This is my second post on matters raised in the Law Commission’s review of Alcohol Legislation. The previous post on the Purchase Age is here.
The question of pricing comes up a lot in discussions about ways to reduce harm caused by alcohol abuse. Much of the evidence available suggests that increasing the retail price of alcoholic beverages does in fact lead to a decrease in binge drinking and other harmful activities.
You may or may not agree with this. If you do, the next question is how best to go about achieving this.
The two options are:
- Increasing excise tax
- Establishing a minimum price for alcoholic beverages
These two are not mutually exclusive and could be used either in combination or separately.
So the two questions are: Should we be increasing the price of alcohol and if so how best do we go about it?
@Jennifer – I’m scared of where this is going too.
Interesting discussion. I’m not trying to defend my position here, my argument rests on personal likes/enjoyment rather than objective analysis concerning the harm alcohol does to our society. At the same time however I feel my behavior is not altogether dissimilar to other students/many of the people who you would be targeting.
I’m a student, I frequently binge drink and occasionally take drugs. I usually have about $20-35 saved over at the end of the week, with my $20-35 I tend to buy either a cask of wine (32 standard drinks in a box of country red for $22) or beer (double browns are on special all the time, usually $20 for a box of 18)
If alcohol was to become too expensive I would simply use my money to buy drugs. My routine, instead of a night of drinking at home with flatmates would likely become a night of smoking grass (relatively cheap at $20 for a tinny) and a night on the town would be ecstasy or speed (more expensive and prices vary depending on how much is about)
Also if you’re going to attempt to change our drinking culture I would hope that you would start with adverting/education before simply bumping the tax.
There appears to be some idea that by increasing min prices higher quality beer/wine/whisky etc will remain unchanged in price. I think you are being nieve with this thought. If DB/Lion believe that their beers are of a higher quality than say NZ breweries, then I believe premium beers will also increase in price to keep them relatively priced.
@ Iain, politics doesn’t have to be dirty but like mountain biking and intercourse it makes it far more interesting.
I consider NZ’s approach to substance abuse as a whole as myopic and reactionary. I read the new National Drug Policy and considered that to be a rehash of old tired ideas masquerading as some kind of paradigm shift with the help of meaningless catchphrases like ‘harm reduction’.
Our prisons are filled with people with mental and social disorders, many of these people have ended up in prison through substance abuse.
The answer to solving substance abuse is understanding, education, effective social services, effective policing and the promotion of producer, distributor and consumer moderation and responsibility.
Punitively taxing people to drink less reeks of paternalism.
Is there any evidence that this will work?
@ Rusty
Great post. Issues around substance use and abuse need honesty.
Raising the price of alcohol, through both a slight increase in excise across the board and a minimum price of around $1.50 per standard drink, would be the most effective thing that we could do to reduce alcohol related harm. It is not just a few binge drinkers who are spoiling it for the rest of us, around a quarter of the population regularly drink hazardously and most of us have done something stupid when drunk – so its not just the binge drinkers, or just young people, it is all of us and we all need to take responsibility for the problem. If that means that we won’t be able to afford to drink so much is that such a bad thing?
The price of alcohol has been dropping for the last 15 years and is now cheaper than ever – this is one of the main causes of the problems we are having. Back in the ‘my day’ some commenters have referred to it wasn’t culture or society or common sense that led to less drinking going on than now – it was the higher price that stopped people from being able to afford to drink so much. And others have commented that social marketing worked with cigarette’s – actually the biggest impact on smoking has been the regular rises in tobacco tax that has triggered more and more people to quit smoking or not take it up in the first place.
We can’t go on blaming our culture or other people, we need to take responsibility and fix the environment around alcohol, where cheap alcohol is available all day and all night pretty much every where.
@Matthew – from everything that I’ve heard drinking was worse in past decades.
“and most of us have done something stupid when drunk – so its not just the binge drinkers” I too have made some mistakes while under the influence, and I learnt from them and non longer make them. It’s called life experience! Nothing too bad though, I’m a friendly drunk.
You seem to be asking for bullying tactics – I think that being adults we should be able to make up our own minds about how much we drink and take the consequences. Raising the price will only lead to moonshine etc, and the thing with moonshine is that there is no % or standard drinks indicators there. If I’m BULLIED by a price increase I will start making my own. Spuddy’s Moon Ale.
The people I know who smoke don’t let the price stop them, they just go without other things. The people I know who want to quit, want to do it for health reasons.
I’m a Shiner Bock drinker myself, but put me down for a case of Spuddy’s Moon Ale.
@Jennifer you betchya
Matthew said:
“Raising the price of alcohol, through both a slight increase in excise across the board and a minimum price of around $1.50 per standard drink, would be the most effective thing that we could do to reduce alcohol related harm.”
That is pure conjecture. Do you have any evidence that this will work?
As I stated before people on higher wages will not be deterred from drinking as price would matter less to them than it would to someone on a lower wage. Such a policy as you suggest Matthew would be incredibly classist.
@Spud. Yes I would like a case of Moon Ale as well.
Pour Matthew a long tall glass of social engineering while you are at it.
LOL
Consider it done!
We absolutely should be increasing the price of alcohol. Of all possible interventions that have been researched by public health professionals, raising the price is THE MOST EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION. It targets the two most problematic drinking groups in society :
1) Young people who generally have limited incomes and are therefore more affected by price rises. Since this is also the most vulnerable group in society and the least able to handle alcohol, the ability to target this group is very important.
2) Big drinkers who spend significant amounts of their income on alcohol. This is the other group that needs to be targeted because they have the biggest drinking problems and cause the most harm – to themselves and others.
There is another significant advantage that comes from raising the price of alcohol. The increased taxation can be used to pay for extra addiction treatment facilties that are desperately needed to address the harm casued by alcohol and drugs in NZ.
Roger Brooking
Clinical Manager ADAC Ltd
http://www.adac.co.nz.
I saw your post on Red Alert, Labour would have a much harder time winning an election with such policies on alcohol that run opver the wishes of the people.
It wouldn’t be just young people affected by the price rises it would be anyone with a low income. So poor Joe Poor who has a strenuous low paid job won’t even be able to afford to unwind with a drink. Young people would just turn to making their own with whatever potency happens to come out, and in my experience they tend to like to make it stronger. And then they would go to town already intoxicated, as what has happened with the last price increase.
It would actually encourage more binge drinking as going to the pub would just be too expensive. ALso for poorer people who would like to participate in society it would take away some of their dignity if they weren’t able to afford to partake in a civilised drink when going out at night.
If someone has a genuine drinking problem all this would achieve is to make the poor ones miss out on essentials to pay for it. Forcing someone off fiscally also sounds terribly cruel and there are better ways.
Isn’t there some kind of craving blocker that takes away the physical part of the addiction?
I heard a young man say proudly that he was “taking one for the team” – he was the sober driver and damn proud of it.
i think it is unfair to punish the nation with higher tax and/or higher costs due to a small population. i am a student and i am one who does not drink copiously so feel that the stereotype of young people being alcahol abusers is an unfair one. However on the rare ocassion when i do go drink it would be nice to be able to afford to do so.
Well. Any ED clinician will tell you that its been a downward spiral since lowering the drinking age. Today we are dealing with some of the same “policy experts” and politicians who thought that lowering the drinking age to 18 was a grand idea according to their various fancy theories and rationale, a decision that would help the health of young people.
Why trust the qualifications, analysis and judgement of these same people today, would be my question.