Breathalysing Customers Could Fuel Alcohol Consumption

Here’s a story; in the late 19th century the worthy masters of ‘X’ town decided that the rat population was intolerable, and so they invented an incentive scheme to get rid of them. The scheme was simple; they said to the populous: “Kill a rat and bring in its tail to prove its demise, and we will pay you a farthing”. Worked brilliantly, until the law of unintended consequence kicked in and the wise guys started breeding rats because they were easier to catch! Result – the rat population grew. In other words, beware the ‘Law of unintended consequence’!

Now, I am all for the responsible retailing of alcohol (and support the 99% of operators who thus do), and all for the responsible consumption of alcohol (and the 99% of drinkers who do) but have doubts as to the introduction of breathalysing of customers to ensure they are sober – just to ENTER a licensed outlet. This is a growing initiative for night-time venues, driven by various police forces across the UK (Voluntary at present; mandatory one day?).

Here’s how one effect of unintended consequence might happen:-
Night clubs will be required to only admit ‘sober’ customers who pass a breathalyser test (they could one day be prosecuted if non-sober customers are allowed in) and so they will offer cut price drinks to stop pre-loading and thereby attract customers in at an earlier time. This will encourage Supermarkets to drive their prices even lower to protect their sales and thereby ensure pre-loading continues – thus a ‘price war’ ensues. Result; the price of alcohol gets even lower and so more will be consumed, and more consumption will bring more drunkenness. Then there could be a movement to breathalyse customers when they leave night-clubs (God forbid if this ever gets to pubs!). Then perhaps (who knows) a test for supermarkets before anyone can purchase alcohol (not sure if people will be breathalysed at home once they have consumed it, probably not, but once again who knows).

I understand (and sympathise) with the dilemma police have with drunken idiots, also the A&E departments who have to deal with them. BUT demonising alcohol is (in my view) not the answer. The answer lies more in education, peer pressure, more severe penalties for the drunken, penalties for those who sell to drunken people, social exclusion for drunks, cessation of ‘celebrities’ glorying in drunken behaviour, cessation of the redtops glorying in the celebs thus doing. Acceptance that the responsible consumption of alcohol is a positive thing, and an understanding that making alcohol more and more demonised will only enhance its attraction (remember America in the twenties).

Our current attitude to alcohol certainly requires a cultural change. But cultural change invariably comes from peer pressure. For example; 20 years ago a smoker would automatically light up in a friends house, 10 years later they would ask for permission to do so, 5 years later they would not ask, now they ask for forgiveness and go outside in the rain. By the way, it is perfectly legal to smoke in a friends house but it is not socially acceptable. THAT is cultural change!


Martin Read CMBII
Managing Director of Inn-Dispensable Personal Licence Courses