Facts please James. As Michael says, we already know about your ideology.
It was the alcohol industry that tried to label the tax a failure. The actual situation is more complex.
https://ama.com.au/media/alcopops-has-tax-worked

"Judges could start by making voluntary consumption of alcohol before an offence an aggravating circumstance."
Make alcohol a form of "hate" then Jack? And any crime committed with a positive blood alcohol level a Hate Crime.

Hi John, I think that there isn't a real difference between taking the two accounts, except our own wishful thinking. ("Ours" rather than "yours" because you're not alone in making the distinction).

If an advertisment makes drinking more attractive, whether it be designed for refined behaviour or not, it still makes it attractive, and people will aspire to the outcome. If they cant have it with Brown Brothers, they'll use something more affordable. You work/ed in copywriting, so you know that advertising works, which is why so much money is spent on it.

I think we have a better chance of answering your dilemma, with a greater understanding of ethics, and really understanding the behaviour that leads to drinking problems and outcomes from drinking.

Regarding ethics, we need to look beyond ourselves, and not just think about our own usage and our desires, but the overall value and detriment to society. An outright ban is definitely not what anyone wants, (and it doesn't work anyway), but changing our relationship with alcohol, starting with changes to ads, is very important.

Basically, just because you or I use it responsibly, doesn't mean that is what is being done elsewhere, and this has costs to society, to families and friends, to workplaces, to health and justice departments, and to individuals.

Hi Brian

I guess limiting "opening hours" would certainly be worth trialing (if not already introduced in some places).

But that in one sense moves the issue from one place to another...perhaps to the home.

Education and the taking responsibility is the answer.

Why is alcohol a problem, what are the causes, why do people drink to excess, why the need to drink and abuse people or property?

If the actual causes are not addressed, then the problem will never be solved.

Ivan, indeed we need to have much more open and public conversations about what 'vested interests' and 'industry' mean. One of the great lessons from ancient history comes from the corrupt accusations of criminality among Republican Rome's middle and upper classes from political and commercial foes and obstacles. As defence counsel Cicero would ask, "cui bono"? Who benefits from these accusations and trials. In this sense large patches of academia are definitely industries, whose self-interest is career advancement and professional prestige (both work-wise and building moral capital). Both require huge government funding for research projects. Huge funding that is dependent on the Public Health industry (or human rights, cultural studies and so on) being able to persuade the purse string holders that a "real and urgent need" exists for whatever their current hobby horse is. Or, more bluntly, inflaming moral panic.
With the work largely done on the tobacco industry, there is an anxiety within the Public Health industry that unless they can find brand new social evils with which to incite moral panic, their existing funding arrangements will be difficult to justify.
While the public health campaigns against Big Tobacco were an absolute must, trying to keep the funding coming in by finding a new and equally evil target, was always going to be basically impossible. So they need to build a new evil. The recent identification of booze as the key to keeping funding levels stable smells a bit like desperation; especially this strategy they've cooked up to paint it as though they are selfless nuns taking on the evil "Big Alcohol". Unless they can pull out a doozy, the equivalent of Big Tobacco's covering up that cigarettes causes lung cancer, they will just start to look silly and self-serving. As Watergate's Deep Throat said, "follow the money trail".

Now now Mike,

Obviously Mr Riden here is only weighing in on this discussion because of his (and his organisation's) overwhelming concern for our freedoms and welfare ... their desire to give something back to the community.

Now read that repeatedly until you believe it.

"yes, Mike, its all a Big Conspiracy"

Grow up Riden.

You want to be taken seriously yet as soon as a tin foil hatter suggests that concern about alcohol abuse has been fabricated by academics and a Public Health industry concerned about funding, you were all over it.

This is the same infantile conspiracy theory that is being used to deny climate science.

I am sure that Wayne Hall and Mike Daube are reading the comments on the article.

Do you believe that they are involved in a conspiracy? If you do, why not spell it out.

I'm confused Mr Riden...

Above you state

"This finding suggests that the tax increase has had little impact on current drinkers’ alcohol preferences.". Then further ..." the data also suggest that the tax increase did not cause students to switch their beverage preferences."

A couple of breaths away we get this:
"Cider consumption has boomed as a result of the alcopops tax and is now the fastest growing category of alcohol product, and this increase has not been captured by the ABS data."

Which is it Mr Riden - has the tax been completely ineffectual and unproductive - or has it led to a massive surge in the cider market?

Now part of the confusion here involves blurring distinctions between overall alcohol consumption trends and switching between different segments of the market - between beer, spirits and these kid's drinks.

In this context it is worth acknowledging that the alcopops tax was aimed specifcally at reducing consumption of one specific product line - not reducing overall consumption of alcohol. Switching rather than cessation was the objective and by the look of the limited data you are presenting here, it would appear that the tax has indeed had the desired effect in that there has been switching away from fizzy booze.

So in the spirit of open discussion - let's have some links to the original documents you cite please - specifically those going to the volumes of RTDs following the tax increase in 2008. More particularly please provide any data (aggregated is fine) showing the market share held by RTD's following 2008.

Do you hasve a source for the first sentence Mr Riden ... that is that the RTD tax was aimed at anything beyond RTDs and reducing their consumption?

However, I don't disagree with your implicit assertion that in order to reduce binge drinking a much broader tax increase on all forms of alcohol is necessary.

Please provide any data for the effectiveness of the tax (or lack of it) beyond 2008. Seems a bit quick for a judgment given that the tax was introduced in April 2008 don't you agree? Data for 2010 and 2012 should be adequate I think.

Again the quote above from the Vic schools study seems to contradict your claim that the tax had no impact: "These findings suggest that even though fewer students used alcohol in 2008 than in previous survey years, the amount of alcohol consumed by those who did drink was similar to levels found in earlier survey years."

Do you have another explanation for the 2008 decrease in the number of Victorian school students using alcohol?

Regarding cider: The RTD tax was not specifically aimed at underaged drinkers - it taxed all RTDs - whether consumed by adults or underaged drinkers. Rather the RTD tax was aimed to deflate sales of RTD across the board - largely because of their attraction to underaged drinkers. You would now seem to be saying thatthe tax has indeed been effective at reducing sales of RTDs across the board. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Again I wqould remind you to stick to the target - consumption of RTDs - not alcohol as a whole. Although as noted above I agree that a broadening of the 70% tax increase would seem to suggested if we were to target overall alcohol consumption. So far we have not done so, so increases in overall consumption should bed expectged - indeed your shareholers would demand same.

The suggestion that a 70% hike in RTD tax is quite extraordinary - indicating that price signals do not operate in this market and the demand is inelastic - ie fixed regardless of price. This would be unique in economic theory and evidence from any industry sector including heroin. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof Mr Riden, You are not as yet providing same.

I shall track don Neilsen and some additional more recent material tonight when I have some free time. Hopefully we can continue our chat tomorrow.

PS Please provide any aggregated RTD sales figures or market share you have available for the years following 2008 as requested above. This will settle the confusion once and for all regarding the impact of the RTD tax.

Many thanks.

Mr Riden,

I realise that you have a barrow to push on behalf of your industry - as Adam Smith put it regarding such organisations - a conspiracy against the public interest. But please try and refrain from personal abuse and derogatory comments. It is not at all professional and rather childish.

Far from "faux- economics" the principle that price increases (whether by tax or any other means) lead to declines in demand and consumption is a cornerstone of any and every market theory and has been so since the days of the aforementioned Mr Smith - one of my favourite theorists who has given me great inspiration over the last 35 years or so of my work as an economist of various sorts.

Were this not the case - and that price hikes do not affect RTD consumption, as you initally asserted - I cannot see why the industry would be concerned let alone investing many millions on defeating the initial RTD tax in 2008.

In that context it is entirely irrelevant who buys the RTDs - parents or their children - but rather that sales of RTDs decline. And they did sharply (30%). Admittedly this was not as effective as the 70% drops achieved in Switzerland and Germany in the year following increased RTD tax measures.

There is a useful summary of international approaches to RTDs and taxation by searching for "RTD policy paper New Zealand".
This is a most useful survey of various approaches to taxing RTDs and the outcomes achieved.

As for "shifting the goalposts" I repeat - this is a tax on one specific class of product - RTDs. It was introduced as part of a strategy to combat teen binge-drinking. But as you note this tax did not increase prices on other types of alcohol, nor did it target a specific class of consumer (ie teenagers).

I have already agreed with your point that by singling out RTDs alone, the tax may have encouraged switching to other alcohol products. The solution is obviously to expand the increased tax to other products.

However it is overreaching the scope of this tax measure to suggest that an RTD tax alone would see overall alcohol consumption decline. It does not address overall consumption of alcohol - just RTDs and these declined as Adam Smith would predict.

Nevertheless you state that according to the Vic study and ASSAD study there has been a declining trend of underaged alcohol consumption prior to the RTD tax. I will follow this up further as I said when I have the time for some reading tonight and get back to you tomorrow. But obviously something is working yes? Do you have any explanation for this ? What is being done right?

As to the failure of the tax, I repeat the RTD tax saw a reported 30% drop in RTD sales. That there was switching - what we economists call a substitution effect - was due to the fact that other forms of alcohol became relatively less expensive. This is due to a failure in the design of the tax. which centred solely on RTDs.

I agree with your view regarding the extension to cider, beer and spirits as part of a comprehensive strategy targeting binge-drinking overall. And a volumetric tax - based on alcohol content by volume - would seem the most equitable, creating a level playing field between industry segments and product lines.

Look forward to chatting tomorrow - now I must be off on other things.

I agree in general Ivan however various vested interests have rather different objectives and very different methods.

Health authorities (which I'm assuming you class as a vested interest) wish to see a reduction in harm and improvements in public health and social outcomes. They must prove their case through evidence and argument. Then they hope the politicians will pick it up and run with it.

The alcohol industry (which everyone will recognise as a vested interest) does not have to prove anything - rather they must just stop the above happening. They must create confusion, undermine the science rather than prove any alternative, and more than anything else - make threats.

There is an assymetrical "burden of proof".

Health authorities must convince the government that it is worth the battle. They do this with science, data and evidence.

Vested interests must convince the government that the battle is not worth the effort and that all hell will break loose - regardless of the merits of the expert case.

To do this they advertise, they create campaign groups with a range of associated vested interests, they commission polls, they issue press releases, they make threats. Evidence, argument and data is - at best - secondary. It is an inherently political strategy.

This is one of the main reasons that health authorities (and other science based reformers) find political life so difficult. They rely too heavily on science and ignore the political spade work. They rely on the courage of politicians to act on evidence without addressing the political climate.

In short we will have a "level playing field" between these "vested interests" - a struggle of ideas and science - when scientists and policy reform advocates come to Canberra with PR firms, polling data and political campaign strategies in tow.

But at the moment they are placed at a great disadvantage - essentially speaking the wrong language and bidding in the wrong currency to their political audience.

It would be an oversimplification to see such matters as a battle between contending facts or a battle between equals.

No Mr Riden, the tax on alcopops was designed as "part" of a strategy to reduce binge drinking - specifically amongst girls. It addressed on RTDs and saw a 30% drop in their sales within the year.

Now if you have any data to demonstrate that this has failed put it up. In fact one of your group's "prrofs" of the failure of the tax is that it did not collect nearly as much revenue as projected. That's a sign of success Mr Riden - not failure. It was not a revenue raising measure.

My issue is that I cannot find any data at all one way or another to demonstrate that under aged drinking has fallen, that girls are drinking less or that binge drinking has been reduced. We just don't collect such data as you obviously know..

See the Queensland study you cite does not mention either underaged drinking or girls at all. This is because according to the Curtin Uni reports I linked to, Queensland Health doesn't actually collect such data.

Now if you want to say that the tax didn't work - that there is no link between price and demand - where's your numbers? Where is your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim. It is not enough simply to hide your assertion behind aggregate consumption of alcohol or overall alcohol related hospital admissions or presentation to emergency departments.

You seem to be suggesting that your industry has no idea who is drinking your product - that any disproportionate demand from young girls is simply not there. Are they really that reliant on hunches and guesswork? I'm sorry Mr Rider they know exactly who buys their products. This is disingenuous.

More to the point rather than admitting there is a problem and proposing concrete steps to address it your organisation seeks to frustrate any (albeit misguided) efforts by authorities to do so.

Were you seriously concerned about binge and underaged drinking you would be making your data available and would be leading the charge to eliminate such problems. You would be calling for publicans selling illegally to be thrown out of the industry, for example, for better data and a better understanding of the problem. But you don't.

Now I don't necessarily blame you personally for killing our kids. That is up to you and maybe your children to determine. But I do say that someone is selling alcohol to our children and making money from it.

Let's start at the point of sale and start gaoling those who we can demonstrate are breaking the law. Or doesn't thaat happen eitherf... that all those legless kids at schoolies week brought their own from home.

Seems to me you are - like the tobaco companies - attempting to wish the problem away, deny the link between alcohol and drunkenness.

If you are so enmeshed in your industry - so blinded by that pay cheque - that you believe this is the most sensible strategy to adopt then start preparing for khaki labelling smothered in health warnings.

I'll send in the first ripples of correction myself ... I've found some excellent - albeit old stuff ... much of which points to holes in the data .... a series of really excellent briefs from the National Drug Research Institute http://ndri.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/pdf/naip/naip012.pdf

Now anyone who thinks that Drinkwise and exhortations to "grow up" should havbe a look at the graphs on page 3 of the link above .... each state showing a creeping constant rise in hospital alcohol related admissions. Still only 15+ and only admissions rather than presentations and not at all the full picture but an interesting set of data nonetheless.

Really top gear this. Where is the recent stuff???

Hi Peter, you will have to be careful. All this private research and some skeptics may begin to think you are an academic.

[What is more the worry I find myself agreeing with much of what you have posted. Keep up the information flow.]