4 ms·

Raising prices is about the only thing that works to change behaviour. But it needs to be tied to treatment too - there's no point making alcohol harder to get

by DanBC 4y ago

Raising prices is about the only thing that works to change behaviour. But it needs to be tied to treatment too - there's no point making alcohol harder to get if you're not also making treatment for alcohol use disorders easier to get. There are other ways to increase the cost of the most harmful alcohol. You could impose a minimum unit cost - this would target the industrially produced low quality booze that gets sold very cheaply, and leave the "artisinal microbrewery" drinks unaffected. See eg Scotland as an example: https://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/news/minimum-unit-pricing-has-lasting-impact-study-shows/ https://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/news/minimum-unit-...

smugma 4y ago
Often time the money from so-called sin taxes is earmarked towards treatment. Also, a 0.25 tax on a can of beer significantly changes the price of a case of Bud Light but not so much the 4 pack of IPA that costs $15. So you don’t need carve outs that create perverse incentives / unintended consequences.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Are we so sure that it's the Bud Light drinkers that are the problem?
  - smugma 4y ago
    Not at all; it’s a good question, but it’s implied by the article. “Budweiser in 2010 cost one-fifth of what it did in 1950 after adjusting for inflation, one study calculated, and the cheapest available liquor cost one-fifteenth the price.” And more poignantly here: Both her parents drank heavily and died young, Ms. LaRue said, adding it made her an impassioned supporter of mental health services. She noted that her mother consumed cheap whiskey, not craft IPAs. “If a person has a drinking problem,” she said, “they’re going to find a way.”
- mimgdoc 4y ago
  That might be a 25-50% tax on very cheap beer. It’s a regressive tax but would likely serve its desired goals, at least reducing consumption for poorer people. Or simply push them to really cheap liquor like a handle of cheap vodka that goes for $10.

by DanBC 4y ago

smugma 4y ago

Often time the money from so-called sin taxes is earmarked towards treatment. Also, a 0.25 tax on a can of beer significantly changes the price of a case of Bud Light but not so much the 4 pack of IPA that costs $15. So you don’t need carve outs that create perverse incentives / unintended consequences.

wizofaus 4y ago
Are we so sure that it's the Bud Light drinkers that are the problem?
- smugma 4y ago
  Not at all; it’s a good question, but it’s implied by the article. “Budweiser in 2010 cost one-fifth of what it did in 1950 after adjusting for inflation, one study calculated, and the cheapest available liquor cost one-fifteenth the price.” And more poignantly here: Both her parents drank heavily and died young, Ms. LaRue said, adding it made her an impassioned supporter of mental health services. She noted that her mother consumed cheap whiskey, not craft IPAs. “If a person has a drinking problem,” she said, “they’re going to find a way.”
mimgdoc 4y ago
That might be a 25-50% tax on very cheap beer. It’s a regressive tax but would likely serve its desired goals, at least reducing consumption for poorer people. Or simply push them to really cheap liquor like a handle of cheap vodka that goes for $10.