Critics of the 2005 liberalisation of drinking laws in England and Wales have always seemed more motivated by faith in their position than reason. So I suppose it's only fitting that the latest public figure to criticise the reform of the drinking laws should be the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The evidence of the effect of the legislation on reducing street violence is mixed. Some areas have seen a reduction, others a modest increase. But it is perfectly clear that the extension of pub opening hours has not significantly added to the levels of violence in our streets.
Yet that has not satisfied the opponents of the law, led by the Daily Mail, who are now trying to infer that Britain's binge-drinking problem is related to longer pub opening times. They have even managed to get Gordon Brown to launch a review of the legislation. But the chronology of the critics' argument is plain wrong. Britain had a serious drinking problem long before the legislation was introduced. Cutting opening hours back again now would have no effect. Increasing the price of alcohol by raising taxes might do the trick, but that is not what these people are calling for. They demand nothing less than a return to the old opening hours.
So why the stubbornness? We can guess where the Mail is coming from. It made hysterical predictions before the legislation was introduced that reforming pub opening times would lead to our submersion under a tidal wave of alcohol-induced violence. It would be an embarrassment for the newspaper to admit that it ran an unfounded scare story.
But I believe there is a larger factor at work here. Those who are instinctively against the liberalisation of the opening hours and clamour for it to be rolled back are also those who are extremely unlikely to visit a pub in the evening. Is it time for those of us who are not violent binge drinkers, yet who occasionally like to linger over a beer past 11pm (a decadent luxury enjoyed by all of Europe and even the Scots), to make our voices heard?
Ben Chu's piece is somewhat simplistic. Obviously, there are those places where the extended hours are not causing a problem; equally obvious is the fact that, where the problems already exist, the extended opening hours are exacerbating them.
However, extended hours, higher prices and all the other attempts there have been to reduce alcohol-related violence will continue to fail dismally if people fail to educate each other on the dangers of alcohol.
The sooner the Government and the drinks trade begin to work together to do away with 'happy hours', supermarket and off-license bargain deals, and the turning of a blind eye to the sale of alcohol to the under-aged, combined with an honest and realistic education campaign both within and without schools, the sooner the issue will begin to be resolved.
Posted by: Andrew Bowdler | Thursday, 31 January 2008 at 06:10 PM
In 1988 Rowan Williams signed a letter compiled by a US drug law reform organisation. It concludes thus:
"Persisting in our current policies will only result in more drug abuse, more empowerment of drug markets and criminals, and more disease and suffering. Too often those who call for open debate, rigorous analysis of current policies, and serious consideration of alternatives are accused of "surrendering." But the true surrender is when fear and inertia combine to shut off debate, suppress critical analysis, and dismiss all alternatives to current policies. Mr. Secretary General, we appeal to you to initiate a truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies - one in which fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions yield to common sense, science, public health and human rights"
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/ungass/letter/index.cfm
I don't think he's so irrational or puritanical on the drugs issue as you suggest.
Posted by: Steve Rolles | Friday, 01 February 2008 at 09:06 AM