New research has surprise, surprise shown that us Brits drink too much.

One in four Brits overdrinks and booze accounts for a substantial percentage of crimes, domestic violence and health problems in this country.

But while the research is unlikely to be news to many of us I cannot see it actually changing our view of drink.

From the gout-suffering guzzlers of regency Bath, to working men's clubs in Victorian times, from business meetings to short-skirted hens on a saturday night out alcohol is a must-do for many of us.

Can you remember the last time you met up with friends and no-one drank any alcohol? Have you, like me, tried to socialise sober only to find your friends buy you a drink anyway? And with a glass of the amber nectar in front of you do you feel churlish to refuse the gift?

At business meetings, a refusal to drink can often be a hindrance to building better relations. After all, for many of us a teetotaller is a humourless killjoy.

And at the end of a stressful day don't we all deserve a drink to help us unwind?

Tony Blair certainly drowned his worries at the bottom of a bottle.

Numerous public health campaigns over the years have done little to challenge the British belief that booze is a ‘harmless’ drug.

But the fact of the matter is that booze has many victims and as a society we pay a heavy price for our love of the bottle.

Liverpool John Moores University's Professor Mark Bellis says 'It is time to recognise that we are not a population of responsible drinkers with just a handful of irresponsible individuals ruining it for others.'

The previous government's attempts to extend drinking hours seem to have done little so what should we do now?

Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, thinks current policies mean that people are spared the consequences of their actions.

'If we want people to act like responsible adults, we must treat them as such. Free healthcare incentivises irresponsible behaviour. The NHS should be reformed so that people pay for their behaviour in a direct and fair way,' he says.

He believes how much we drink should be down to us and we - not the taxpayer - should pay the price if we drink irresponsibly.

But would that really put an end to the problem? What would happen to the poor that cannot afford their treatment? Can we as a society say they shouldn't be treated for high cost long-term treatments such as addiction therapy? Should we turn away battered partners unless their abusers are willing to pay? Should anyone who has ever had a drink be charged or refused treatment?

If not, at what level of alcohol consumption should we refuse treatment?

Are there any other solutions that what would work?

Anonymous 1 needed this 'Off the Record'

Of course drunks should be made to pay for any medical attention made necessary by their over drinking and just to make sure that we dont spend more money chasing their debts confiscate their wallets/cash/cards/ID/etc at the same time, until the NHS is fully recompensed.

Whilst I agree that free healthcare promotes irresponsible behaviour such as heavy alcohol consumption (but see also smokers, drug users and danerous sport enthusiasts - rock climbing, motorcross, base jumping etc) any attempts to change the system would risk preventing those who need treatment from seeking it to avoid paying a penalty.

The result of such a scheme would be a lot more teenagers sending their friends home to 'sleep it off' when they really need to go to A&E to get their stomachs pumped. A few headlines revoloving around poor idiots choking on their own vomit rather than go to A&E would kill off the whole idea. Ultimately the consensus in this country is that people SHOULD be responsible for their own actions but it is up to the government to pick up the pieces if they choose not to.

Cognoscenti 36, the issue with increasing the cost of alcohol is that it simply will not work for two reasons:
1) If the kids can't afford alcohol then they will seek another form of intoxication i.e. drugs. Why pay £10 for a bottle of cider when you can get an ecstasy pill for as little as £3. They will simply swap alcohol for illegal drugs.
2) The governments attempts at prohibition of illegal drugs has not worked with prices getting lower year on year. So what chance would they have at restricting access to cheap alcohol when you only need to drive to Calais to fill a van with the stuff.

You ask, "what would happen to the poor who could not afford their treatment" -- but they are not so poor as to not be able to buy drink, cigarettes, etc in the first place!
If we were made to pay for treatment of conditions that we create (by smoking, excess drink, etc) perhaps (and I only say "perhaps") some might think twice about their actions. More likely the next generations would learn they need to be responsible for their actions and not always expect someone else to pick up the pieces.
Less drinking, smoking , etc would mean a substantially healthier nation with much lower NHS costs -- and the money we do spend could be spent on conditions beyond our control (not ones that we have brought on ourselves)...It could also mean savings on police (or better use of funds for police), etc

Why do so many of these articles talk about alcohol use/misuse as if it is solely a British problem?

Drinking is a part of British culture, but also common to many Anglo-Saxon countries around the world, as well as countries in Northern Europe. It is not part of the culture to the same degree in Southern Europe, where alcohol usually just accompanies a meal.

Change the culture (if you can!) and you will reduce drinking. No amount of tax will really prevent drinking, as the experience of Scandinavian countries shows.

Yawn. No different from fags or vehicle ownership - costly, dangerous and taxed like crazy as some sort of recompense. However, there is a tipping point with the usual easy answer of more taxation. Keep the masses happy to prevent revolution like the petrol strikes.Alcohol tax increases have increased consumption as folk get tanked up at home even before going out. Tax any more and it puts the booze cruise to Ireland / France back on the agenda and what do folk do with a garage full of the stuff shouting 'come and get me' at them? We can all be weak inm the face of temptation - me and Tony included.

And we can talk all we want about taxation, education, legislation, punishment. The bigger picture is create wealth, jobs, better standard of living & aspirations and the benefits of lower alcohol consumption will follow as people have their lives filled with work, further education and the need to show up at their job the following day to get paid.

Quite right Kevin. Same comments go regards Obesity, apart from those with a genuine genetic or other serious medical condition, and also the druggies. However give everyone a chance. First strike and you get treated and put on a register. Second strike and you pay. 3rd and subsequent strike and you are put in to detention where you work for the good of the community and earn your way out in due course. People who cost the ordinary taxpayers so much need to be made to realise their self inflicted problems and eventually they will hopefull re-join the "normal" society

That will do wonders for the illegal trade in booze (just as it has for tobacco)

Booze cruises will grow to be a bigger trade than the more legal side of things
Prohibition and by price, have been proven time and again not to work

Hit the perpentrators hard, in the pocket

Anonymous 3 needed this 'Off the Record'

The problem is that if we adopt the attitude that everyone should pay for the consequences of their actions, then this embraces all aspects of life. So we refuse to treat those who are injured in road accidents if it was their fault. We refuse to treat the 1 in 4 who are obese. Then we refuse benefits to those who cannot get a job as they did no work at school. We withdraw all child benefits as having children is a choice, and if one cannot afford them you do not have them. In fact we refuse to help anyone who takes a risk and fails. We end up in a jungle society.

If we put up prices, then this will encourage a black market, and is actually the opposite of the growing realisation that all drugs should be made legal to avoid funding criminals.

Education is the key, and also the tolerance to realise that some people have to make mistakes to learn.

On the other hand, as we are overpopulated ..............