The main reason the report of the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol (STFA) is unlikely to contribute to a solution is that it is bedded in the thinking that characterises the problem, writes John Waters
It contains virtually no clue that the STFA was established by the Department of Health, rather than the Department of Finance or the Department of Employment. The national alcohol problem is treated throughout as though it were (a) defined by the damage it inflicts on the economy; and (b) the consequence of an excess of conviviality on the part of irresponsible citizens who just don't know when to stop.
The measures proposed are the equivalent of shutting the water off at the stopcock, but the STFA has nothing to say about tracing and repairing the leak. The emphasis is on deterrence and disincentives, as though the authors of the report are unaware of the power of alcohol to dissolve, in a glass or three, all obstacles to the "escape" it promises.
The principal context of this report, relates to the 40 per cent rise in consumption in the years 1989-99. It is sobering to reflect, again, that in 1996 - midway through this escalating crisis - the Department of Health assured us that there was no alcohol problem; and that, a year later, a national outcry ensued when publicans sought to raise the price of the pint by 5 pence. Then, cabinet ministers and leader writers lined up to reassure the Irish public that this assault on its rights and culture would not be tolerated.
If there were treatment centres for alcoholic nations and Ireland staggered into one this Monday morning, the issues to be explored would not relate to availability, taxation levies, or the damaging effects of advertising. Instead, the psyche of the society would be stripped down to its chassis. Probably the first issue to manifest itself would be the abusive circumstances in which the patient was raised: the unhealthy relationship, based on fear and dependency, with a next-door neighbour. There would then be an exploration of the culture of violence, poverty, anxiety and self-hatred that flowed directly from this.
Presently, the issue of God would arise, and it would emerge that the patient had once been a devout believer but had latterly felt let-down by his Creator.
There would be some discussion of the patient's early relationship with alcohol, how the public house had become the focus of escape from the daily monotony and squalor and non-fulfilment; how in the pub the grey had melted into a kaleidoscope of possibilities. Then, there would be talk of the dramatic changes of recent times: the sudden transformation of the patient's material circumstances, but also his increasing sense that this did not provide the answer to the discontent in his soul. Moreover, with the increase in prosperity came an increase also in pressure and ambition and craving. This, most likely, would be identified as the moment when the patient began to slide into alcoholism.
Once more with feeling: alcohol abuse, drunkenness, alcoholism are not indicators of excessive enjoyment or conviviality. It is not just that they have negative "downsides", for the individual, his family or the community.
They are evidence of a pre-existing problem that continues, unless treated, with or without ethyl alcohol. The problems we need to talk about are of the psychic and spiritual kind, the God-shaped holes in our lives - the rest is symptom and statistic, to be massaged, modified and diverted, but only for the purposes of continuing the denial.
Indeed, by presenting the problem only in its economic and technocratic dimensions, the STFA risks compounding the dehumanisation that fundamentally underlies all problems of addiction. In a sense, had we the sense to look squarely at ourselves, we might see reason to be grateful to the drink, for it enables us to perceive a problem for which we would otherwise have no name and no means of addressing.
But the thrust of the STFA approach is to sweep the broken glass under the carpet. Taxing drink to make it dearer seems a good idea on paper, and may even work a little in the short term. But those who depend on alcohol, though sometimes susceptible to disincentives on a temporary basis, will in the end be prepared to lose everything rather than put down the glass.
This knowledge, and the likelihood now that the Celtic Tiger is about to awaken from his brief nap, enables me to predict that the effects of the STFA measures, if they are implemented, will be a brief dip in consumption followed by another sharp rise. Experience tells us that, in times of prosperity, consumption of alcohol increases, but also that it increases much more dramatically among those who can least afford it.
It is clear, then, that by building in supposed deterrents to consumption without dealing with the underlying issues, we are priming our society to create even more of the kind of damage that the STFA has identified, and much, much more of the kinds it has not.