Association between state‐level alcohol availability and taxation policies on the prevalence of alcohol‐related harms to persons other than the drinker in the USA, 2000–2015

Abstract

Introduction and Aims Alcohol‐related harms to others (AHTO) are consequences of alcohol use borne by persons other than the drinker. This study assessed whether the odds of experiencing AHTO are associated with alcohol availability and taxation policies. Design and Methods This study pooled data from four waves of the National Alcohol Survey (n = 20656 adults). We measured past‐year AHTO exposure using three binary variables: physical (pushed/hit/assaulted or property damage by someone who had been drinking), family or financial (family/marital problems or financial harms by someone who had been drinking) and driving AHTO (riding in a vehicle with a drink‐driver or being in a drink‐driving crash). Policies included bar and off‐premise alcohol outlet density (separately), alcohol retail hours, beer and spirits taxes (separately) and monopoly on retail/wholesale alcohol purchases. Results Monopolies were associated with 41.2% lower odds of physical harms [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45, 0.77, q < 0.001 correcting for multiple analyses], and a 10% increase in bar density was associated with a 1.2% increase in odds of driving‐related harms ( e ln(1.1) * β=1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02, q = 0.03). Among men, beer taxes were associated with lower odds of physical harms ( eln(1.1) * β=0.93, 95% CI 0.88, 0.98 q = 0.03) and monopolies were associated with lower odds of physical (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.35, 0.59, q < 0.001) and driving harms (aOR = 0.66, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02, q = 0.03). Discussion and Conclusions Monopolies, taxes and outlet density are associated with odds of some AHTO. Future longitudinal research should test whether physical availability and taxation policies may be protective for bystanders as well as drinkers.

Impact of the policy environment on substance use among sexual minority women

“…We also created dichotomous indicators for the state policy environment in 2019 specific to each substance. Alcohol policy environment was constructed as a dichotomous variable based on data from the Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), which provides detailed information about a variety of alcohol-related policies in the U.S. Use of a binary variable of state monopoly on retail or wholesale alcohol sales (yes/no) has been validated as a robust predictor of alcohol related harms, and was the strongest predictor among several alcohol policy variables (which also included state level taxes on spirits or beer, state level policy allowing off-premise alcohol retail sales after 10 p.m., and local density of liquor stores and bars) ( Trangenstein et al, 2020 ). We constructed a variable indicating whether states used a state-run wholesale or retail distribution system for at least one alcohol beverage subtype (spirits, wine, beer; n = 17 out of 51 states, including Washington, DC).…”

Developing Indicators to Measure the Implementation of the Western Cape Alcohol Harms Reduction Strategy in South Africa

“…Based on previous work (Karriker-Jaffe and Greenfield, 2014), Nayak et al assessed the prevalence of AHTO using five indicators that collapsed sets of two items that measured similar harms as follows: harassment/threats (1-2), property ruined/vandalism (3-4), physical aggression (5-6), driving-related (7-9), and family-financial (9-10) harm caused by someone who had been drinking. These pairwise constructs have been associated with alcohol control policies (Greenfield et al, 2019), specifically availability and pricing policies (Trangenstein et al, 2020). Similarly, Lloyd (2014) proposed a number of possibly useful indicators falling in the area of community perceptions of harm, including an assessment of 1) the % of adults (15+) indicating that alcohol use is problematic in the area in which they live, 2) the level of exposure to alcohol-related violence, 3) community members' experience of drinker-related nuisance experiences, and 4) community perception of enforcement of liquor regulation.…”

Characteristics of high‐ and low‐risk drinkers who use online alcohol home delivery in Western Australia

“…Australian online alcohol sales were estimated at $1.8 billion in 2021 [4] and global sales are predicted to grow by 66% over the next 5 years [5]. The recent growth in alcohol delivery sales has also been observed internationally [6]. Although some of the recent growth in sales may be attributed to lockdowns and contactless delivery requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is feasible that some of the increase in online alcohol purchases and home delivery will be permanent.…”