Some heated discussion has arisen over the defeat of the Rudd Government’s alcopop tax. Many people viewed it cynically as a mere tax-grab.

I believe that alcopops, like poker machines, are the product of highly insightful marketing technology. They result in young drinkers losing sight of both the overall amount of alcohol consumed and the total amount of money spent on them.

It's fair to argue that alcopops don't cause binge-drinking. That is a result of many social factors. However, these lolly-water drinks do cleverly capitalise on the binge-drinking tendency of the young and furthermore, they appear to encourage it. Profit–driven marketing has always worked like that. It also gets ever more wily and ingenious at subliminal exploitation.

Defenders of these designer drinks have pointed out that in response to the tax young people are now buying spirits and mixing their own alcopops, making them even stronger.

That is not necessarily a negative step. It is exactly what older generations did for decades before these drinks were created. We at least knew how drunk we were getting. Today's night-clubbers and party-goers don’t seem to.

Mr Rudd's tax strategy may or may not have been the best move, but at least it was aimed at a sensible outcome. It sought to undermine a socially questionable new development in an area where direct government intervention and control wasn't an option.

What should he have done? There are many alternative suggestions, but most of them have a personal motive or private agenda lurking somewhere behind them.

Even if mere revenue–raising had been the government's true goal, it ought to be remembered that the looming general revenue cost of binge drinking through the provision of physical and mental health services and facilities will almost certainly be way in excess of what this tax would have netted.