Philosophers and politicians don’t agree on many issues, but eventually all have to accept that you can’t save someone from himself.  If people are hell-bent on taking risks with their money, relationships, well-being, health, life, then legislation and words of wisdom won’t stop them.  The best we can hope for is that society discourages excesses.

However, when reckless behaviour of certain individuals impinges on others, governments are obliged to take reasonable steps to protect society.  When, somewhat belatedly, the British government realised that smoking was costing the National Health Service huge sums of money steps were taken to discourage the habit.  Health risks were given greater prominence on cigarette packets; publicity campaigns raised awareness of the dangers, including those from passive smoking; and there is an ongoing trend restricting smoking on public places.

Once again, the Government is beginning to recognise the social cost of a personal bad habit.  It has been estimated that alcohol abuse costs the country some £20 billion per year.  England has 3.8 million alcoholics, but it is believed that some 6 million people drink to excess, one quarter of the adult population.  The cost to society can be measured in lost production from sickness, damage to property from vandalism and traffic accidents, and the extra burden on the health service from accidents, heart and liver disease.  The personal tragedies of ill-health, domestic violence, date-rape, damaged relationships, depression, and unemployment cannot be measured.

And so it is generally agreed that ‘something must be done about it’.  The Government has targeted one particular aspect, and is considering ways of raising awareness of the problems of binge drinking.  £3 million has been allocated to persuade us that binge drinking is unwise.  The drinks industry spends £200 million each year persuading that drinking is cool, fun, sexy, and how sad your life must be if you don’t have friends that you can drink with.  It looks like an unequal fight.

Society deserves more than that.  Rather than trying to combat the totally misleading messages put out by alcohol advertisements, would it not be simpler to ban them altogether? .  Cigarette advertising was banned, and guess what, the sky didn’t fall on our heads.  People still smoke, and people will continue to drink, but at least we stop reinforcing the message that drinking is socially desirable.  Then some of the other measures being considered by the Government might have a chance of changing behaviour.

No doubt the philosophers would tell us that if people prefer a drugged or drunken stupor to reality the problem is with reality.  The pace and pressures of modern life increase stresses and tensions; we are less constricted by spiritual, religious or moral values than previous generations; and so we seek escape from reality, and to hell with the consequences.  By the time we have solved that problem we won’t need philosophers and politicians; meanwhile, we will have to settle for banning the advertisements.