Paternalism and alcohol policy

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate to what degree scientific evidence supports contemporary paternalistic alcohol policy practices targeting fully competent adults. Design/methodology/approach Paternalism may be acceptable if it is effective, fair and protects the safety of the citizen or a third party from the harms caused by the citizen’s autonomic actions. To be justifiable, paternalistic actions should bring about clearly more benefits than harms. Otherwise, autonomy should prevail. The evidence related to alcohol control policies is assessed against these principles. Findings In peaceful civilized societies, alcohol control policies (high prices, restrictions on supply and marketing) have no or only insignificant effectiveness. Some policies are unfair and may bring about more harms than benefits. There is strong evidence showing that brief interventions aiming to reduce alcohol intake are inefficient. Wide-scale screening for such interventions is likely to waste health service resources. There is sufficient evidence to refute the claim that the previously mentioned policies are effective measures to reduce alcohol-related harms. Heavy alcohol use during pregnancy and driving motor vehicles while intoxicated may bring about harm to others than the user. Behavioural interventions to reduce heavy use in pregnancy have been shown to be inefficient. Light alcohol use may have no harmful effect on the developing embryo, whereas heavy use is likely to cause harm. There is moderate evidence for enforcing legal blood alcohol concentration limits to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities. Originality/value This is the first review on the acceptability of paternalism in currently recommended alcohol policies. It shows that in only a few cases, paternalism is effective and compatible with freedom and fairness.

Divine Tobacco: A Paradox Among Health Fascism

“…To be justified, paternalistic actions bring more benefits than harm. Therefore, if the policy is judged as unfair in a peaceful, civilized society, it will bring more harm than benefit (Poikolainen, 2021).…”