IDS proposes 'treatment tax' on alcohol and reclassification of cannabis

Yesterday it was tackling education failure.  Friday was about tackling debt.  Today the focus of the social justice policy group turns to drug and alcohol addiction and the Sunday newspapers are full of the group's recommendations.

Grabbing most headlines is the Addictions Working Group's recommendation that extra taxes should be levied on beers, wines and spirits in order to pay for new treatments for people with addiction problems and to help fund the policing costs of binge drinking.  The Mail on Sunday suggests that the tax would amount to £1.4bn - equivalent to 7p on a pint.  Such a tax would fit in with Project Cameron's general inclination to shift the burden of taxation on to things that are bad - like pollution - and away from things that are good - like the family and enterprise.  The report says that a tax increase would only restore the real price of alcohol to the levels of the 1990s.  Gordon Brown kept down taxes on alcohol while he was Chancellor because of the alleged impact on the UK drinks industry of booze cruises and other alcohol 'smuggling' from lower tax jurisdictions.

The SJPG estimates that the cost of alcohol and drug addiction is nearly £40bn pa to the British economy and an increase in expenditure on treatment will save money in the long-run.

Iain Duncan Smith's group wants a switch away from 'harm reduction' approaches to drug treatment and much greater investment in 'harm avoidance' services.  There is a recommendation for a £30m programme of drug abstinence programmes for the nation's prisons.  The report notes:

"Spending on “harm reduction” measures – such as substitute prescribing, needle exchange, and harm minimisation advice – runs at ten times the level of spending on residential and community rehabilitation programmes designed to make people permanently drug-free."

As reported in The Observer, the SJPG also wants cannabis reclassified as a class B drug, "carrying much greater penalties for possession and trafficking."  The potency of cannabis has grown significantly over the years and is now associated with an increase in mental health problems.  Iain Duncan Smith suggests that the slogan 'war on drugs' should be binned: "[It] sends the wrong signals. It is not a war on drugs. It is about getting kids off drugs."

In today's Sunday Telegraph Iain Duncan Smith overviews his prescriptions to mend Britain's broken society.

12.30pm: Speaking about an hour ago on Sky News Iain Duncan Smith spotlighted the rise in juvenile alcoholism as a primary reason for his group's recommendation of higher taxes on alcohol.  He argued that young people's drinking levels were particularly sensitive to changes in price.

Comments

[Elaib]

Tell me Ed, when did the Tories cease to be the party of personal responsibility and Liberty. First our fags, then our booze, anything left?

[Sally Roberts]

This is an interesting idea - but I am concerned that it may be taking us down a "slippery slope". What next? Taxing fatty and sugary foods on the grounds that they are eaten by obese people?

[Alan S]

The Tories should not be proposing any new taxes. We should be emphasising more growth and less waste to pay for the things that Iain Duncan-Smith proposes.

[Hayek would be turning in his grave]

Brown was right to protect the UK drinks industry by keeping tax down. Hasn't IDS heard about tax competition?

[Andrew Lilico]

First, I welcome the harm avoidance bit of this, and most of IDS' stuff in general, but I wish to raise a point about cannabis, because I think he has just got the principle wrong.

"Cannabis" probably shouldn't be one drug for classification purposes any more. "Skunk" and variants are, apparently, enormously more potent than "Grass" and variants. But it does not follow from this that "Grass" variants need have a class B rating - or indeed be illegal at all. Methylated spirits and Whiskey each contain ethyl and methyl alcohol, but only the latter is permitted to be sold for human consumption. And we don't consider the fact that a few sad souls consume methylated spirits to be a sufficient reason for banning Whiskey.

Cannabis variants should be judged on their own merits. And like other drugs, the criterion should be: Would permitting or banning the sale of this product lead to the greater measure of ordered liberty? If it is highly addictive and at the same time significantly damaging (like cigarettes) then it should be banned as a limitation on liberty (for the addict is not free). If it is highly compulsive and compels crimes such as theft, then it should be banned as a threat to order (like heroin). If is it highly damaging but not especially addictive (like mild cannabis variants) then it should be legal (not decriminalised - legal). If it is highly addictive but not damaging or likely to enforce crime (like coffee) then it should be of limited policy concern.

Some cases, such as cigars, create practical problems (could we ban cigarettes without also banning cigars?), but these, again, should be argued on their merits. The case may be there, and it may not. What is certainly *not* the point is how harmful a substance is. The State does not exist to prevent us from taking risks to our health. It can ensure that we are informed about those risks, but (subject to the comments about addictive substances above), once informed the choice should be up to us.

[TFA Tory]

Elaib is spot on. Does IDS want us to have Scandanavian levels of alcohol taxes?

Scandanavia has its binge drinking problems too. People make and drink illegal moonshine at home. They drink it at home before going out to the pub for the two pints of beer that they can afford. The result is that the pubs are dull, lifeless places.

Sacandanavian booze-cruising is legendary. Scandanavians also binge drink on holiday when they have a rare opportunity to buy win e, beer and spirits at reasonable.

Why should responsible drinkers have to pay more? If we have to find more money to tackle binge drinking, may the bars in town centres pay large licensing fees to cover extra policing etc.

This is bad policy and I expected better from IDS.

[matthew barker]

Whilst it is a restriction on liberty, curbing the problems associated with binge drinking is a wonderfully socially conservative priority relevant to today. But,How much difference would 7p on a pint make? Will a 70p levy on a ten pint binge effectively persuade people to stick to 1 or 2?

Surely the political capital Labour could make out of this proposal is too bigger risk for such a small increase?

If we are tackle binge drinking, the tax has got to sting when your sitting at a bar, or at the off licence till.

This proposal also seems to destroy the notion that any increase in tax in one area would be matched by reductions in another.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Is alcohol bad - or is the over consumption of alcohol bad? I don't drink - but I thought there was medical evidence to say alcohol such as wine could often be beneficial to your health in moderation.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Furthermore, what evidence has there been that increasing tax on cigarettes has made any difference in the smoking behaviour of people? How would a tax on alcohol be any different? Or would it actually mean that those that binge drink would effectively be contributing to their own treatment through the extra tax?

[David Cooper]

I agree with all of the above. Taxing responsible drinkers because of the behaviour of irresponsible drinkers is not something we should consider. Excuse the cross-reference, but have we really learned no lessons from the fallout of Two Brains, No Common Sense's comments on grammar schools?

[David]

Banning any drug is pointless. All you get is a flourishing blackmarket, allowing all those who want to them to get them.

Thanks to the US, we have the perfect experiment on the effectiveness of prohibition, yet we refuse to acknowledge the findings.

Far better to legalise them, tax them, and use that income for treatment and prevention education.

[TomTom]

Taxes are to raise revenue for public spending. That is their function. Anything else discredits their purpose.

It shows a lack of understanding of Addiction if addicts are thought to be price-sensitive....and the moderate drinker would not produce enough revenue to make it a realistic objective. Besides British beer is very costly compared to the rest of Europe because of a silly taxation policy on wort rather than output.

Using this logic there is no problem with alcoholics drinking whisky because it carries £10/bottle duty.....I suppose people don't drive cars now that petrol has such huge tax levies ?

What about an example in the Houses of Parliament - abolition of the subsidised bars, or even make them totally dry ? If this idea is so good ban alcohol from Parliament - there are quite a few addicts in that institution.

This is another ill-thought out policy. To tell me addiction is a question of price is to describe ad addictive behaviour as voluntary

[Realist]

Good God - Tim and his IDS Guru are like some 17th century puritans who want to take over all aspects of our private lives. Just because some people can live by prayer and blogs it does not mean we all can or want to. Leave our private lives alone.

[Tory T]

I would favour, instead, raising the drinking age to 21 as they do in the States. It would solve a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour by simply preventing it. Also, rather than tax alcohol, I would favour restricting access to it - return to off-licenses instead of making it available in supermarkets.

There is no doubt that binge drinking is an epidemic.

IDS is quite right on cannabis, now a psychosis-inducing drug - even the Indie was forced to admit this.

[TomTOm]

Far better to legalise them, tax them, and use that income for treatment and prevention education.

Posted by: David | July 08, 2007 at 09:38

NO ! You do not cure addictions by feeding them.....we have prisons full of people whose addictive behaviour got them there....and the revenues from alcohol and cigarettes are sufficient currently to pay for all treatments.

If you push the prices too high - and only Ireland and Sweden match UK duties - then it will simply lead to more EU imports and home-brewing and spirits manufacture.

I really wish politicians would understand a) the EU dimension b) the Market c) Addiction

[Winston Matthews]

Extra revenue, off of increased tax, a small percentage to what you'd take of the gangsters who deal cannabis, and you took the money off of them!

You have up 6 million users, why cause more troubles in these times?

Would you have a cannabis user to frightened to report a terrorist activity?

What are you going to spend this extra money on?

To educate people that alcohol is a dangerous killing drug, that you can overdose on?

Nicotine is the largest killing drug, and we are getting our children addicted to the drug caffeine, which is more dangerous than cannabis.

Wake up and smell the coffee, tax and regulate

[TomTom]

I would favour, instead, raising the drinking age to 21 as they do in the States

It doesn't work there....go to any beauty spot and look at the piles of empty cans left by teenagers driving out to have a drinking party.....watch how easily Americans get drunk on 3% Coors and other low alcohol beers like Miller and Bud......and no doubt they can smoke spliffs as they drink before driving home....if you want to see things - go to the Midwest and watch the cars with cruise-control set at 55 and the driver drinking a glass of whisky

[Andrew S]

I’m curious about something... The proposals are to raise taxes on alcohol, does this mean the Conservative Party no longer supports Labour’s idea that people who heavily smoke – who also pay a heavy on cigarettes – and heavily drink shouldn’t be treated on the NHS?

[CCTV]

Tim and his IDS Guru are like some 17th century puritans who want to take over all aspects of our private lives.

Nothing wrong with 17th Century Puritanism - it made the country great and built America.......but do not associate a Roman Catholic like IDS with Puritanism please......it shows a distinct lack of understanding of Protestantism

[Realist]

CCTV - your name says it all.

[David]

"NO ! You do not cure addictions by feeding them.."

Feeding them? People who want drugs get them now. Making them illegal does absolutely nothing except place the trade under the control of criminal gangs.

"the revenues from alcohol and cigarettes are sufficient currently to pay for all treatments."

There are currently no revenues from drugs, and there are certainly not enough treatment centres.

"If you push the prices too high - and only Ireland and Sweden match UK duties - then it will simply lead to more EU imports and home-brewing and spirits manufacture."

I'm talking about drugs-you've already got to that stage by making them illegal.

[Paul Oakley]

Can't see this having an effect on excessive drinking because of course addicts are not price-senstive. It may however have an effect on town centre rowdiness. Supermarkets are likely to absorb the cost of price increases and booze cruises will be revivified. The consequence, when coupled with the stalinist smoking ban, will be an increase in home drinking.

[Editor]

For the record I'm very supportive of what has been reported of IDS' report so far - the action against debt, pioneer schools, reclassifying cannabis, against methadone-style treatments etc. I do not support the extra tax on alcohol, however. Taxes are high enough in Britain today. I agree with Alan S - when it comes to funding extra treatments etc we should emphasise growth policies and less waste in the short-run. Additionally we need to cut demand for government services - which would be the long-run gain from IDS' report.

[Realist]

"Iain Duncan Smith suggests that the slogan 'war on drugs' should be binned: "[It] sends the wrong signals. It is not a war on drugs. It is about getting kids off drugs.""

It's not only Kids on drugs and I'm not sure how forcing softer drugs such as alcohol underground will make it easier to keep anyone from straying onto harder drugs.

Equally, harsh punishments do not seem to stop people dealing - dealers live in a harsh world that makes prison an occupational hazzard they can live with.

If IDS wants to end all of these problems then he should start to move away from old idead such as taxation and prison and look at root causes - poverty and despair. I know he thinks he has looked at these, but he seems to have done so through some very old eyes.

[simon]

I support the raising of tax on alcohol for 'treatment' of various addictions etc. Let's not kid ourselves, it will do foxtrot alpha about the real problem concerning alcohol/drug abuse. In a way i.d.s' idea is another 'stealth tax'- but at least it has a laudible aim.

[Sally Roberts]

Tom Tom you make some good points about addiction. Addiction is not a lifestyle choice - it is something which grabs one round the throat and will not let go. People can be addicted to substances - drink, drugs, food - or behaviour - shopping, spending, sex. The common thread is the addiction is a psychological and physical compulsion. punishment by tax will not be effective - if the addict is unable to afford their substance of choice they will merely resort to crime in order to get it.

[CCTV]

CCTV - your name says it all.

Posted by: Realist | July 08, 2007 at 10:01

Why thank you "Realist"...unfortunately yours does not.....

[Jennifer Wells]

I am not sure that ID-S is proposing the tax to stop addiction but to fund treatments that will? It's a tax I'm happy to see imposed if it does not add to the overall tax burden.

[Jonathan]

We have learned nothing it seems - Prohibition does not work. The government should stop telling people to stop it. It was quite wonderful watching Andrew Lilico above trying to decide a priori what to ban and what to permit, like some French Enarch or God up Mount Sinai.
Addicts don't respond to tax. The rest of us, not being addicts, don't deserve to be taxed. Why should I be taxed because you are a lush and he is a cokehead?

CCTV knows nothing about the Catholic Church if he thinks it doesn't contain moral puritans, rather than religious ones. "I am not by nature a religious man but I find that if I say no to anything I really want to do, it is very hard to tell the difference."

We are currently suffering the most authoritarian government since the Six Acts and what the British public really needs and will, I think, vote for, is a government that knows how to say Yes.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

Tax, tax, tax.

We are supposed to be Conservatives.

Start inventing some ways of cutting taxes instead of introducing them.

Give me strength!

[Traditional Tory]

Excellent proposals. One or two of the posters above should visit the downtown areas of their cities late at night to see the extent of the problem.

Conservatives need to declare war on the drink/drugs culture that is turning the younger generation into a race of spaced-out zombies. If he doesn't want to call it a 'war' that's his privilege, but it is a war and he has the right ideas.

I recommend careful study of alcohol control as efficiently exercised by the governments of Norway and Sweden.

Price these morons out of the market and crack down hard on booze merchants who getr out of line. We need to show these people that at least one party means business.

Nulabour is the drunkard's friend

[Traditional Tory]

I would favour, instead, raising the drinking age to 21 as they do in the States.

At last a sensible suggestion from Tory T.

But why 'instead'?

Let's go with the politics of 'and' on this one.

[Realist]

Radio 1 are running with story as a suggestion by a Conservative Group. They have highlighted the 7p tax rise to cut drinking rates. Goodbye youth vote. Is IDS determined to go on costing the party elections?

[Traditional Tory]

Goodbye youth vote.

What youth vote? Most of them don't bother to vote at all. Those that do support the BNP and other loony parties.

We have an ageing population and those that are able do vote because they have voted all their lives. Older people will endorse these plans with enthusiasm, as will all good Christians of whatever denomination, together with Jews and Muslims.

IDS has come up with some fantastic ideas but they need to be supported not just because they will be popular. They need to be supported because they are right

[NewWelshRight]

http://newwelshright.blogspot.com/2007/07/all-hail-to-ale.html

[election watcher]

what has the leadership in our party got against hard working families? first it was extra tax on flights for their summer hols and now it is an extra tax on their favourite tipple. Whatever happened to cutting taxes? If we go on like this there will be an early election and we will lose.

[Andrew Lilico]

Jonathan@10:45

What do you mean by "Prohibition does not work"? Do you mean because there are still heroin addicts? There are still thieves, so in that sense the prohibition on theft "does not work". There are still paedophiles, so the prohibition on paedophilia "does not work".

With most illegal drugs (cannabis being the obvious exception) the vast majority of people obey the law, though they might have found it interesting to give them a try once or twice (like cigarettes, or absinthe, or ouija boards) if they had not been illegal. And that is a problem when it comes to highly addictive and destructive drugs like heroin. For then if someone makes a bad call, is having a bad few weeks, gets drunk at a party and doesn't know what he is doing, etc., we can end up lumbered with a compulsive and destructive addiction through making a mistake. I would rather that policy understands mankind's "trembling hand" - we make mistakes, and the punishment for making a mistake should not be a lifetime of destructive addiction. Policy should offer us some protection from that.

[Erasmus]

Oh dear the la-la-libertarians are out in force. When this country re-acquires a sensible drinking culture, then taxes can come down -- until then drinkers will have to pay for the damage our drinking culture does to this country.

[Realist]

Traditional Tory
Not all young people vote for "BNP and other loony parties" and those that do not vote probably drop out of the system because people like you fail to engage with them. Silly policies like this one will not get them back into the fold.

[HF]

The cannabis move seems sensible.

The extra drink tax is just plain dumb. It will only encourage the purchase of booze in France to bring it back here for consumption at home. Brown has kept these taxes down because of this problem. People have alternatives to paying high booze taxes.

The younger binge drinkers actually drink a lot of booze at home before they go out to pubs and clubs. A 7p on a pint will not add much to the price of a pint in a club which can exceed £5.

This booze tax is out of touch with reality.

[Richard Tyndall]

Traditional Tory

well I work full time in Norway and can assure you that the very high levels of taxation on alcohol (resulting in beer at about £8 a pint) and the restructions on purchase (wines and spirits can only be bought at government controlled and owned shops) do absolutely nothing to reduce either alcoholism, binge drinking or the damage associated with both.

It is interesting that IDS is on the radio shows this morning going on about the fractred society we live in but is saying nothing about the real causes which is the loss of disciplinbe and respect that has resulted from the dependency culture created by the concensus over the last 15 years.

If you want to deal with these problems then make people properly responsible for their actions with real punishments rather than small fine or community service orders. Until people fear the consequences of their actions and stop being rewarded for anti social lifestyles no amount of tax changes will alter their behaviour.

[Tory T]

It seems to me that IDS wants higher taxes to pay for treatment costs, rather than to prevent drinking.

This is the wrong approach. It would be better to prevent treatment being needed altogether. Bring in a 21 year old age limit and punishments for retailers that break it. This will break the drink-to-drugs cycle afflicting many of our youngsters and stop "hoodies" and petty crime.

Removing alcohol from supermarkets will stop binge drinking on impulse.

But families and adult drinkers will still have access to wine and spirits without punitive taxes.

[TomTom]

CCTV knows nothing about the Catholic Church if he thinks it doesn't contain moral puritans, rather than religious ones.

To associate Roman Catholicism with Puritanism is absurd.....Puritan is the name given to Reformation Protestants opposed to episcopacy and upholding sola fide, sola scriptura.

Whatever the Church of Rome "containS it is not Puritans in any way, shape, or form.......you will find the Temperance Movement emerged from the Wesleyans

[TomTom]

Bring in a 21 year old age limit and punishments for retailers that break it.

That should be a fun case under the HRA....removing rights from voters...but I doubt you could punish retailers with so much traffic in white vans from Dover and Hull to self-import

[Traditional Tory]

To associate Roman Catholicism with Puritanism is absurd

It's absurd in a strictly religious sense, but not in the 'vulgar' sense of the word.

What nation, until recently, was as 'puritan' as the Irish Republic? Even the mildest forms of pornography, such as Playboy, were strictly forbidden, and discipline in Catholic schools was as harsh as anything John Knox himself might have imposed.

[ACT]

"Worst Tory leader ever produces stupidest idea so far" - why the amazement?

[Richard]

"I would favour, instead, raising the drinking age to 21 as they do in the States."

That would leave a lot of 18-20 year olds without a pub to go to in the evening whi h would be a pity because when I was that age it was a great social venue. And depriving university students of alcohol?!

Personally I don't see why responsible drinkers should be forced to suffer just because of a minority of borderline alcoholics.

[R.Rowan]

For years it has been claimed that cannabis led to hard drugs!In view of this what then did people expect with the introduction of alco-pops.Now it seems that responsible users are to pay higher taxes for alcohol because no one had the nous to prohibit alco-pops.It seems the conservative party has a death wish,first grammar schools then museum charges, now raising the tax on alcohol.We have terrorist sympathisers working for the police,terrorist traffic wardens, 1600 under surveillance, and what makes the news, tax on alcohol! It beggars belief. Its about time Cameron got real.

[Timelord]

The tax on alcohol should be at least 3 times what it is now. Its time to stop pussyfooting around - alcohol is an addictive drug and needs to be made harder to get. Too many youngsters are suffering from alchohol abuse. Furthermore, the penalty for selling alcohol to the underage needs to be far more severe - at the moment its not even a slap on the wrist. Why isn't the license to sell alcohol withdrawn immediately from such lawbreakers?

[Mark]

I'm inclined to agre with Erasmus at 12:22.

I don't see how this level of tax is high enough for anybody to get angry about - we're talking about an extra 50p for a very heavy night's drinking.

What I would also like to see is some sort of levy on licensees to cover the anti-social behaviour generated by their establishments. THis would be fiscally neutral as the cost is currently borne by the ratepayer.

As for the youth vote, I suspect we'd lose out more from the position on cannabis than we would from the position on alcohol tax. So perhaps the booze tax announcemnet has gone in our favour by covering up the cannabis policy ?