Citizens' juries and alcohol policy: what do people really think?Citizens' juries and alcohol policy: what do people really think?
Alcohol Alert Podcast
Professors Catherine Smith and Geoff Collin discuss citizens’ juries in Glasgow, Wakefield and Doncaster, where ordinary people examined evidence on alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food. The conversation outlines how jurors viewed alcohol as a major concern and supported stronger action than politicians often assume.
49:25•30 Oct 2026
Citizens’ Juries Take on Alcohol Harm: What the Public Really Wants
Episode Overview
- Citizens’ juries give people time, evidence and space, producing very different and more reasoned views than traditional surveys.
- Jurors reported feeling surrounded by alcohol marketing and availability, and many expressed strong anger at the lack of action on alcohol harm.
- Concerns about a so-called nanny state were almost absent, challenging assumptions that the public opposes stronger alcohol controls.
- Support for government partnering with industry dropped markedly once jurors considered how commercial interests can shape policy.
- Across all locations, alcohol was seen as the commodity having the broadest and most serious impact on health, communities and daily life.
“The industry and issue which most impacts on people's lives is alcohol unambiguously across Glasgow, across Wakefield, across Doncaster.”
Curious about how others navigate their sobriety journey? This episode of Alcohol Alert looks at alcohol harm from a different angle: asking ordinary people what should actually be done about it. The conversation centres on citizens’ juries run in Glasgow, Wakefield and Doncaster by Professor Catherine Smith and Professor Geoff Collin.
Instead of quick surveys, they brought together small, demographically representative groups for three intensive workshops, paid for their time and asked them to chew over evidence on alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food.
As Smith puts it, surveys treat public opinion as fixed, while juries show that views can shift "when you're given that opportunity to do reasoning and hear these different views." You’ll hear how jurors photographed their everyday surroundings to show just how saturated their lives are with alcohol marketing, cheap availability and related harms, from littered parks to Glasgow’s high courts.
Many expressed anger at the lack of meaningful action, and what’s striking is what *didn’t* appear: virtually no one complained about a "nanny state". One senior MSP even remarked that the jury discussions were "very different" from the way these issues are talked about in parliament. Collin explains that participants ended up backing strong measures on alcohol marketing and availability, and became far more sceptical about government partnering with industry.
Support for collaboration dropped sharply once jurors had time to reflect on how commercial interests shape policy. Across all the juries, he notes, "the industry and issue which most impacts on people's lives is alcohol unambiguously." This episode suits anyone interested in alcohol policy, community voices and how public opinion can change when people are given time, respect and proper information.
It may leave you wondering: if citizens can handle complex alcohol questions so thoughtfully, why aren’t they asked more often?
Do you want to link to this podcast?
Get the buttons here!
More From This Show
The latest episodes from the same podcast.