Dave Semple :
Cherry picking relevant data escapes my definition of science, I must confess.
As far as I can see, the government’s desire to reduce drinking by increasing price will work, as it seems to have worked elsewhere – like Sweden. I can’t speak to the cherry picking, but since there seem to be some fairly straightforward analogies elsewhere, why not just take them at their word?

Because “drinking” is, as you point out, not really a crime or a problem. The problems are the end results of drinking to excess, the crime and anti-social behaviour etc (and, personally, I’m not convinced that those are the “results” of drinking as much as something that drinking can on occasion exacerbate, but, blog comment shorthand, etc)

Even if we go just for the plainest result of excess drinking, the health damage it causes, cheap booze is worse than fancy booze, and cheap booze is still cheap booze even if it’s taxed to be more expensive. And as taxes go up and people still want to drink the cheapest stuff on the shelf, that quality will drop even lower. And then when people can’t even afford that, they start mixing rubbing alcohol with Irn Bru. Or nicking it. Or building a moonshine still. Or buying other narcotics, like heroin or coke or speed, because they end up cheaper than booze.

Reducing “drinking” is meaningless unless one can show it has been reduced in the manner and across the demographics that make a difference, that it has the results you want, and that alcohol-based problems aren’t merely commuted to elsewhere on the balance sheet.

All of which comes part and parcel along with being “evidence-based” in my view.

As far as I can see, the government’s desire to reduce drinking by increasing price will work, as it seems to have worked elsewhere – like Sweden. I can’t speak to the cherry picking, but since there seem to be some fairly straightforward analogies elsewhere, why not just take them at their word?

That done, it doesn’t dismiss the political objection.

But thank you for putting me in my place, I rather deserved that one.

How do you stop kids on the street getting drunk?

Let them drink in the pubs.

Dave Semple :
As for the nonsense about the sun being consumed by the earth, haven’t a clue what the hell you’re on about. Seems like nonsense to me.

Let me quote, again, what you said:

any distinction drawn between a ‘politicised’ and ‘evidence-based’ scientific enquiry is a false one as all science is to one degree or another influenced by values, whether explicit or implicit.

The point I was making is that just because things exist on a continuum does not mean it’s false to make a distinction between them. It’s meaningful to say there’s a difference between tomorrow and five years from now, despite the fact that they are all, to one degree or another, “the future”. It’s also meaningful to say that there are some forms of scientific enquiry that are, as much as possible, based on the evidence available, others that are rather more lackadaisical about it, and others that deliberately cherry-pick to support their pre-decided conclusions.

And, yes, if people are just making shit up, then they are not “evidence-based”. Which was, in fact, my point. It’s meaningful, in my opinion, to distinguish between those who are evidence-based in their politicking and those who are not, not least because those who are not have got us in such a mess of late.

As I said, it’s not a dictation of policies and values from a mythical scientific authority, it’s just a limit on possible courses of action to those that have some basis in the real world. It’s an acknowledgement that, wherever we want to be, we have to start from here.

As for the nonsense about the sun being consumed by the earth, haven’t a clue what the hell you’re on about. Seems like nonsense to me.

First, that any distinction drawn between a ‘politicised’ and ‘evidence-based’ scientific enquiry is a false one as all science is to one degree or another influenced by values, whether explicit or implicit.

Well, yes, and all is meaningless and ash in our mouths and eventually the world will be consumed by the sun etc, yet this does not mean it’s false to distinguish between being stabbed and eating cake, or between tomorrow and the year 2050.

I have no problem saying that my disagreement with government on this issue is a political one, based on outcomes and a notion of rights — if not fundamental rights, at least reasonable ones. But I also like to go on the record as mentioning that also, and I consider this important, they’re just making shit up wholesale in order to make their political points make any sense whatsoever, and that without this process of just making shit up, their policies do not, in fact, make sense. Being “evidence based” doesn’t mean all policies flow from a science lab — indeed, there is no single anti/pro-prohibitionist policy that would result from a more scientifically accurate classification system — but it does mean that there is a certain restriction on the range of policies you can consistently put forward and the arguments you can make in support of them.

Given as we’ve had a couple of actual wars and a longer “drugs war” designed on the whims of people who felt they could ignore the ranges of reality described by the evidence and impose their preferred meanings on the plastic universe by sheer force of will, I’m not yet willing to give up the idea that it’s a valid and meaningful policy choice to say that government should be constrained to doing things relevant to a universe that demonstrably exists outside their own heads, even if such a choice is only of their own volition and good will.