Public Health Watch

Are the UK government’s new alcohol guidelines an assault on freedom? Just ask John Stuart Mill

The Victorian reformer was something of an expert on the "nanny state".

New guidelines on the consumption of alcohol have been announced by the British government. These recommend no more than 14 units a week, adding that there should be some drink-free days each week, and stressing that there are no safe levels of alcohol consumption.

While health campaigners have welcomed this move, others have described this as “nanny state” interference, or hyperbolic and puritan, with Nigel Farage advocating mass protest.

When the state seeks to direct us for our own good, it treats us as if we are children, unable to take responsibility for our own lives. This is what many find objectionable.

Inform, don’t restrict

Objections to the “nanny state” have a long history. The Victorian social reformer and MP John Stuart Mill argued, in 1859, that the only legitimate purpose for restricting a person’s freedom is to prevent harm to others. Mill’s insistence that people should not be restricted for their own benefit was influential in bringing about many social changes, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

But not all state interference is objectionable, as Mill recognised. We should distinguish between cases where the state compels us to behave in a particular way (for example, by banning unhealthy substances) and cases where it offers advice or information. If the state were to prohibit alcohol, as some have tried to do in the past, this would deprive people of the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to drink. A similar objection might be made against minimum pricing, since it makes alcohol less affordable.

On the other hand, to warn citizens of danger, without preventing them from exposing themselves to it, does not threaten their freedom. In fact, being aware of the health risks associated with alcohol is a precondition for making an informed choice. If people were unaware of such risks, they could not decide for themselves whether the pleasures of alcohol were worth the danger. So, for people to exercise control over their own lives requires that they are informed about the options open to them.

Since the government’s guidelines are merely informative, rather than restrictive, they don’t restrict individual freedom. But there is one respect in which objectors may be right to criticise them. The guidelines do not simply impart information; they also recommend what level of risk people should be prepared to accept. The figure of 14 units was chosen, not because it is risk-free, but because this level of consumption is supposed to involve similar levels of risk to many other daily activities, such as driving.

This is ill-advised because competent adults should be able to decide for themselves what levels of risk to accept. Some of us actively seek out risks, while other are more cautious. The amount of risk that we’re willing to tolerate depends on both individual tastes and circumstances. It’s absurd to suggest that there’s a “one size fits all” answer to questions about how much risk we should accept and all the more absurd to think that the government can tell us what level this is.

Not much help

While people need to be told about the dangers of alcohol so that they can make responsible choices, the new guidelines aren’t of much help. The 14 units a week recommendation doesn’t tell us how much more risky 14 units a week is than seven, nor how much safer it is than 21, so it’s little help to anyone deciding what risk is acceptable to them.

A more liberal set of guidelines might compare the risks associated with various levels of consumption to the risks of other daily activities. This would give citizens a better idea of how risky different patterns of consumption are, allowing us to choose how much risk we wish to face.

Such potential guidelines could respect both the need for citizens to be informed and the right of each person to make decisions over his or her own life, including decisions about what risks to take. The government’s actual guidelines are to be applauded, to the extent that they simply educate people about the dangers of alcohol, but objectionable in seeking to decide for us how much risk we should face.

Ben Saunders, Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Southampton.

This article was first published on The Conversation.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

If YOLO is your mantra, get ready to live it the right way

So much to do, so little time!

Carpe Diem! We are a part of the generation that truly knows how to live by those words. We understand the value of everyday and believe that life should be lived in the moment. We fear nothing, except maybe the fear of missing out. We live for an adrenalin rush that keeps us young and makes us feel alive. And what makes this spirit more powerful is that it has captured our collective pulse and has created a refreshed way of life.

Planning for the future has never been our forte, our strength lies more in fuelling our wanderlust and collecting memorable experiences. We love our independence, our freedom of expression and thrive on an ambition of pursuing many passions. How do we keep this spirit alive without letting the rigours of life weigh it down? Maybe it’s time we take a break from seizing the day and pause to look ahead.

Start by making a simple vision board and include all that you want your life to be. Do you dream of sailing across the world or sharing your ideas through your own YouTube channel? Do you see yourself travelling the entire world as a blogger or starting your own café frequented by artists and musicians? Whatever life goals you put down on your vision board can be achieved with determination, passion and a little bit of planning.

Five years ago, IDFC Mutual Fund initiated the conversation on planning in advance for what you might need in the future through the movie ‘One Idiot’. The protagonist of the movie “Bugs Uncle”, enlightened many young Indians about the importance of planning their lives and finances.

Bugs Uncle has returned to once again share his wisdom with the youth and provide a fresh perspective on life. The movie ‘Return of One Idiot’ - an Amole Gupte film and an IDFC MF initiative, shows us how, if we don’t pause for a moment and care to define our future, it’ll lead us down a road none of us wants to visit. And while it’s completely understandable something so far away is tough to think about now, it’s something we shouldn’t neglect either. Watch Bugs Bhargava give you his insights on life in the video below.

Play
Return of One Idiot - An Amole Gupte Film and an IDFC MF Initiative : An IDFC Mutual Fund Investor Awareness Initiative

To know more on how to start a habit of saving and investing, and to learn how to plan your life, join the webinar here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of IDFC Mutual Fund and not by the Scroll editorial team.