Interesting thread over at the Standard, in which various lefty types claim Labour's minimum pricing policy for alcohol is an excellent idea because it means drinkers will cover the costs caused by drunks. (Which it wouldn't, as it's a minimum price not a tax, but for the sake of argument...)
Leaving aside the question of whether the propaganda figures about the cost/benefit ratio of alcohol use in society are correct (they're not), I find it a curious stance for leftists to take, as they're normally flatly opposed to the kind of "user pays" argument they're using here. An argument predicated on sheeting costs home to those statistically more likely to incur the costs has an initial sense of fairness about it that appeals to right-wingers, but leftists are supposedly meant to think of society in less individualistic and vindictive terms. Still, if we did go down that track, as someone completely lacking all interest in sport I wouldn't feel all cut up about the amount of tax the govt could charge you for picking up a rugby ball...
May 29 in history
4 hours ago