Connecticut: Higher Alcohol Prices Save Lives In CT
Source: Hartford Courant
JONATHAN NOEL, THOMAS BABOR
September 10th
A lawsuit challenging the Connecticut statute that controls the minimum price for wine and liquor fails to take into account the human and economic cost that alcohol exacts in the state.
In late August, Total Wine & More, a chain of liquor stores, sued the state over statutory minimum prices for wine and liquor. BevMax, a separate chain of liquor stores, has since joined the suit. Their arguments are economic. They claim that minimum prices on wine and liquor, particularly the inability to sell these products below cost, inhibit the consumer’s purchasing power and the reduced sales result in lost tax revenue for the state. The stores claim that there is “no legitimate state interest” in the matter, and a full-page ad showing discrepancies in the legally allowed prices and the prices Total Wine & More would like to charge preceded the lawsuit.
What these liquor stores fail to mention is the extraordinary health and economic costs of alcohol use in Connecticut and how the removal of minimum alcohol prices could be detrimental to the state. According to research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, excessive alcohol use cost the Connecticut economy more than $3 billion in 2010 alone in direct health care costs, lost productivity, criminal justice costs and motor vehicle crashes. This is 49 times greater than the revenue generated by the alcohol excise tax ($61.6 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2015) and nearly 15 times greater than sales tax revenue collected from all food and beverage stores ($206.6 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2015). Connecticut pays more for the consequences of alcohol use than alcohol use gives back to state coffers.
Between 2006 and 2010, more than 1,000 deaths in Connecticut were directly caused by alcohol consumption, according to the CDC’s Alcohol-Related Disease Impact system. The removal of minimum alcohol pricing will only increase this figure. Research on alcohol pricing conducted in multiple countries has reached the same conclusion: Higher alcohol prices save lives. As the price of alcohol increases, alcohol-related disease, violence, injuries, hospitalizations and death all decrease. Importantly, the greatest reductions occur in the heaviest drinkers. Why? Because the heaviest drinkers are the same individuals who buy the cheapest alcohol.
A common argument from the alcohol industry and alcohol retailers against minimum alcohol pricing is that such policies are regressive in nature. They disproportionately affect those in the lowest socioeconomic classes. This argument fails to recognize that minimum alcohol pricing effectively prevents death and disease precisely because it is regressive. The greatest health gains caused by minimum alcohol pricing occur among drinkers in the lowest socioeconomic classes. A study published in The Lancet in 2014 determined this effect is nearly nine times greater among the poorest, compared to the richest, classes. This is not an unintended consequence. This is what these policies were designed to accomplish after their institution following the repeal of Prohibition.
The known effects of removing minimum alcohol pricing makes Total Wine & More’s ad all the more striking. In its ad, Total Wine & More advertised prices below the legally allowed minimum for 18 liquor and liqueur brands, an act that may be illegal in itself. We cross-referenced these brands with the list of alcohol brands most consumed by underage youth, 13 to 20 years old, collected by Michael Siegel and colleagues at Boston University. The brands advertised by Total Wine & More included the most consumed brands of bourbon (Jack Daniels), whiskey (Crown Royal), scotch (Johnny Walker) and rum (Captain Morgan). The ad also includes many other brands frequently consumed by underage drinkers, such as Grey Goose, Jameson Irish Whiskey, Canadian Club, Bombay Sapphire, Don Julio and Jägermeister. If prices on these products decrease, youth alcohol use, and the related consequences of underage drinking, is likely to increase.
Total Wine & More’s claim the government has no legitimate reason for regulating alcohol prices. They are wrong. Protecting the health and safety of Connecticut’s residents from the negative consequences of alcohol is a legitimate reason for any government to preserve sensible public health policies, and a rational, effective step toward this goal is maintaining minimum alcohol prices.
Jonathan Noel of Southington is a doctoral candidate in public health at the University of Connecticut. Thomas Babor of Canton is a professor and Health Net Inc. Endowed Chair in Community Medicine and Public Health at UConn Health.