Under the influence: the BMA needs to get real

Taxation and licensing restrictions have long been used to curb alcohol consumption, lurching occasionally into full-blown prohibition with disastrous results. Sometimes the alcohol industry itself has conspired with such measures, either to avoid tougher sanctions, or to stifle competition from small-scale producers as it did in lobbying for continuing bans on home brewing in several countries in the early 20th century.

The recent call by the British Medical Association (BMA) for a clampdown on alcohol promotion and availability opens a new chapter in this longstanding saga of tension between authority and our favourite drug. In their report, “Under the Influence”, published on 8th September, the BMA urged the government to impose a total ban on alcohol advertising, shorten licensing hours, and establish a fuel-like escalator tax to make alcoholic drinks progressively more expensive in the hope of rooting out binge drinking.

While it's hard to argue that binge drinking is not a problem which needs to be tackled, the great error in the BMA approach lies in demonising drink and ignoring the reason for its prominent place in western culture. Like it or not, alcohol is the lubricant of much social activity, and even in some cases the source of creative inspiration, as I described in a recent Prospect article identifying a gene that amplifies its affect in about 15 per cent of people.



That article did, however, have a subtext. While arguing that many past creative geniuses with a drink problem may well have possessed that gene, I did note that these people only produced productive work while relatively sober, after having had just a few drinks. No doubt, continued heavy consumption would douse the fragile flame of creativity kindled by that first strong drink.

So it might seem as though I agree with the BMA and its head of science and ethics, Vivienne Nathanson, in counseling moderate drinking. Not so. For one thing I suspect the BMA’s long term agenda, as revealed unwittingly by the call for an escalator tax, is to eliminate alcohol from our social culture, as it has largely succeeded in doing with smoking.

More than that, the whole ethos of the strategy against alcohol, and to some extent drug use in general, is wrong, as it fails to acknowledge the pleasure derived from such activities. Unlike other drugs, alcohol confers its pleasure not just by altering mood but also by stimulating our taste buds and acting as the perfect complement to food. Even people from cultures or religions in which alcohol is banned have acknowledged the culinary genius of wine, which enhances the eating experience in a way no fruit juice or other non-alcoholic beverage can.

Of course moderation is the key to enjoying alcohol, but we have different opinions of what this is. For some it means stopping before you fall over, while for others the goal is to avoid a hangover the next day. Somehow though the BMA must engage potential young problem drinkers with a more nuanced message—drinking is fun and sociable, but a lot of it can ruin your health—unless you have the “Churchill gene.” Fat chance of that happening.