Advertisement

Commentary on the Impact of a 25-Cent-per-Drink Alcohol Tax Increase

      The recent article by Daley et al.
      • Daley J.I.
      • Mandy A.S.
      • Chaloupka F.J.
      • Naimi T.S.
      The impact of a 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase.
      advocates for large increases in alcohol taxes claiming both public health benefits from reduced consumption and that almost all of the cost would be borne by high-risk drinkers. The authors rely on the assumption that the majority of drinkers impose external costs on society and that the majority of drinkers would benefit if they reduced their consumption. Neither of these assumptions holds up under scrutiny.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Daley J.I.
        • Mandy A.S.
        • Chaloupka F.J.
        • Naimi T.S.
        The impact of a 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase.
        AM J Prev Med. 2012; 42: 382-389
        • Wagenaar A.
        • Salois M.
        • Komro K.
        Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies.
        Addiction. 2009; 104: 179-190
      1. Ayyagari P, Deb P, Fletcher J, Gallo W, Sindelar J. Sin taxes: do heterogeneous responses undercut their value? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15124, July 2009.

        • Grant B.
        • Dawson D.
        • Frederick S.
        • et al.
        The 12 –month prevalence of trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: United States, 1991-1992 and 2001-2002.
        Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2004; 74: 223-234
        • Stringham E.P.
        • Pulan I.
        Evaluating Economic Justifications for Alcohol Restrictions.
        Am J Economics and Sociology. 2006; 65: 971-990
      2. Stringham E, Moore A. The catastrophe of what passes for alcohol policy analysis. Reason Policy Brief No. 77.

      3. Rivara F, Jurkovich G, Gurney J, et al. The magnitude of acute and chronic alcohol abuse in trauma patients. Arch Surg 128:907–12.

      Linked Article

      • Author Response
        American Journal of Preventive MedicineVol. 43Issue 2
        • Preview
          We appreciate the opinions expressed by Professor Stringham. However, his assertion that increased alcohol taxes have little effect on the heaviest drinkers and therefore little public health benefit ignores a large body of evidence to the contrary. First and most importantly, high-risk drinkers account for the majority of alcohol-related problems, and increased prices and taxes are a highly effective strategy to reduce risky consumption and alcohol-related harms within populations.1–3
        • Full-Text
        • PDF