IPOPPED into the supermarket today.

First stop was the fruit and veg counter.

It was packed as usual. Remember how everyone laughed when the Government forced the big chains to sell healthy food at a ten per cent discount? They said it would never work, but it did. They’ve extended that aisle too – there’s more room now they’ve taken tobacco products out and introduced the permit system.

I don’t drink, but some of my friends like an occasional glass, so I bought a bottle of wine as a present.

You really have to look for the drinks counter these days – and it is a counter now, no more self-service. It’s in a sort of annexe.

The massive promotional signs and displays at the top of every aisle are all gone now. You have to show ID too. There are no exceptions.

Still, what with that and the clamp down on cigarettes, we’ve never been healthier.

Yes, I know all of the above is a fantasy. For some it’s a dystopian nightmare but for others it’s a dream. Whatever your views, we’ll never see it come true.

Because like the drinker who should head for the door when the barman shouts time, but instead staggers up for one last shot, the Government is ignoring the evidence, ignoring what is right and going for the easy option on minimum pricing for alcohol.

I remember Tony Blair shouting the words “weak, weak, weak” across the floor of the Commons to a hapless John Major. It was a defining moment for both of them. They echoed through my mind as the likely abandonment of minimum unit pricing was trailed in news bulletin after bulletin.

Minimum pricing is probably the most misunderstood concept around. It means, in simple terms, that the stronger the drink, the higher the cost.

So, with a 50p unit cost, the price of a pint of beer in the average pub would stay the same, but a bottle of white cider that has had only a passing acquaintance with an orchard would cost a great deal more. As behavioural studies in this and other countries show beyond doubt, when prices go up, consumption goes down.

And that means fewer of the health and social ills caused by alcohol. It also means fewer deaths, fewer hospital admissions and less drink-fuelled crime and disorder. With such benefits, and the backing of every medical organisation, it would seem the common sense solution.

But the Government won’t take it. It would mean challenging the international drinks trade, which has a marketing budget are as big as its influence and the big retailers whose loss-leading drinks promotions ensure a steady flow of customers.

Most of all it would involve challenging our own national attitude to alcohol.

We live in a culture which is saturated with drink. It is ever-present, on billboards, on the TV and in the home.

It is stronger than it has ever been and 45 per cent cheaper in real terms than it was 30 years ago. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that it costs the NHS £3bn a year.

A train crash – that was how the honest and forthright doctor and MP Sarah Wollaston described our public policy on alcohol. If anything, she understated the case.

Politicians like to talk and act tough – witness the weekly chest-beating of Prime Minister’s question time. But when faced with entrenched public attitudes and powerful vested interests, they have the sand kicked in their face time after time.

Weak, weak, weak – we deserve better.