Scientists, clinicians, urged to lobby against alcohol

 

Raising taxes, prohibition, minimum prices discussed by health researchers

 

Source: San Diego Tribune

By Bradley J. Fikes

May 17, 2016

 

To reduce harm from alcohol use, scientists and clinicians should lobby the public and their government for restrictions on alcohol sales and advertising, an international team of public researchers recommends.

 

Steps such as “total or partial prohibition,” raising the minimum price for alcohol, and bans on happy hours, were suggested as options in an article the researchers published Wednesday.

 

These steps could increase revenue to both government and the alcohol industry, the article stated. But to make such measures feasible, scientists and clinicians will need to change public opinion so governments will be willing to act.

 

In sheer dollar terms, the authors say alcohol takes an annual toll of $249 billion in the United States, and similarly huge amounts in other countries. Moreover, not only the drinkers are harmed, but others such as the unborn babies of pregnant mothers, and victims of alcohol-induced vehicle accidents also suffer.

 

And there is growing evidence that alcohol is associated with certain cancers, such as stomach cancer. A consensus will likely be established soon that alcohol causes prostate cancer, the article stated.

 

So, the researchers write, the science is clear that governments should act to restrict the use of alcohol.

 

“Whether governments have an appetite for the regulatory measures that work is less clear, and with the increasing influence of global alcohol producers there is need for international action comparable to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” the article stated.

 

“Implementing such a framework will require shifting public opinion to allow such action, and here the recognition of alcohol as a major harm to innocent bystanders, particularly children, is key.”

 

Increasing revenues

 

The article was published in Nature Reviews – Gastroenterology & Hepatology. It can be found at http://j.mp/alcohollaws

 

Its authors are William Gilmore and Tanya Chikritzhs of Curtin University in Perth, Australia; Tim Stockwell at the University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia; David Jernigan at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore; Timothy Naimi of Boston University in Boston; and Ian Gilmore at the University of Liverpool in Liverpool, UK.

 

Pricing and taxation strategies need to be the first priority of any comprehensive response to alcohol-related problems, the authors say. “In combination, they can produce increased revenues for government and industry while reducing consumption and harms.”

 

Since tax increases are unpopular, the article suggests that mandating minimum prices per unit of alcohol might be more acceptable to the public and governments. And taxes might be made more palatable if they were earmarked for alcohol treatment and prevention programs. These taxes have already been used for reducing harm from alcohol, as well as from tobacco and gambling.

 

“Such special taxes have the twin virtues of reducing harm while generating extra revenues,” the article stated. “As demand for alcohol is relatively inelastic, increased taxes will almost invariably result in increased revenues for government.”

 

Other strategies include reducing the physical availability of alcohol, by restricting the “times, places and contexts” in which alcohol can be sold.

 

Prohibition?

 

“This approach can range from total or partial prohibition through to secondary supply laws that prevent adults supplying alcohol to underage drinkers,” the article said.

 

In addition, a total ban on alcohol advertising provides the most effective way to prevent the public from being exposed to alcohol marketing, the authors wrote.

 

“The emerging data on alcohol as a cause of common cancers will also be important to influence public opinion. Indeed, information and education might be more effective in creating support for effective public health policy rather than directly changing individual behavior. Scientists and clinicians will most likely have a role in these areas to rebalance our troubled relationship with society’s favorite drug.”