The Demon Drink

It has been an interesting few years for the drinks industry in Scotland. An abundance of headlines and television reports make it seem that the raising of the wrist, that most ancient of sports, has slipped out of fashion as political parties vie to obliterate Britain's 'booze culture'. In reality, our relationship our private relationship with alcohol has changed little in the past decade, in spite of all levels of officialdom uniting to regulate its consumption beyond all recognition.

David McLetchie's latest offering is, however, wrong - and counterproductive. The Scottish Executive's proposals for minimum drinks pricing will not materially affect the Scotch whisky industry: whisky is simply not that cheap. What Conservatives, and anyone else with a remotely liberal mindset, should be attacking is the very substance of this proposal, and indeed the continuing Labour/SNP moral panic over alcohol.

Let us first dismiss the health argument against alcohol. Volenti non fit injuria - to he who consents, no harm is done - is a fundamental precept of human liberty. The government has no standing in a free society to justify force against a reasonable person 'for his own good'. The issue of crime, disorder and, to use the modern terminology, anti-social behaviour relating to alcohol is rather more complex, and a matter with which the public is legitimately concerned.

In its most literal sense, these proposals are prejudicial. Alcohol pricing does not significantly affect the wealthy, so the question must surely arise - why target the less well off in society? Why should a person's financial standing determine their standing to drink? Perhaps I am a bitter old idealist, but I consider alcohol an ordinary part of my weekly shopping budget. As a result, I am generally of the opinion that low prices are a positive thing. No doubt defenders of this policy will suggest it is aimed at young people, rather than bluntly suggesting that the poor are somehow unable to hold their wine. Putting aside the ridiculous fallacy, which causes a great deal of our country's social problems, that the youth of Britain are a bunch of potential hooligans, it simply fails to add up. This is the same group of people who the local, Scottish and UK governments have already gone to extremes to prevent having any access to an alcoholic drinks - local licensing boards insure that shops and bars are incredibly strict not only on selling to underagers, but selling to anyone who has the slightest chance of then passing alcohol to underagers.

Yet still, even the underage drinker is no great threat to anyone: I should imagine most cabinet ministers enjoyed a drink or two with their friends before reaching their majority. Arriving as I did at university aged a mere 17, I certainly did - and I, like the vast majority of today's young people, managed to consume without feeling the need to assault anyone or damage private property. Indeed, on balance I would say that drinking is a positive thing: of course, some people overdo it on occasion, but even the average binge-drinker (that most derided of creatures) ends his evening with buying a kebab, stumbling into a taxi without causing a riot and returning home to bed without committing some gross act of domestic violence en route. Guess what - they will probably have enjoyed themselves too, hangovers notwithstanding.

The truth that dare not speak its name is that the Scottish Executive, and the UK Government, don't much care for individual liberty. Since they have both failed miserably to make a dent on crime in this country, being seen to do something, anything, is the next best thing for their electoral prospects. Resorting to the age-old collectivist thinking that suggests people should be vilified for their lifestyle, age and income, and that the freedom of the many should be sacrificed to control the criminality of the few is to prejudge them, to penalise the innocent as an act of desperation because the truly guilty cannot be controlled.

But of course, they can be controlled. Violent criminals belong in prison, something

our society seems to have forgotten. 'Common' assault tends to earn an offender - who, of course, most often is not caught - a police caution or a fine of a lesser sum than that handed down to someone who failed to pay his TV licence. Violent offenders, particularly those who attack victims at random, are serious criminals and must be seriously dealt with. You can almost certainly wager that it is the same tiny minority of criminals who are committing these same offences every weekend, and who will continue to do so with increasing brutality until someone ends up seriously ill or dead unless the State intervenes.

My conclusion, therefore, is simple: punish criminals, don't criminalise the innocent.