Adam Smith Institute

Europe's favourite think tank website
  • Narrow screen resolution
  • Wide screen resolution
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size
I demand to have some booze Print E-mail
Written by Philip Salter   
Saturday, 01 November 2008

I am not one for being sentimental about the past, but staring into the bottom of my pint, memories flow of a time when things were better than this.

Of course the world has changed somewhat since we had the social divide of a woman’s place in the home and pubs exclusively the domain men. This is no bad thing, and the ready availability of other forms of entertainment from the Internet, DVD Players and affordable televisions the size of children. Vast swathes of the population now prefer watching the latest blockbuster movie with a bottle of wine to going to the pub. Fair enough.

The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) are trying to fight back. They are petitioning the government to limit the ability of supermarkets to make a loss on selling alchol. This is esentially a request for a subsidy and should not be supported. But what can be done to save the great British pub?

A good place to start is reversing the government’s blanket ban on smoking in pubs. At the very least pubs should be able to apply for a license to permit smoking. As well as being a highly illiberal act, the smoking ban has hit pubs hard; with the holy trinity of glorious vices – pint, cigarette and crisps – now one man down.

Tax is another problem. The Government takes over 80 pence in tax for every pint sold in a pub. This is a hefty chunk for the treasury that should be drastically reduced. Why not also lower the drinking age to sixteen at pubs. This would take youth binge drinking out of the private sphere, educating them in the finer points of drinking.

I spent much of my youth in pubs and beer festivals drinking real ale. I have no doubt that if the government simply backed off most pubs would survive. They offer something unique to offer that are being undermined by the public health agenda, obsessive regulation and indefensible taxes.

Comments (2)Add Comment
...
written by D. Woodman, November 02, 2008
No, no, no, as more unpopular pubs close the better ones will have more customers and will expand, providing people with what they want. We do not need any more Government interference, and encouraging smoking will only mean more taxes being imposed per pack.
Let the paying customer decide which pubs survive - good economic Darwinism. Government should stop trying to be a modern day Canute - using taxpayer's money to subsidise failures.
...
written by Blog Administrator, November 02, 2008
Re: the comment above...

We're not suggesting that the taxpayers' money be used to prop up failing pubs!

The point is simply that the government should stop taxing and regulating them out of existence. We're not seeing economic darwinism at work as pubs close, but rather the baleful influence of government interference. And as with most government interference, it's the small businesses which suffer most. Independent pubs go out of business, while the big chains (which can afford to pay for lawyers, accountants and 'compliance' experts) take over.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

busy
 

About the ASI

The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.

Join our email list

Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here: 


Support the ASI

Enter Amount: