A ban on alcoholic energy drinks is nonsensical

Over on the western coast of the United States, the grandly-named Washington State Liquour Control Board just has banned the sale of alcoholic energy drunks. 

At first glance, this appears to be knee-jerk politics at its very worst, coming only a days after several students were hospitalised with alcohol poisoning after consuming the drinks.  Senator Chuck Schumer (never one to miss an easy headline) has called for federal legislation to ban the products, while Washington's Governor Christine Gregoire has described alcoholic drinks as "blackout in a can".

In the United Kingdom, we're only one step behind Washington state.  Indeed, going back as far as 2005 the Scottish Parliament's Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson called for a ban on the Buckfast on the grounds it was "fuelling antisocial behaviour" among teenagers.  While her bid was unsuccessful, it did generate significant media coverage.

On a personal level, I've never been a particular fan of alcoholic energy drinks.  Their sickly-sweet taste and tooth-rotting properties have never so much as come close to the appeal of a pint of lager.

That's not the point, though.  For some reason, some people like them. 

This is a simple issue of freedom to choose versus the nanny state. 

In the United Kingdom, the "appropriate age" for alcohol sales is 18 while in the United States it's 21.  Both are ages at which an individual can be described as an adult.  Underage children should not be able to buy these products. As such, the onus should surely be on individual alcohol retailers to demand appropriate identification from customers before selling these products rather than issuing an outright ban?

The government should focus on enforcing existing laws, rather than restricting the rights of adults to access perfectly legal - and largely harmless - products. 

By Daniel Hamilton

Comments

[Sati Pera]

Daniel while I agree with the premise of the article I would ask you to read what you have written and correct the obvious errors.

It is amusing that this TaxPayers Alliance campaign group is advocating that retailers should be able to demand identification from people be it 18 or 21 depending where they live.

What is very funny about this article is the dig at Chuck Schumer for chasing headlines when this is exactly what your Taxpayers Alliance campaign does as a matter of course.

If you say nanny state one more time you will sprout feathers, start answering to Polly and mess your copy of the Daily Mail at the bottom of your cage.

[John]

"banned the sale of alcoholic energy drunks"

Wow, can I but one?! Normally the drunks in this country are free and relatively obnoxious. Hooray for the free market!

[Dave Atherton]

I was at debate with a Labour Minister 2 years ago and he admitted going into pubs from the age of 14. I am sure many of us did go into pubs underage too, often with your dad and me from the age of 17. However you knew it was a privilege and by God were you on your best behaviour. This was the perfect introduction to responsible drinking which by and large has stayed with me to today.

I am sure many of us have in our younger days have got drunk to excess and regretted it. However the more you mystify drinking and the more you nanny people the more prone people are to misbehave when they do have the opportunity.

[Dave Atherton]

Just to add to the madness from the USA San Francisco have just banned McDonalds from giving away toys with their Happy Meals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys

[Sati Pera]

Let us look at the term "nanny"

It is advice from someone 2 generations older than you that has lived and has experience. To refer to someone in such a manner means that you think you know better, well usually you do not.

[Dave Atherton]

Professor Carl V Phillips is a Canadian academic in Public Health. In his blog here he goes into the medical and commercial aspects of the ban. Fail in other words.

http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/2010/11/reefer-madness-2010.html