A scaled approach
It's clear that alcohol causes harm, but it's also evident that all policies that condemn alcohol in a blanket fashion don't reflect realities in people's life's. I'm thinking of small businesses who produce beer, wine and spirits. They get taxed the same excise tax rate as large multinational companies whose market dominance is based on giving bars discount on their products, the more volume the bar can push the higher discount they get. They use daily-industry waste alcohol and a massive marketing budget to paddle cheap booze to the masses, and they tie taps and shelves in the worst offending bars - the places where people get served underage and when they're too drunk already. The existing excise rate is already steep for small producer, who don't have the same access to the markets and don't promote the same attitude towards alcohol. Most small companies distinguish themselves by marketing their product as something to be savoured and enjoyed, not binged. Their production costs are higher in ratio to the multi-nationals, so their products are more expensive already, which again makes it more likely that their product is used in the same fashion as the 2l rigger of cheap swill. If you want to effectively reduce harm from alcohol, while also sticking with your support from small businesses who get more people into jobs, and who have a steep battle to fight anyway - propose a scaled excise tax approach, in which the larger producers of alcohol by volume pay a higher tax rate. Get some money back into the system and make it less attractive for large companies to try and speed up the volume in which their product is used.
Do you like this suggestion?