits and between them knock back 75% of all alcohol consumed in the country. More than two-and-a-half million adults (8% of men and 6% of women) drink above the higher-risk levels – more than double the government’s daily guidelines.

… but we know that the daily and weekly guidelines are based on *nothing at all*. And we know that, on aggregate, the only people who show a greater risk of mortality or morbidity from alcohol than teetotallers are those who drink more than 30 units a week, which is equivalent to 17 litres of pure alcohol a year. So we can crank up our national drinking by another 70% before we need to start worrying about health impacts.

Exactly. I hope that the above has cleared up this issue.

Please note that none of this is going to stop the temperance crusaders from attempting to make booze a lot more expensive with the aim, eventually, of banning it.

And we all know what a success banning alcohol and other drugs has been. I, for one, welcome our new Puritan overlords and will happily toil soberly in the brave new Utopia that our lords and masters are building for us—whether we like it or not...

Drink: spelling it out

Venturing around the high walls that mark the territory of The Englishman, I discovered this little article in which Andy "spiv" Burnham lays out his plans for all the disobedient little boys and girls of Britain.

Minimum prices for alcoholic drinks would be set by the Government under radical plans being drawn up to cut Britain’s growing binge-drinking problem.
...

The scheme could see the starting cost of drinks fixed at between 40p and 50p per alcoholic unit – leading to a six-pack of lager costing about £6 and a bottle of wine costing £4.50. Cheap bottles of cider could quadruple in price.

The crackdown will mark the culmination of a scheme, overseen by Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, to cut alcohol abuse. Tackling the problem will be a major plank of the party’s manifesto.

The scheme could prevent thousands of deaths and hospital admissions every year, it is claimed. It would be one of the first such schemes in the world.

However, it would represent a marked change in policy for the Gordon Brown and the Government who have previously been opposed to setting alcohol prices. Labour has traditionally favoured liberalising alcohol laws – such as allowing 24-hour drinking.

Um... I hate to butt in here—especially to defend the Labour government—but they did not allow or even support "24-hour drinking": they relaxed the licensing laws that allowed pubs and clubs to be open for 24 hours if they so wished. That does not mean that the government supports individuals drinking for 24 hours (although, if that's what they want to do, who cares?—as long as they harm* no one but themselves).

Naturally, the eeeeevil booze companies cannot be allowed to profit off the back of the Labour government's meddling.

A levy could also be imposed on the drinks industry to stop them making windfall profits from the higher prices introduced under the scheme. The money raised would be earmarked for public health campaigns warning of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

As has been pointed out innumerable times, what the government is proposing is illegal under EU law—the Greeks tried it with cigarettes and got slapped like bitches.

But the idea that the money raised would somehow go towards "public health campaigns" is just as much a lie as the claim that your NICs payments actually go into an insurance fund.

But even if this money were "earmarked" in this way, that would also be barking insanity—as Timmy clearly explains.

And the other thing is that hypothecation of taxes is a very bad idea indeed. We may or may not want to spend £100 million on public health campaigns about booze. We may or may not wish to raise the tax on booze. But there’s absolutely no connection whatsoever between the amount we can raise by taxing booze and the amount we want to spend on public health campaigns.

Essentially what this amounts to is an untouchable revenue stream for the likes of Alcohol Concern and all the other puritans. No longer do they have to argue their case for getting money ahead of freezing pensioners or the starving in the third world. They get their money as of right.

And of course, the last thing any such bureaucracy will even try to do is solve the problem: the incentive is to keep exisiting on ever larger budgets, not actually do anything.

No, it’s not just the cretinism of raising alcohol prices (looking across Europe there are countries with lower prices and less drunkenness, places with higher and just as many problems with binge drinking), they’ve also managed to come up with the worst possible method of doing it. Illegal and creating an independent bureaucracy with no financial oversight.

Never mind, my friends, this moronic bunch of bansturbators will keep on trying—despite the fact that their entire campaign is based on a series of not even well-concealed lies. And the cunts concerned have quite merrily spelled out just what they have in store for us... [Emphasis mine.]

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph last night, Mr Burnham said that he wanted public backing for the radical scheme.

He compared the emerging alcohol policy to that involving tobacco – which led to a sharp increase in cigarette prices and a ban on smoking in public places.
...

Mr Burnham hopes that there will be support from the Conservatives for the move which is increasingly regarded as crucial to cut binge-drinking.

David Cameron has advocated a ban on supermarkets selling alcohol below cost-price but it is not clear whether the Tories will go further and back minimum pricing. They have previously expressed concern that it may be unduly draconian.

It is understood that ministers are working on a “staged process” to introduce minimum pricing. Initially, the drinks industry will have to increase warnings on alcohol cans and bottles. Supermarkets and other retailers will then be banned from selling alcohol at “below cost” – the wholesale price of drinks – if they refuse to do so voluntarily.

The minimum price will then be introduced as the third and final phase of the scheme. It is being introduced in this way to “bring the public along” as alcohol prices are steadily increased.

You'll note that last sentence about "alcohol prices" being "steadily increased", I hope? Regular readers may, of course, recall that my colleague, The Filthy Smoker, predicted precisely this at the beginning of the year, illustrating his point with a number of scarily accurate spoof articles.

If you don't think any of this sounds remotely plausible, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you. The slippery slope has already begun. You might recall that the original idea was to set the minimum price at 40p. This has since increased to 50p, and the public health bastards are already campaigning for it to rise to 60p.
...

If these fucks are calling for a higher unit price now, when the idea is in its infancy, what do you think they'll be demanding a few years down the road?

And at 60p, the idea that minimum pricing only affects plebs and alcoholics starts to look very shaky indeed.
...

Once brought in, the minimum price of alcohol will go up and up as sure as night follows day. As ever with these duplicitous, prohibitionist scum-fucks, there is no point trying to appease them. They've been given every opportunity to show good faith over the years and have responded with nothing but lie after systematic lie. How much you pay for your drink is between you and the brewery. The government, the quacks and Alcohol fucking Concern can keep their filthy, thieving hands off.

Unfortunately, of course, they won't.

Once again, you have been warned.

* By "harm" I mean that they do not initiate force or fraud against someone else's life, liberty or property. It's just that harm is a wee bit shorter.

The baby steps of prohibition

The BBC has hit the ground running this year, with two Have Your Says dedicated to issues of lifestyle fascism. The first was this glorious when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question:

What changes should be made to food policy?

Not 'Should we change food policy?' or 'Do we need to change food policy?', but 'What changes should be made?' In the world of sales, I believe that's known as the assumptive close.

The food question was swiftly followed by a booze question:

Should alcohol have a minimum price?

Which is more neutral, until you click on the link and it says:

Should 50p be minimum price for a unit of alcohol?

As opposed to 40p or 60p, presumably.

Thankfully, the public are not as keen on this idea as the Beeb and its fake charity buddies. Supporters of minimum pricing are outnumbered 10 to 1 in the comments. Naturally, a fair few cunts have offered their opinions as well, such as this bloke...

The fact is—people in the UK are incapable of doing what is good for themselves, it is up to the government to force through positive lifestyle changes. I agree with this one.

And this smug twat...

As much as I hate nanny state intervention on everything, I think this is probably a good idea.

There is something in British culture that makes us binge drink, which leads to fighting which leads to fear in the sober populous.

I won't change my drinking habbits though. I only drink the good stuff and not that industrial alcohol they advertise as 'reasuringly expensive'.

The second gentleman has fallen for the biggest con about this whole scheme—that minimum pricing will only affect the bottom end of the market. The reason minimum pricing is such an horrendous idea is not that it will make a four pack of Stella cost £4.60 or a bottle of whisky cost £14 (as it would with a 50p minimum). The problem is that, once implemented, every time a booze-related scare story appears in the papers, the course of least resistance will be to raise the minimum price.

Obscenely high though it is, the price of cigarettes is not actually set by the government. The massive tax rate on tobacco means the government has more impact on price that the manufacturers, of course, but there is still at least a theoretical distinction between tax and setting the price.

Giving the government the power to decide what constitutes an 'appropriate' price for a product is a whole new ball game. It is a policy suited only to authoritarian socialist regimes and represents a fundamental shift of power from the market to the state. And it's easy to imagine how that power would be used in the future. Let's for a moment speculate, shall we?

12 November 2012

Minimum alcohol price 'too low' say health groups

New figures from the Department of Health showing that alcohol misuse has not fallen as quickly as expected since 2010 has led to calls for a higher minimum price. The current rate of 50p a unit was described as "a joke" by Marian Fuckbucket of Alcohol Concern.

"Alcohol misuse costs the NHS £55 billion a year," said Ms Fuckbucket. "All the evidence shows that increasing the minimum price to 60p will save 4,592 lives a year in England alone. The government needs to show that it is taking this issue seriously."

Alcohol Concern described the 50p minimum as "a step in the right direction" when it was introduced two years ago but have since accused the government of complacency. Alcohol consumption has declined in recent years but is still higher than in several EU countries.

8 April 2014

75p minimum price would have saved tragic tot, say campaigners

The tragic death of Jason Child could have been prevented by tougher anti-alcohol measures, health campaigners said yesterday. The five year old was killed in a hit-and-run incident on Monday morning. The driver, Stuart Knob, 19, was three and a half times over the legal drink-drive limit.

"This tragic case is a damning indictment of the government's failure to address Britain's binge-boozing culture," said Dr Alan Gobshite of the Royal College of Physicians. "All the evidence shows that people like Mr Knob start drinking because of cheap alcohol in supermarkets, where cider can be bought for less than the price of a dozen eggs. It is shameful that we continue to sell alcohol at prices lower than in several Scandinavian countries."

A report released last week by the Royal College of Physicians showed that alcohol abuse was costing the country £120 billion a year and was responsible for 25% of all cancers. Dr Gobshite called on the government to raise the minimum price to 75p a unit, in line with the rate in Scotland. "Raising the minimum price from 60p to 75p will save 34,928 lives a year and would have little effect on responsible drinkers and those who, quite sensibly, don't drink at all," he said.

A recent report from the European Commission found that there is "no safe level of alcohol use" and estimated that passive drinking [PDF] costs EU member states over £500 billion a year.

5 July 2017

Minimum price escalator will save NHS billions, says Department of Health

Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10p a year will result in "the greatest improvement in public health for a generation" said Health Minister Caroline Vile yesterday. The controversial measure, opposed by the drinks industry, was passed into law with an overwhelming majority in the wake of the tragic case of Britney Alkie, whose death was shown live on television in January this year.

The current minimum price is 90p per unit and has not increased for over a year. The Department of Health says that raising the price to £1.20 by 2020 is the single most effective way of achieving the government's ambitious target of halving overall alcohol consumption within ten years.

Health groups have long campaigned for the change, citing evidence that it will save 53,967 lives and save the UK £214 billion. "We are delighted that the government has finally woken up to the havoc alcohol wreaks on society," said Lucy Mouthpiece, spokesperson for Alcohol Concern, the independent health charity.

"If we are going to continue to allow the sale of alcohol, the price must reflect the damage it causes," said Ms Mouthpiece. "While we welcome this move as a step in the right direction, the action must not stop here. There is much more the government needs to do to get this problem under control, starting with a crack-down on drink smuggling that has spiralled in recent years."

If you don't think any of this sounds remotely plausible, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you. The slippery slope has already begun. You might recall that the original idea was to set the minimum price at 40p. This has since increased to 50p, and the public health bastards are already campaigning for it to rise to 60p.

This article is real:

Raising alcohol price to 60p a unit would save 900 lives a year—expert

ONE of Scotland's leading public health experts has called on the Scottish Government to set a minimum price for alcohol 50 per cent higher than is currently proposed.

Dr Emilia Crighton, the convener of the Faculty of Public Health in Scotland, claimed 900 lives a year would be saved in Scotland if the minimum price was 60p per unit.

And so is this:

Minimum alcohol price 'would cut binge drinking'

Alcohol should be priced at a minimum of 60p per unit to drive down binge drinking, public health experts said today.

Today, a survey of 205 public health experts for the UK Faculty of Public Health, found 87% were in support of introducing a law to set a minimum price for alcohol.

Almost six in 10 (59%) were in favour of raising the price to 60p per unit, while 35% thought 50p was appropriate and 5% thought 40p a unit was sufficient.

In September, the Scottish Government heard how it could save £950 million over 10 years through minimum pricing at 40p a unit.

The measure would reduce hospital admissions and deaths by 3,600 a year in Scotland alone.

If these fucks are calling for a higher unit price now, when the idea is in its infancy, what do you think they'll be demanding a few years down the road?

And at 60p, the idea that minimum pricing only affects plebs and alcoholics starts to look very shaky indeed. Here's the very least you'll be paying when these temperance bullies get their way:

1 bottle of Cobra beer (600ml): £1.98

4 pack of Stella Artois (500ml): £6.24

Bottle of 14% wine: £6.30

70cl whisky: £16.80

1 litre vodka: £22.50

Once brought in, the minimum price of alcohol will go up and up as sure as night follows day. As ever with these duplicitous, prohibitionist scum-fucks, there is no point trying to appease them. They've been given every opportunity to show good faith over the years and have responded with nothing but lie after systematic lie. How much you pay for your drink is between you and the brewery. The government, the quacks and Alcohol fucking Concern can keep their filthy, thieving hands off.