Crikey



Di Natale: we’re not wowsers for responding to booze abuse

I usually have a lot of time for Bernard Keane’s analysis. His is a voice of sanity in an otherwise dull, predictable and partisan public debate. But his critique on Monday of what he calls “preventative health wowsers” was way off the mark. It needs a response, not just because of this one article, but because vested interests and ideologues use many of the same facile arguments and too often are left unchallenged.

Bernard argues that the “the medical profession and the preventive health industry are engaged in a constant campaign against basic rights in the name of forcing Australians to become healthier”. He primarily draws on the responses to alcohol abuse, but also refers to smoking and gambling. He infers that the problem of alcohol abuse is overstated and that responses to health issue is “always to ban, to tax us and to use surveillance”. Bernard’s central thesis is that health professionals are simply social elites who want to control behaviours that they disapprove of.

On the first point that alcohol consumption is overstated, Bernard is being a little tricky with the numbers. Per capita consumption of alcohol is high by world standards with Australia ranked in the top 30 highest alcohol-consuming nations, and ahead of countries like Greece, USA, Italy Japan and Sweden. While it might be true that countries like France and Spain have higher per capita use this is only half the story, because average drinking patterns in those countries are healthier. Compare that to Australia, where one in five Australians (20.4%) drink at short-term risky/high-risk levels at least once a month (with the number rising among young adults). The burden of disease directly attributable to alcohol is uncertain but the number is probably somewhere around 5%. Between 1992 and 2001, more than 31,000 Australians died from alcohol-attributable injury and disease with over half a million hospitalisations over a similar period.

None of that might matter if you take the view that every individual has the right to drink or smoke themselves to death. However things are a little more complex than that. Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is now widely recognised as one of the most common preventable causes of birth defects and brain damage in children. It occurs when expectant mums consume alcohol during their pregnancy, many of them blissfully unaware that alcohol is harming their baby. What about the child’s right to be born free from damage? In Australia almost half of all perpetrators of assault are intoxicated before the event and it’s often innocent bystanders that get hurt. And there is the question of whether people really have a choice when they are in the grip of an addiction.

Then there is the cost. The total social cost of alcohol abuse is estimated at up to 30 billion dollars annually, with billions in costs such as crime, health, lost productivity and traffic accidents. Whenever someone ends up in a hospital or in trouble with the police it’s the community and not the individual that bears these costs. It’s ironic that some of the strongest opponents to pricing externalities like the costs of alcohol abuse, or air pollution for that matter, like to think of themselves as champions of the free market.

This brings us to the question of what sorts of intervention are appropriate. As far as Bernard’s concerned anything that smacks of a ban, tax or surveillance has no place. He outlines a long list of proposals such as banning adults from drinking alcohol at school functions to the licensing smokers. He uses this as evidence of the futility of any form of public intervention. It’s the classic straw man argument. As it happens, I agree with him that many of the suggestions in his piece are bad ideas and I suspect that some of my medical colleagues would agree. That’s because there is no “preventative health industry”. Health professionals don’t get together late at night to dream up ways to kill people’s fun.

Most of us follow the evidence and there is very good evidence of what works and what doesn’t.

Just look at the clear evidence around tobacco control to see that price, restrictions on advertising and sponsorship, labelling and public awareness campaigns have all played an effective role in reducing smoking rates. And fewer people smoking means fewer hospitalisations, which if nothing else means a reduction in the costs of funding a universal health system that we all pay for.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , ,

Categories: Australia, People & Ideas

11 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. Where are you getting your figure for 30 billion in Social costs from Alcohol abuse? One study I have seen (Collins and Lapsley, 2008) put the cost at half that…15 billion (10 tangible, 5 intangible) in 2004/2005 dollars. In 2012 dollars, its still only 19 billion…a bit less than your $30 billion.
    As for Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, the rate is tiny in Australia (0.06–0.68
    per 1000 live births overall) so hardly a reason to impose a tax on the poor, which is what a volumetric tax on alcohol will do.

    by Scott on Nov 22, 2012 at 10:58 am

  2. See my comments in the other article. I also believe that your analysis on the effectiveness of Price controls and advertising BS misses out on a few points:
    1. That price controls can be implemented effectively for a substance that is easily manufactured at home (unlike tobacco)
    2. The effectiveness of the Ban on smoking anywhere except on the street which may be very tricky to implement for alcohol.
    I think these are major factors which you have excluded from your analysis, the second being one of the only things I don’t miss since I stopped smoking 3 years ago. Sorry but the exorbitant prices and the horrible pictures didn’t really help me make a decision.

    by Shaniq'ua Shardonn'ay on Nov 22, 2012 at 1:52 pm

  3. Apart from quibles on numbers, this is an excellent riposte.

    by Sean Baker on Nov 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm

  4. There is far too much emphasis on the “right to drink” and far too little on the rights of drinker’s families to a peaceful life without violence, and without all available household resources being sucked up into alcohol addictions. A recent report indicated that 50% of children in Fitzroy crossing are affected by Foetal Alcohol Affect spectrum disorders. This means that they may not have the facial morphology that indicates full-blown Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, but they do have significant damage from alcohol - the first thing to be affected is the ability to learn, so this is a group of kids whose chances of ever being able to participate in community and family, benefit from education, or beng able to get and keep jobs is slim at best. This group of kids will grow to be the most at-risk group in Australia - risks include alcohol and substance misuse, being victims and perpetrators of violence, adverse contact with the criminal justice system, self-harm and suicide. The right to drink agenda doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

    by Jenny McFarland on Nov 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm

  5. Great response. Keane’s rant on this topic, complete with the usual hackneyed roll out of libertarian shiboleths (including frequent use of the phrase ‘taxpayers money’) is frankly embarressing.

    by sean on Nov 22, 2012 at 2:54 pm

  6. Strong echoes from a previous Bernard Keane piece being corrected by a pubic health professional (extract below). BK just doesn’t seem to understand the huge economic and societal costs that can be avoided by preventive health measures. Or at least, that, as Di Natale writes, can be addressed without draconian impositions on our freedoms. Smoking and alcohol are only two big issues. Next is diet/obesity.

    Crikey Daily Mail, 30 July 2009.
    Health and prevention:
    Michael James writes: Re. “Actually, prevention has been a spectacular success” (yesterday, item 5). Yesterday, Simon Chapman was spot on in noting that Bernard Keane had a rush of blood to the head in an uncharacteristic piece filled with poor examples and less than rational conclusions. While Keane has built up large reserves of goodwill amongst his readers, most of whom will forgive occasional lapses, it is unfortunate that the topic was of such huge importance, not just to public health but to future budgets and lifestyles.
    ….

    by michael r james on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm

  7. Yes, Bernard goes a bit too hard on this particular subject. But it is, at least in part, to counterpoint arguements like those from Jenny McFarland (above).
    The suggestion that all drinkers are violent is unfair. Senator Di Natale’s statemnet that “In Australia almost half of all perpetrators of assault are intoxicated before the event…” also muddies the waters between fact and hysteria. The reference to Fitzroy Crossing’s children ignores the serious social context of that particular place. There’s very little that any tax increase could do to fix the problems there.
    Make all the rules you want. Our society cannot function without alcohol and the problems it causes are the trade off for the lubrication it provides.

    by mattsui on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm

  8. I read BK’s original article as being about the continually developing infringement of individual’s rights by certain groups than about alcohol per se.

    by floorer on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm

  9. I read BK’s original article as being about the continually developing infringement of individual’s rights by certain groups than about alcohol per se.”

    This.

    I think several people are missing BK’s point entirely. It’s not so much about any one particular group (such as anti-drinking or smoking), but more about combined effect of all those groups together. If the recommendations of all these groups were put into effect, we’d live in a pretty miserable place.

    The people with problems need to be the targets of these things (constantly heavy drinkers/drug addicts/heavy smokers/etc), not responsible adults doing things in moderation…

    by tinman_au on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:56 pm

  10. That terrible Mr Keane sure as hell has gotten lots of people discussing a subject that that was, previously, relatively ignored.
    Promoting the productive feedback that distinguishes the new media from the old.
    Just as it’s supposed to work?
    Agent provocateur!

    by Hamis Hill on Nov 22, 2012 at 7:10 pm

  11. Most of us follow the evidence and there is very good evidence of what works and what doesn’t.

    Just look at the clear evidence around tobacco control to see that price, restrictions on advertising and sponsorship, labelling and public awareness campaigns have all played an effective role in reducing smoking rates.

    When it comes to alcohol reform many of the same lessons apply.”

    Then why do countries with much cheaper, easier and more common access to alcohol lack the binge drinking and violence problems of Australia ?

    The cost of alcohol in Australia is already absurdly high. I only have a hearty f*** y** to say to anyone who thinks it should be more expensive.

    Fix the _real_ problems causing people to drink too much and be violent, don’t punish the vast majority of us capable of drinking responsibly.

    by drsmithy on Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm

« | »