Nowsaday, alcohol consumption has increased dramatically. In Thailand,Deputy Public Health Minister, Manit Nop-amornbodi, stated that the overall sale of alcohol during March 2009 was 219 million liters, increasing from the same period of 2008 which sold 197 million liters. Therefore, Thai government try to figure out an effective solution to reduce drinking among Thai citizens. The article "Raising the minimum price of alcohol 'benefits all' " showed a possible solution to curb the raising alcohol comsumption.
In the article, researchers said that "Raising the price of alcohol would have health benefits for all drinkers, not just the heaviest". If the policy was introduced,the minimum cost at 50p per unit of alcohol would save up to 50,000 people from illness in a decade. According to The Law of Demand,there is an inverse relationship between the price of a good and demand. When the price of alcohol increase, the consumer of alcohol will decrease. Thus, establishing a minimum price, as well as restricting promotions, would be the most effective way to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Dr Robin Purshouse and his team calculated that a 50p price increase leads to 2,900 fewer premature deaths a year and 41,000 fewer cases of chronic illness.
In my opinion, the raising the minimum price of alcohol is a good way to combat the raising alcohol comsumption. If the Law of Demand applicable in Thailand, increasing the price of alcohol will reduce alcohol consumption.
__________
References
Roberts, M. (2010, March 24). Raising the minimum price of alcohol 'benefits all' . BBC News. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8582993.stm
In the article, researchers said that "Raising the price of alcohol would have health benefits for all drinkers, not just the heaviest". If the policy was introduced,the minimum cost at 50p per unit of alcohol would save up to 50,000 people from illness in a decade. According to The Law of Demand,there is an inverse relationship between the price of a good and demand. When the price of alcohol increase, the consumer of alcohol will decrease. Thus, establishing a minimum price, as well as restricting promotions, would be the most effective way to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Dr Robin Purshouse and his team calculated that a 50p price increase leads to 2,900 fewer premature deaths a year and 41,000 fewer cases of chronic illness.
In my opinion, the raising the minimum price of alcohol is a good way to combat the raising alcohol comsumption. If the Law of Demand applicable in Thailand, increasing the price of alcohol will reduce alcohol consumption.
__________
References
Roberts, M. (2010, March 24). Raising the minimum price of alcohol 'benefits all' . BBC News. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8582993.stm
After i read this news, there is a question pop up in my mind. How much price of alcohol will they increase that is high enough to reduce the number of drinker? I understand the Law of Demand, but I'm not sure whether it works in alcohol. As I remember, there are some products that are not flexible to their prices. People still but them even their prices are increased. Moreover, what method did Dr. Robin Purshouse and his team use to calculate decreasing number of deaths and people getting chronic illness when the price of alcohol is increased? Are they reliable?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kate that, with respect to alcohol consumption, this might not be as easy a solution as that of law of demand. For example, people might find somethings to substitute alcohol, maybe cigarette or other more harmful substance. However harmful alcohol is, it has some benefit so that people still need them, and people who rely on it might find somethings else affordable to rely on. The government should make a more thorough study about this kind of possible alternative substitutions.
ReplyDeleteI thought Liu raised a good point, one that often seems to be forgotten, that alcohol also has benefits. It has utility which is why so many people consistently choose to allocate some of their resources to it. And some people allocate a lot of their resources to alcohol.
ReplyDeleteI also like the point that Kate reminds us of: the price of alcohol has been increasing for some years, but so has the consumption, as Earth notes in his post, so perhaps it not so simple.
More generally, if you start counting cost and making policy on a simple cost benefit basis that ignores the moral and social questions, the result might well turn out to favour lowering, not raising, the cost. Some years ago, the Phillip Morris (I think that was the one - I'm relying on my memory) company did a cost benefit analysis of the cost of cigarette smoking to the Czech government. Their result upset a lot of people because it turned out that when the money saved by early deaths and so on was factored in, that it made better economic sense to not try to decrease smoking.
If the main argument against something is the economic cost to society, must we change our mind if the analysis turns out not in fact against but in favours of that something?
I kind of agree with P'Kate that even though the price is rising up, people would still buy alcohol as usual. They might just complain a bit, then continue the consumption. I don't know about the law of demand but i don't think people will give up alcohol just because it's more expensive.
ReplyDeleteWhat are those benefits of alcohol? I know that alcohol can reduce risk of heart disease, cholesterol and diabetes, but I don't know that this information is reliable, or not.
ReplyDeleteThe most important benefits of alcohol has nothing to do with health; it just helps people relax. In some cases, it cheers them up. In other cases, it help them forget their sorrow. People who choose to drink because of these two reasons are much more than those who drink for the sake of health. And these are the main reasons that make alcohol beverage a very profitable business.
ReplyDelete