Should there be an increase in tax on alcohol?

[Stuart*]

That was weird.
One minute, Lorns had a post here - and the next, she didn't.
Eerie.

Nah! She'll have fallen asleep on the keyboard and hit the wrong button. Monday is her day off! She'll be chillin'

[OneThingsForSure]

I don't think more tax is needed - as has been stated, it is the Government's way of discouraging anything - let's tax it up! - however, I would argue that a stricter ID system needs to be in place, and although many establishments operate a "Challenge 21" policy, this is rarely, if ever, strictly enforced.

Let's all welcome Jacqui Smith MP to Metropol ID Cards for all! Fab!

Is it such a bad idea though, in all honesty, when it comes down specifically to the issue of underage drinkers?

I really do feel that it is rather unfair that the sensible drinkers amongst us have to pay more of our hard-earned cash to enjoy one of life's little pleasures, because the young and the great unwashed use this same "pleasure" in the belief that it might make them exceptionally good at committing acts of violence and vandalism

[Connor Sephton]

One thing is for sure, OneThingsForSure, Britain these days is definitely fucked up.

The other day I saw an article where 3 illegal immigrants had been arrested in Dover, for trying to leave the country. You know, it makes you think what a shambles the Government is and any laws they enforce. It makes you think though, it seems Labour's worst enemy would be an ASBO-harbouring, white cider-drinking illegal immigrant terrorist.

This is the thing though, if tax is not applied to alcohol, it will be applied to something else. They need to find some money, whether it be through the medium of tax or not to implement something for teenagers to do, and/or tougher restrictions on purchasing beer, tougher punishments. Because if it is not the kids buying it, they are getting somebody to buy it in for them. And the last thing Britain needs at the moment is another murder like Gary Newlove.

Something needs to be done. Anything. Hell, instigate some sort of curfew for teens unaccompanied by an adult, just do something, at this rate, things are only going to get worse before they get better.

[OneThingsForSure]

Instigate some sort of curfew for teens unaccompanied by an adult.

You know, that isn't such a bad idea.

Have the lot of them in by 9pm - unless, like you say, they're accompanied by an adult... although obviously is depends on what the adult's doing... and I don't mean the pikeys drinking cider with someone who's 18th birthday was last week. If they're at some sort of club/scout group/etc. or out with their parents/guardians then yes, that's OK.

Sadly too many of these "pikeys" are from unloved families, who were born only of an accident sometime in 1995. And sadly, many of these "pikeys" will be committing similar accidents as we speak! I alone know at least four teenage mothers - only one of which I'd be willing to put in the "pikey" category.

It's all very worrying.

[Stuart*]

Instigate some sort of curfew for teens unaccompanied by an adult.

You know, that isn't such a bad idea.

Have the lot of them in by 9pm - unless, like you say, they're accompanied by an adult... although obviously is depends on what the adult's doing... and I don't mean the pikeys drinking cider with someone who's 18th birthday was last week. If they're at some sort of club/scout group/etc. or out with their parents/guardians then yes, that's OK.

Sadly too many of these "pikeys" are from unloved families, who were born only of an accident sometime in 1995. And sadly, many of these "pikeys" will be committing similar accidents as we speak! I alone know at least four teenage mothers - only one of which I'd be willing to put in the "pikey" category.

It's all very worrying.

Actually OTFS, it might come to that if the problem cannot be solved in certain areas. It's a sad reflection on the majority who do maintain a lawful existence, but it's social control required here - not taxation.

[Connor Sephton]

The reason the problem cannot be solved in any areas, (I think it is more of an impeding, nationwide issue) is because of the evident lack of authority the Police have. One, they have no powers (whatever happened to the local bobby giving you the clip around the ear? They can't do that any more - they will have a lawsuit on their hands. It is a sad fact that these yobs know where they stand. They mock the Police openly.) Two, the Police cannot go onto the street because of the overwhelming amount of administrative stuff they have to do. Some police officers are actually having to do paperwork about their paperwork now.

The Police cannot smack the yobs.
Nor can the teachers.
Amazing, the parents barely can, either. If it leaves a red mark, they could get nicked. (Then again - who could arrest them? All available bobbies are doing paperwork!)

As a teenager, thankfully one without yob status, I sit there on Monday mornings hearing about Friday nights and - you won't believe this - party buses. If all of this stuff is available to them without ID, and if they are already causing trouble whilst sober, then what problems do we all face when they have a gallon of white cider in their system?

[Mr Q]

It's incredible how the perception of a problem can cause the public to call for almost anything. Higher taxes. Tougher ID card systems. Curfews. It's almost as if the government could do pretty much what it wanted. Gordon Brown will be chuffed.

[Connor Sephton]

Haha: Just got an email from Gordon Brown:

If I can do anything, can I sleep with your partner?

Not quite anything, Mr. Q.

[Mr Q]

Haha: Just got an email from Gordon Brown:

If I can do anything, can I sleep with your partner?

Not quite anything, Mr. Q.

Well, it's nice to know there are some limits - for the sake of common decency at least.

[OneThingsForSure]

But is prevention not better than cure, Mr Q?

[Mr Q]

But is prevention not better than cure, Mr Q?

Well, that's nice rhetoric, but I'm not sure the facts stack up.

I happily concede that taxes will influence people's behaviour. If you make something more expensive, then all else being equal, consumption of it will decrease. But as I've made the point before, the problem with alcohol is that by its very nature, it's a substance that affects judgment and decision making. Remember, people aren't going out and getting involved in fights after having 3 beers - it's more likely to be closer to 10. As I've also argued, I don't think we can rule out the impact of drugs either. Perversely, increasing the tax on alcohol - which by definition raises the price of alcohol relative to other goods - might actually result in greater consumption of drugs among some classes of consumer. From the government's point of view, that would not be a desirable outcome.

But, more broadly than that, fights do not occur because people are drunk. They occur because people are aggressive. For some people, alcohol increases the likelihood of them getting into fights. For plenty of others, it doesn't. When I get drunk for instance, I get extremely chatty, and then very sleepy. I've never once started a fight, and don't reasonably expect I ever will - even when I'm drunk, my common sense doesn't go out the window. The onus is on those people who are aware they have a problem with violence to limit their consumption of alcohol. If they get into fights while drunk, they should - in my mind, at least - reasonably expect tough police action to be taken against them. The community has a right to feel safe.

Beyond this, additional blunt measures such as teenage curfews and what have you are likely to do more harm than good. They unfairly impact the majority of decent, law-abiding citizens for the sake of targeting what is still ostensibly a minority of cretins who are causing the problems. Defending this on the basis of 'prevention is better than cure' is entirely counter-productive - prevention in this instance deliberately restricts the rights of others who have done nothing at all wrong. In the case of, say, teenage curfews, what you're effectively signalling to young people is "we don't trust you". That is disrespectful to them, and will only encourage them to transgress against a society that is shunning them. In short, it risks making the 'problem' worse, not better.

When government intervenes in the economy and in society, it causes people to change their behaviour. That is self-evident. The question then is not whether a tax or some other policy will bring about a change in behaviour, but rather will it bring about the desired change in behaviour. Society is predicated on a system of incentives and disincentives, yet these do not function independently of one another. We make decisions based on relative judgment or whether we would rather do something as opposed to something else. So when we consider policies that affect 'something', we must be mindful of what the 'something else' is as well. Most critically, we should never assume that more government intervention is always preferable to less. As has been correctly noted here, much of Europe takes a far more relaxed attitude to Britain with respect of alcohol, and yet the problems of violence and crime related to alcohol consumption appear to be lower on the continent. Any policy can yield unintended consequences. It's not unfair to question whether that's the case here.