If we are talking about stopping excessive alcohol consumption then a legitimate argument can be made in favour of Government intervention to reduce alcohol consumption. There are enough evidence to believe that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to deadly liver diseases; treatment of which can be very expensive for the individual. If you are living in a country with a publicly funded health care system then the Government has to bear that cost. Apart from that there is a indirect cost as well: there is a productivity loss due to possible premature death due to drinking excessive alcohol. Drinking excessive alcohol may lead to domestic violence as well, which has social cost as well. The benefit will most likely offset the cost.

Is there that much of a difference between socially/publicly/privately funded systems worldwide then?

Yes, such differences are very clear worldwide. However, coming back to your original question, Government intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption can be justified from another angle. Health, like education, is considered as human capital. Since consumption of excessive alcohol can have adverse effect on health, there can be a case made in favour of Government intervention. However, in democracy, we do not want to control such things through law or legislation. So, Governments in most democratic countries usually impose high taxes on alcohol to reduce consumption. How effective are they and whether the Governments' goal is to reduce consumption of alcohol or to increase tax revenue is another story.

Most countries already do so in the form of excise taxes. Based on the relative sizes of the externalities, some have suggested that these taxes be higher than those suggested for cannabis.

Government intervention -whether for a good cause or a bad on and whether by good measures or by poor ones -is and always will be a tricky concept. In the case of legal bans on the consumption some risks may rise; such as the possibility of black marketing and illegal usage. As a matter of fact in some period in United States such a thing happened. Despite the legal ban on the usage and purchase of alcohol it was still being produced, sold and bought vastly in the country. The famous Al Capon was one of the big merchants of alcohol in that time. This event results in enforcement issues which rises the public sector costs and those costs need sufficient funding. on the other hand putting alcohol consumption under heavy taxes, even though may look sufficient and reasonable, could still have some issues. Such a policy means rises in public sector revenue and this revenue should be spent in another place and if poorly managed it would result in unwanted inflation (expanding fiscal policies have an inflationary by product). In conclusion, government's intervention in the sectors relating to alcohol may seem acceptable, but if and only if they are correctly managed and are being enacted in an efficient institutional framework. the benefit we are seeking here is to decrease the propensity to consume alcohol. however, we must keep in mind the costs.

I agree with Kisalaya in that economic arguments cannot be separated from public health, education, justice, social policy arguments. I believe that reducing alcohol consumption should take a multisectoral approach. All actions can be costed and cost-benefit analysis done. There are direct costs, indirect costs as well as opportunity costs.

I think several thoughtful observations have been made here. I want to add the perspective and wording of "negative externalities" per se. As certain cohorts of the population engage in alcohol consumption, especially "excessive" alcohol consumption, the negative externalities include greater public heath problems, problems that are paid for by the remainder of society. This is reflected by higher medical outlays, higher health insurance premiums, higher taxes, a higher risk of death or injury while driving one's care or simply walking in public, higher outlays for police departments to address speeding, illegal turns, not stopping at red lights or stop signs, and higher costs for the court system to adjudicate lawsuits associated with DUI driving. The latter two categories of negative externalities, along with increased costs at hospitals, especially public hospitals, can result in higher government spending and hence in higher taxation levels as well.

More stringent laws regarding loss of driving privileges are needed, laws that lawyers cannot simply dance around. Stiffer penalties for multiple DUIs are needed.

But perhaps what is most needed is education, education of parents and children and other adults, as to the long term health effects as well as other implications of excessive consumption. We do public service ads for smoking; the same should be done more extensively than it currently is for DUI of any sort.

Although it has been argued that excise taxes have been imposed to reduce alcohol consumption, I am not convinced that it is the case. Rather, my experience is that such taxes in most aces are merely a good revenue source; the taxes are never high enough to dramatically appreciably reduce alcohol consumption.

Yes! if you could search for some articles on costs of alcohol consumption in different countries, it become easy for you to understand the point.

I think that there is another perspective here. The Scotch Whisky export industry generates about £4billion per annum and pays about £1 billion in tax in the UK. In other countries alcohol production, say wine production in Australia, may be crucial to the economic success of that countries agricultural industry or other sector. Since tax on alcohol usually impacts upon both production and consumption, as it is the alcohol which is taxed, I think that there are serious tensions in many countries between the fiscal need to generate national income and the social need to reduce alcohol consumption harms. I don't think that there is an easy answer to this

I came to the same conclusion Caroline. There is a moral rationale to reduce alcohol consumption but in economic terms there are many conflicts between social and economic costs and fiscal revenue gains. It seems to rely on benefits needing to outweigh detriments but then the inclusion/exclusion criteria for each category have to be evaluated and decided upon which allows for manipulation of figures leading to many varied opinions. On one hand we have Government obligation to society but on the other, alcohol producers/retailers maintaining some financial control.

It has been a difficult debate and it's no wonder the UK Government have made decisions and then U-turned. I'm not convinced anything will change in the near future!