“There is a good deal of evidence to show that the number of heavy drinkers in a society is directly related to average consumption. Living in a culture which encourages drinking leads more people to drink to excess.”
“The most effective way to deal with alcohol related ill-health will be to reduce overall consumption.”
Two key points of rebuttal:
(i) The HSC’s own data contradicts this assertion
But alcohol related hospital admissions – even if we question how they are calculated – are still rising, as are deaths by liver cirrhosis (some of which are alcohol related, though not as many as the HSC would like to claim).
If availability of alcohol is increasing, but people are drinking less, and binge drinking less, but the number of people with alcohol related illnesses is rising, the relationship between overall consumption and alcohol abuse cannot be directly linear.
And the rising percentage of the UK population that is teetotal (estimates vary from 11% to 25%) suggests that in a time of declining overall consumption, light drinkers are dropping out of the market altogether rather than problem drinkers cutting down.
Other factors are at work here. There is something in modern society that is causing a minority to drink to excess even as the majority cut down on their drinking. We can all speculate on what those other factors might be, and I’ve done so elsewhere, but I want to keep this series of posts as factual as possible.
Whatever they may be though, these factors are being ignored by the anti-alcohol lobby and not given enough attention by health professionals, which is letting down people who need help. They don’t need to be told not to drink. They need help addressing what is making them turn to drink in the first place.
(ii) International comparison refutes this assertion
And work done by Professor Dwight Heath emphatically refutes the notion that a culture that welcomes alcohol is a culture that encourages drinking to excess. Extensive scientific studies around the world (clue: you don’t just look at countries that have a problem. You look at countries that do and countries that don’t and you compare the two to see what’s different) has shown that in countries that are positive towards alcohol, it is integrated into normal society, drinkers are not stigmatised, and drinking is no big deal.
But in countries that are ambivalent towards alcohol, the stigma also brings with it a mystique. Alcohol is something errant, transgressive, consumed behind closed doors. On the one hand, it has a transgressive allure. On the other, people who drink feel they are already doing something wrong, and the line between moderate and excessive drinking is more blurred.
The most obvious proof of this point is Scandinavia: Sweden has more restrictive alcohol regulations than Denmark, and has a bigger problem with harmful drinking. In turn, Finland has more restrictive alcohol regulations than Sweden, and has a correspondingly bigger problem with alcohol drinking. There is a linear relationship not between overall consumption and harmful drinking, but between the social unacceptability of alcohol and problem drinking
The argument about families normalising alcohol with teenagers rather than letting them discover it with friends in an unsupervised, transgressive setting is a strand of this point. It has been dismissed by neo-prohibitionists as a “dangerous myth”. Unfortunately for them, it’s a myth that has a great deal of scientific research behind it.
The best way to reduce alcohol related ill-health is NOT to reduce overall consumption – it’s to identify what’s making a minority of people drink to harmful levels while the majority are drinking less.
And it’s to normalise alcohol consumption as part of a functional society – the opposite of what the neo-prohibitionists are trying to do.