New proposed crack-downs on alcoholic drink in Europe

These are under active discussion -

In France, the Loi Bachelot (named after the Health Minister) on Hospitals and Public Health proposes these particularly pernicious measures for wine producers and serious but moderate wine drinkers

- the banning of unlimited distribution of drinks free or for a fixed price (as originally drafted this would outlaw wine tastings)
- severe restrictions on advertising and sale of wine on internet (as currently amended this would outlaw wine blogs and sites like this one)
- restrictions on sale of alcoholic drink in petrol (=gas) stations (I can live with this one)
- handing over all communication on health aspects to the Health Ministry (a notorious hotbed of ant-alcohol zealotry and disinformation) and the abolition of the Moderation Council where such issues are discussed in a balanced way.

The wine industry lobby is fighting back and it looks as if trade wine tastings have been reprieved in the latest draft but the internet nonsense is still there (in theory as drafted Robin could be sued on his next visit to France). The thing about the Health Ministry and the Moderation Council would muzzle those other than the Public Health fascists even more than at present.

In Scotland, as a riposte against a rising wave of binge and under-age drinking and related anti-social behaviour, a minimum price of, I think, £0.40 (c.$0.55) per unit of alcohol is being proposed.

In England and Wales, the Scottish proposals are being watched with interest and some ministerial voices are suggesting going further (bans on sale of alcoholic drink in supermarkets or, failing that, special check-outs for alcohol purchases). Beyond that there is increasing stridency about the need to eliminate excessive "middle class" drinking at home, i.e. not associated with anti-social behaviour.


There may be similar initiatives against alcoholic drink in other countries of which I am unaware. There is as yet nothing like this in Belgium but they have a tendency to copy bad ideas coming from France and, according to my daughter who lives there, Italy is sensibly confining action to drunken driving.

Tim,

There was a severe crackdown on advertising for cigarettes, the price is sky high, and in January 2008 smoking was prohibited in bars and restaurants.
Does this mean that people are smoking any less?
No.
Also, as opposed to America (don't know what the law is like in other countries), you are free to smoke on the terrace, which means you simply sit outside
for 6-7 months of the year. An intelligent compromise has been found.

The Bachelot law has been severely reduced from its initial form.

Frankly, I am against the "open bar", drink yourself-silly sort of arrangement too.

As for Internet advertising, for goodness sakes, all you need to do is have the site registered in another country. Problem solved!
The French have always been uncomfortable with the freedom on the Internet and the near impossibility to control it.
An example of this is the gung-ho attitude to illegal downloads (copyright protection), which is at total odds with the government's potential to fight against them - and everybody knows it. So, there's a lot of hot air and Anglo-Saxon-like moralizing going on here...

Like you, the ability to buy booze at 3 in the morning at a service station is non-essential!

It came as a shock when the French government said clearly that the largest drug problem in the country is alcohol abuse.
The problem comes, of course, when drinking a reasonable amount of wine with your meal is confused with "partying" and overdoing it.

Don't worry: the drinks lobby is very powerful in France. They will continue to do away with the worst excesses of government intervention, as proved by the removal of the part of the Loi Bachelot that prohibited tastings at fairs, etc.

All the best,
Alex

Just a generally musing on this scary neo-prohibitionist movement that seems to have popped up in recent years: how do anti-alcohol fundamentalist Christians reconcile saying that alcohol is evil and sinful when wine has such an immensely important role, both literally and symbolically, in the Bible? Course, us Catholics don't have any problems with wine!

Years ago, I lived in Angwin, California.
This is a small town in the mountains a short drive from St. Helena in the heart of the Napa Valley.

It so happens that almost everyone in Angwin is 7th Day Adventist (there's an Adventist college and a hosptital there).
The mail is delivered on Sunday...

Anyway, all those years ago, there was a drought in the Valley.
And an Adventist wrote to the local newspaper to say that this was God's way of punishing the region for producing wine.

I wrote back quoting passages from the Bible describing the benefits of wine.
You know what the resopns was? Quite simple really. Every time wine is criticized in the Good Book, it's the kind of evil stuff made in Napa.
But every time it is praised, it could ONLY have been grape juice.
Q.E.D......

Never mind that preserving grape juice must have been some feat back in those days....

Best regards,
Alex R.

Just a generally musing on this scary neo-prohibitionist movement that seems to have popped up in recent years: how do anti-alcohol fundamentalist Christians reconcile saying that alcohol is evil and sinful when wine has such an immensely important role, both literally and symbolically, in the Bible? Course, us Catholics don't have any problems with wine!

I fully agree that there is an inconsistency here. FWIW Christian fundamentalism plays no role in French anti-alcohol attitudes but there have always been intransigent moral crusaders, e.g. Robespierre, and Calvin was French though I have read that he enjoyed a glass of wine. Scotland may be different with low church protestants being numerous and even in England there are relics of puritan thinking even though Charles II drove the worst underground.

Better news!

This morning French Télématin interviewed Roselyne Bachelot, Minister of Health.

Against a politely hostile interviewer she made the following points about the new draft law on l'Hôpital, etc.

- Her overriding aim is to protect the young.

- It has never been her intention to ban promotional and professional wine tastings and these will be excluded from the scope of the ban on "open bars" as will consumption during "fêtes"; she was asked to explain what this last meant in practice but did not.

- The ban on sales of alcohol drinks in "stations service" (gas stations) will be limited to refrigerated drinks for immediate consumption. Room temperature drink sales will be allowed between 0800 and 1800 hours (I think). The interviewer seemed unimpressed. (Undoubtedly this will not stop some from having accidents after slurping warm beer bought at a station service before driving and I don't expect this generosity to survive for long.)

- Internet alcohol-drink publicity will be closely controlled by a Comité de Suivi and will be banned on sport and youth sites as will alcohol promoting pop-ups and spams anywhere. Bachelot seemed to be in favour of roughly similar freedoms on internet as allowed by the Loi Evin for print; the interviewer was favouring much tougher provisions as on television. (There will be plenty of room for the zealots to restrict freedoms here unless the wine lobby is very attentive about the precise wording of the law - e.g. could not blogs be assimilated to spams? - and about the remit and composition of the Comité de Suivi.)


Roselyne Bachelot is about the most likeable French minister and gives the impression of being a bulwark of common sense open to different viewpoints in a Ministry where she is surrounded by zealots. She said with a tinge of regret that she did not have the "outils juridiques" (legal tools) to distinguish between wine and other alcoholic drinks. I guess that she is a person with whom one could enjoy a glass or three of good wine.

I wrote back quoting passages from the Bible describing the benefits of wine.
You know what the resopns was? Quite simple really. Every time wine is criticized in the Good Book, it's the kind of evil stuff made in Napa.
But every time it is praised, it could ONLY have been grape juice.
Q.E.D......

I've heard this argument before, and you know, I would like to see the scriptural proof that what it refers to as wine is simply grape juice rather than wine. Funny how the fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally will also at other times interpret it to suit their purposes.

I've heard this argument before, and you know, I would like to see the scriptural proof that what it refers to as wine is simply grape juice rather than wine. Funny how the fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally will also at other times interpret it to suit their purposes.

Yup. That "grape juice" argument has, at best, always seemed to me as an ignorant quip made by people far removed from the climate and realities of that age: how did they keep the grape juice from turning into demon wine? Gee, I never knew that potassium sorbate, metabisulphite, etc., were used that long ago . . .

Or, more probably, the truth of the matter is not beyond the fundamentalists' abilities to grasp; it's just one more loophole they feel they have to close to prevent people from enjoying themselves too much.

If they control the mind, they control the person.

Well, here's an interesting scriptural analysis: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html

Now, one big caveat is that after all of this careful analysis, the author nonetheless proceeds to advise against alcohol on an basis merely extrapolated from scripture, although a sensible one.

But, other than that, the basic argument is that while drunkenness is explicitly discouraged, nowhere is moderate consumption of alcohol forbidden, except for specific groups and/or specific circumstances. The noteworthy thing is that in the original Hebrew, the the same word is used to refer to wine in both approving and forbidding contexts, and there comes in the unfounded Fundamentalist assertion that where it is referred to positively it must simply be grape juice, and where negatively it must be fermented wine. But in context, the approval or forbidding only ever refers to the amount consumed, not the substance itself. And since the same word is used even in the original language, it doesn't make sense that the same substance capable of causing drunkenness when consumed in excess would not be alcoholic.

Or, more probably, the truth of the matter is not beyond the fundamentalists' abilities to grasp; it's just one more loophole they feel they have to close to prevent people from enjoying themselves too much.

If they control the mind, they control the person.

A big reason why I have sworn off organized religion. I'd be more at home with the tree-worshipping pagans these days.

A few years ago someone provided a link to a scholarly paper about references to wine in the bible. I cannot find that link but I did find this which more or less summarises what I remember of that paper -

"Does the Bible condemn the consumption of wine or does it endorse it? In fact it appears to do both.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise," according to Proverbs. But the Book of Judges notes that wine "cheereth God and man." And in his letter to Timothy, Paul advises, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

For every verse about wine that "stingeth like a serpent," there are two more that speak of the joys of wine, and that allude to Christ and his apostles -- not to mention the Old Testament kings and peasants -- enjoying it.

I would respectfully submit that the seeming contradictions simply represent an honest evaluation of a beverage that was a part of daily life for the people of the Holy Land in biblical times, a wine-producing and wine-consuming land. Its people drank wine with every meal and knew it as both a happy element of daily life and a potential source of pain.

From the Old Testament, which has Noah beginning his new life by planting a vineyard and making wine (and suffering the embarrassment of overindulgence) to the lovely Gospel story in which Christ turned water into excellent wine for the enjoyment of the wedding guests at Cana, the Bible both warns of the dangers of overconsumption and expresses gratitude that God made the wine that gladdens the heart of man.

The key, of course, is moderation, and that's something that some people have (more or less) understood from ancient times to the present."


The anti-alcohol crusade does seem to give rise to a quasi-religious fervour amongst its leaders and foot soldiers. This applies all the way from secular Public Health zealots in France to fundamentalist Christians in parts of the USA. They do not hesitate to use disinformation, e.g. going out on a limb on drink related cancer risks in France or bending the words of the bible amongst fundamental Christians, for whom anti-alcohol sometimes seems more important as a religion than Christianity itself.

The anti-alcohol crusade does seem to give rise to a quasi-religious fervour amongst its leaders and foot soldiers. This applies all the way from secular Public Health zealots in France to fundamentalist Christians in parts of the USA. They do not hesitate to use disinformation, e.g. going out on a limb on drink related cancer risks in France or bending the words of the bible amongst fundamental Christians, for whom anti-alcohol sometimes seems more important as a religion than Christianity itself.

Tim,

I believe that what they are doing - although they never quite come out openly and say this - is waging a cultural war on drink per se, to remove the motif of drinking from the culture, period. This would explain why misinformation is sometimes used freely, for if only it works in their favour then it's all good, isn't it?

I think that many of the people zealously involved in the neo-prohibitionist circles simply want to stamp drinking out of the larger culture; they are viscerally opposed to it. I know a few "anti-alcohol" types. They seem not to really take pleasure in things relating to food; food is looked upon as instrumental (i.e. the "eat to live" mentality). They tend to moralize and pontificate a lot and tend to be over-worriers and control freaks.

We need to keep in mind that there is a difference between advocating responsible drinking - something that any mature adult should agree is a good thing - and advocating a removal from the culture of beer, wine and other drinks, which can and do have long histories behind them. The latter effort is not laudable, IMO.

I believe that what they are doing - although they never quite come out openly and say this - is waging a cultural war on drink per se, to remove the motif of drinking from the culture, period. This would explain why misinformation is sometimes used freely, for if only it works in their favour then it's all good, isn't it?

You have it in a nutshell there, Paul.

Since the success of progressively more intrusive bans on smoking (most of which, as a non-smoker, I am inclined to support), the Public Health zealots have wind in their sails and moderate drinkers are on the defensive.

Arguments on favour of moderate drinking are difficult to make in face of the highly visible and emotive consequences of excessive drinking, which include

- anti-social behaviour and often violence in public
- road accidents and deaths
- broken relationships and abuse of spouses and children in private
- cost to society of treating alcohol related illnesses

The first three of the above are the drinkers' equivalent of passive smoking and the last argument was of course also used by the anti-smoking lobby. And for those who are sensitive to being persuaded by it, misreading of the bible can be another prong in the assault (NB: not many like this in Europe).

I do believe that moderate drinking promotes conviviality and better social and business relationships as well as health benefits opposite heart disease at least. Most moderate drinkers whom I know strike me as far better balanced and happier people than the teetotallers; but perhaps I am prejudiced. And the gastronomic culture (including wine) is one of this world's wonders which enriches life and should be treasured in its own right.

The question is how to formulate this strongly enough parry a neo-prohibitionist emotional argument which goes something like this. "How can you justify a right to even moderate use of alcohol in your elitist hobby when our city centres are being defiled by drunks, people are being killed by drunken drivers and spouses are being battered as a result of excessive use?"

Unfortunately a lot of the defence is in the hands of the drinks industry which is partly discredited by evident self-interest, even if it has not suppressed and distorted damaging evidence in the manner of the tobacco industry.

Next on the list of subjects for attack by Public Health zealots may be domestic pets.

It is not so much the public health watchers that we should be concerned about but the anti-pleasure crowd. Think of the terrible harm done, for example by such things as bacon or consensual and fun sex between consenting adults. Or that (touch wood and spit through the horns of the devil) we actually enjoy our meals. Ye gods....what is the world coming to? So much pleasure awaiting that not enough of us are concerned about hell-fire and brimstone damnation these days!

To the devil with Joe Dimaggio. Where is Carrie Nation now that the anti-pleasure crowd needs her?

I like the way I once heard it put, and it may even have been by Rogov: people who want alcohol banned show not wisdom and strength, but rather ignorance and fear.

I've often wondered how people who don't appreciate food and drink as more than mere sustenance make it through life. The special pleasures and occasions of life are few and far between, and let's be honest, on a day-to-day basis, the most exciting thing is often "what's for dinner."

I've often wondered how people who don't appreciate food and drink as more than mere sustenance make it through life. The special pleasures and occasions of life are few and far between, and let's be honest, on a day-to-day basis, the most exciting thing is often "what's for dinner."

Ryan,

We are obviously of the same mind here. I see a distinct convergence of your view with my own.

Personally I can't say I fully understand the mentality behind those individuals, though the quote you paraphrase makes a lot of sense.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the few anti-alcohol people I know tend to be on the paranoid / control-freak side, and they do not know how to unwind. Think of the sort of person who lives in the city and has a cottage but only goes up there to cut the grass, lock everything up, make sure no tree has fallen on the deck or anything, and then scurry back into town. It could be a beautiful weekend weather-wise, but that doesn't seem to matter... Or, the sort of person who, at the conclusion of a sumptuous meal on the deck in fine weather, just before a positively kaleidoscopic sunset, will start gathering all the dishes, creating a terrible cacophony, drowning out the conversation, start cleaning everything really fast, and then going inside and maybe doing the vacuuming and laundry so they don't feel they've "wasted time".

I'm being facetious and melodramatic, but only to illustrate my frustration with types who can't enjoy themselves and then go on to begrudge others their due enjoyment!

There's a time for everything in life, and enjoying onself in a civilized way is not cause for eternal damnation.

It is not so much the public health watchers that we should be concerned about but the anti-pleasure crowd. Think of the terrible harm done, for example by such things as bacon or consensual and fun sex between consenting adults. Or that (touch wood and spit through the horns of the devil) we actually enjoy our meals. Ye gods....what is the world coming to? So much pleasure awaiting that not enough of us are concerned about hell-fire and brimstone damnation these days!

To the devil with Joe Dimaggio. Where is Carrie Nation now that the anti-pleasure crowd needs her?

I don't agree. The killjoy tradition is weak in Latin countries and in France in particular since the expulsion of the Huguenots in the 17th century. Yet France now seems to be one of the leaders of the anti-alcohol crusade. In countries where there is a protestant tradition, killjoy is much stronger, though Martin Luther (an important protestant indeed) declared that "he who loves not wine, woman and song is a fool all life long".

What is potentially lethal is killjoy intransigence, e.g. in Scotland, using public health arguments because these arguments are quite potent!

I have the impression the French public health zealots are becoming killjoys through a curious process of self-persuasion, i.e. their perception of public health interest induces killjoy attitudes and intransigence.

The public health arguments need to be neutralised. Killjoy alone can be kept in check by its own ugliness.