|
|
Whisky Forum
|
FAQ Search Memberlist
Register
Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bifter Master Of Malts

Joined: 10 Apr 2012 Posts: 1403 Location: East Lothian
|
Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 4:54 pm Post subject: Alyn Smith: Whisky association must accept a sound judgment |
|
|
THE European Commission supports Scotland's legal victory in its fight on minimum pricing.
The European Commissioner for Health, Tonio Borg, said on Wednesday: "I'm very happy to learn that the litigation regarding the minimum prices has failed in the sense that it has been won by the authorities and, as I have said publicly as well, in principle we are in favour of this approach."? That adds a strong voice to those already calling for this health-giving and life-saving measure.
The legal action raised by the Scotch Whisky Association was defeated because it was, quite simply, wrong and the association should take the advice offered by Tory Jackson Carlaw in the Scottish Parliament this week when he said that the SWA should accept Lord Doherty's ruling and get on with business in a more responsible manner.
Throwing money and lawyers at something you don't like and looking for the courts to change the rules is, arguably, an acceptable course to follow. What isn't open to debate, however, is that minimum pricing is a solid, proven way to tackle problem drinking. By taking this case to the Court of Session the SWA has been wasting public money since the Scottish Government was forced to defend this perfectly sensible health measure, spending money on lawyers and court fees that could be better spent elsewhere.
It might seem strange for Scottish politicians to appear to be attacking a valuable Scottish industry, but the truth is that the members of the Scotch Whisky Association don't just make whisky. Its biggest members make a huge range of products and they used the good name of the association to try to protect the cheap vodka and other drinks they've been pouring down the throats of Scots for far too long.
The Scottish chair of the British Medical Association has put it the clearest: "Any credible alcohol strategy must have at its heart measures to tackle price and availability. Scotland is awash with cheap alcohol and Scots are paying the price with their health. The increasing costs to the health service of treating the harm associated with alcohol misuse could cripple the NHS with a financial burden that is no longer sustainable in the current financial climate."?
The SWA intends to appeal and has a parallel case in the European Court of Justice. I'd advise the association to think again. Minimum pricing is supported by the Scottish Government, the UK government and the European Commission; it has the backing of the health professionals and researchers, and it's in line with the treaty provisions. Any case in the Court of Justice will fail just as surely as the case in the Court of Session failed.
Action to promote health is allowable in European law and the view from Luxembourg will be the same - a government has the right to protect people's health. I say to the Scotch Whisky Association, stop wasting your money and ours, stop dragging this health measure through the courts and let Scotland recover from the effects of gutter alcohol. Don't follow the example of the tobacco industry. I'll support the industry when it acts responsibly but you can guarantee that my support will be withdrawn in short order when it's irresponsible and the health of fellow Scots is at stake.
My opposition isn't to alcohol. I enjoy a glass now and again. My opposition is to the enormous quantities of cheap alcohol being peddled to my fellow Scots day after day.
My opposition is to the enormous social and health costs that result from that trade; to an industry out of control acting irresponsibly and without any regard to the consequences of its actions.
Here's my challenge to the Scotch Whisky Association: accept the ruling, reform your business practices, promote the high quality products your members make and act responsibly. For my part I'll be the biggest cheerleader for whisky, for the quality products of Scotland. Good whisky is a high-quality product and a credit to Scotland while the cheap products being protected are a blot on our nation's
reputation.
Carrying on business as usual is simply not acceptable and the damage done to Scots is not acceptable either. There is a consensus in favour of minimum unit pricing now, the SWA should join it.
Alyn Smith is an SNP member of the European Parliament
http://www.scotsman.com/news/alyn-smith-whisky-association-must-accept-a-sound-judgment-1-2926524 _________________ "Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|

|
 |
bifter Master Of Malts

Joined: 10 Apr 2012 Posts: 1403 Location: East Lothian
|
Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you've seen my posts on this issue you'll know I like a rant I could take issue with every one of Mr Smith's points (though I won't), each of which he seems to present as a fact with which a reasonable person would not quibble. However many are fallacies or debatable at best. The one that I just can't let pass however is a deeply philosophical point:
| Quote: | | a government has the right to protect people's health |
I don't know why Smith presents this as a statement. He may be referring to 'Seatbelt laws' as they are sometimes referred to. These have become accepted in some countries including the UK. However the justification is premised on an important principle most famously expressed by J.S. Mill:
| Quote: | | The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. |
Thus people must wear seatbelts to reduce the risk they pose to others not just themselves, the smoking ban was only a feasible piece of legislation once the dangers of second hand smoke were proven. There is a subtle but important nuance between this and Smith's assertion that the state has the right to intervene with the individual's liberty for their own protection. Mill himself is on record as opposing this principle. On the subject of prohibition, funnily enough, he states that crossing this line is to assert:
| Quote: | | the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify |
There is not one piece of legislation (to my knowledge) the justification of which is based solely upon this principle and it is disingenuous of Smith to assert otherwise (there is currently a pertinent debate about whether cyclists should be required by law to wear head protection). If we do not oppose the creep of such thinking into the statute books we may end up with what C.S. Lewis described as | Quote: | | a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims |
_________________ "Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bifter Master Of Malts

Joined: 10 Apr 2012 Posts: 1403 Location: East Lothian
|
Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bifter wrote: | | There is not one piece of legislation (to my knowledge) the justification of which is based solely upon this principle |
Before anyone puts me straight there are laws to deal with people who are incapable or not yet of a responsible age. As the C.S. Lewis quote goes on to say:
| Quote: | | To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. |
One might argue there is also another class of such laws that exists, which is the prohibition of controlled substances. However the justification put forward for this is often the danger to society. This is a selective policy of course, often with a social context, as Noam Chomsky points out:
| Quote: | | Very commonly substances are criminalized because they're associated with what's called the dangerous classes, poor people, or working people. So for example in England in the 19th century, there was a period when gin was criminalized and whiskey wasn't, because gin is what poor people drink. |
So perhaps the issue isn't just as simple as it first appears. However I still take issue with the presentation of the state's right to intervene in people's lives as somehow inalienable. Should we have minimum pricing for fatty or sugary foods? Should we stop people climbing mountains? The answer seems obvious up until the point that incremental reductions in personal freedom lead us to the point where it is but a small step to take. _________________ "Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|