> policymakers do very little They're constrained. There aren't terribly many policy levers to pull! At the extreme, we outright tried banning it in North Am

> policymakers do very little They're constrained. There aren't terribly many policy levers to pull! At the extreme, we outright tried banning it in North America once; that didn't work very well. Taxes and minimum pricing do work to reduce consumption, but they're quite unpopular with the public. A political party in my part of the world recently won an election by promising to expand retail availability of alcohol and to lower the price. I'd note that the majority of the cost of alcohol is already taxes. The untaxed cost of alcohol is kind of frightening and is enough to make me reconsider my more libertarian inclinations with drugs. Pure grain alcohol of the kind used to make cheap spirits or for industrial purposes is literally around $1 a litre to make. Sells for $30 a litre here -- swill vodka has a 3000% markup imposed due to tax policies designed to curb consumption. Cranking it up higher has negative consequences too. I know that with tobacco, among the most dedicated cigarette smokers, increases in prices have little impact on consumption; the addicts we'd want to incentivize the most to quit with price signalling are the most resistant to price signalling due to their addiction -- they just get poorer. It becomes a dichotomy/trade-off. How how hard do we kick the homeless alcoholic when he's down vs. how much we stop college kids from taking up binge-drinking? Booze is also pretty easy to make at home so there's the consideration of prices being high enough to push people to the grey/black market, too. I would like to see our governments go after alcohol advertising; it's basically a free-for-all in many jurisdictions. It's interesting to compare the new regulations in Canada on cannabis advertising (essentially banned in all forms) vs. the regulations on alcohol advertising (what regulations?) Yet which is the more addictive and compulsive drug?