It is already openly being acknowledged that having a minimum price for a unit of alcohol will have little effect in reducing the damage to people’s health from excess alcohol consumption. So why do they go ahead – because they are in for the quick grab publicity solution – they don’t care whether it will work or not so long as they look good that they have done something. It’s typical of short term politicians.
The solution can only come from understanding why people do it and what would stop it – why not run some regional trials or set up some regional competitions to see which regions can have the best results in reducing alcohol consumption and then adopt the most effective ones. It would also be great to generate debate and awareness and in itself provide part of the cure.
The other action that needs to be taken is to stop health care being free of charge to those who deliberately injure themselves or injure themselves due to abuse from drink or drugs – this includes tobacco.
Both these solutions are much harder than just imposing a minimum charge but they are the right way to go.
Sad fact is, politicians don’t do hard, they do look good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
how could you impose a charge on health care resulting from self harm? who is qualified to diagnose the dividing line?
ReplyDeletee.g. if I worked in a smokey bar for 5 years and get lung cancer, but I was a smoker until 10 years before starting my bar job, how can you say what the true cause was and whether I'm liable? Also, how would you police the honesty of health questionnaires asking, "do you smoke?", "how much do you drink each week?", etc?
not that I'm against the idea, but curious to see how idealism might be implemented practically! :o)