Now that it鈥檚 2014, British Columbians are getting closer to the implementation of some new liquor laws.
This has been the first review of sa国际传媒鈥檚 liquor laws in a decade, and our current 鈥渁ntiquated鈥� laws need some serious revising, according to Premier Christy Clark. Some of the big-ticket items up for consideration are introducing happy hour, allowing wineries to make more gate sales and selling beer and wine in grocery stores.
The idea of changing our liquor laws seems to be popular with businesses and the public. Local wineries are anticipating boosts in revenue, as are restaurant owners, who will be able to offer pre-dinner drinks specials and increase sales that way.
Looking at it from a public-health perspective, however, a person could argue it鈥檚 a terrible decision.
Well, to be fair, looking at anything from a public-health perspective will usually make you wince, but alcohol takes the cake.
Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, and is directly responsible for increasing public and domestic violence, dangerous driving and other public-health risks. In fact, the briefing drawn up by the Centre for Addictions Research of sa国际传媒 at the University of Victoria on implementing new liquor laws reads like a list of the top reasons why no government should ever legalize the sale of alcohol.
About 70 per cent of Canadian consumers are unaware of, for example, the links between even low levels of drinking and increased likelihood of cancer. The International Research Agency on Cancer has 鈥渃onfirmed that the type of alcohol used in alcoholic beverages is carcinogenic.鈥�
Now, I鈥檓 not arguing that alcohol is dangerous and we should get rid of it 鈥� but why isn鈥檛 that my argument? My only argument in favour of alcohol is that I like it, despite the fact that it鈥檚 dangerous. I say this as a person with considerable privilege, whose life has never been negatively impacted by alcoholism, drunk driving or drunken violence. These are all important issues for me in theory, but they are not personal to me.
The triumvirate of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana gives us three different substances, none of which are benign, which are used in similar ways, yet we have developed disparate attitudes and laws to govern their use.
It鈥檚 still interesting to me that we not only tolerate alcohol use, but encourage it; we鈥檝e enmeshed alcohol in our culture and our economy to such an extent that 鈥渉appy hour is good for the economy鈥� is a rational counterpoint to health and safety in a way that would be inconceivable if we were talking about cannabis.
I like drinking and I don鈥檛 want it to go away, but in the same breath, I have to admit that it has its risks. CARBC reports that from 2002 to 2011, six per cent of all sa国际传媒 deaths were alcohol-related. About a third of all criminal incidents in the same period were attributable to alcohol.
Yet these risks seem intangible to me. Despite the data, it鈥檚 hard for me to connect happy hour with spikes in violent crime.
Stretching one鈥檚 brain from the immediate and personal to the grander scheme of things is something that business owners are having trouble with, too. One restaurateur featured in a Business in Vancouver article this past summer downplayed the possibility of people getting drunk at happy hour, because drinking and driving regulations exist.
As a grizzled veteran of many a cinq-à-sept (Montreal鈥檚 happy hour), I have to point out that that never stopped anybody. Pair this with a recent article in the August edition of The Journal of School Health that provided evidence to suggest that alcohol, not marijuana, is the real 鈥済ateway drug鈥� for escalating illicit substance abuse among youth, and you have sound reasons to tighten rather than relax our current alcohol laws.
I don鈥檛 want us to. I just think it鈥檚 worth observing how thoroughly our cultural attitudes and habits with regard to drinking have remained impervious to the vast body of scientific knowledge that points to the physical and social dangers of alcohol.
Which I find interesting. Cheers.
