Public Opinion on Alcohol Policy: A Review of U.S. Research

Abstract

Public opinion on alcohol policy has received little research attention until recently, although a coherent research agenda in this area holds promise of a better understanding of the public health policymaking process. This paper reviews and critiques the major analyses of policy opinion in the United States, discusses national support for specific policy options, and addresses trends in policy opinion. The dynamics of policy opinion are complex, allowing for few generalizations. Environmentally based alcohol policies receive mixed levels of public support, and, overall, support decreased somewhat throughout the early 1990s. Recommendations for continued monitoring and improved assessment of policy opinions are made.

Views of alcohol control policies in the 2000 National Alcohol Survey: What news for alcohol policy development in the US and its States?

“…Public opinion on alcohol policies has received increasing attention in the last 15 or 20 years following early work by Goodstadt, Smart, and Gillies (1978), and Wagenaar and of included policy items (Greenfield et al, 2004b). Giesbrecht and Greenfield (1999) conceptually divided the 11 policy items also studied here into a tripartite characterization of policy types.…”

“…Opinions on specific alcohol policies tap both attitudes towards alcohol and drinking and social and political values (Greenfield et al, 2004b). Relevant considerations from political science are the attentiveness versus the inattentiveness to such issues of the population (Arnold, 1990) and whether the particular policy item measures a specific opinion or simply a global policy preference (Stimson, MacKuen, & Erikson, 1994).…”

“…While both types of items have merits (those with and without cognitive links to intended outcomes) Greenfield et al (2004b) noted that, although political campaigns mounted in support of raising alcohol taxes may emphasize the benefits following from the revenue generated, as did the California Tax Initiative of 1990 (proposition 134), which earmarked some of the money raised for emergency rooms treating alcohol-related injuries, this makes such an initiative vulnerable to counter-campaigns like the one mounted in the last days of the California campaign by the alcohol industry. In this well financed advertising blitz, ER doctors were depicted as ''fat cats'' lining their pockets.…”

Opinions on the Privatization of Distilled-Spirits Sales in Washington State: Did Voters Change Their Minds?

“…Government alcohol policies are more likely to be both enacted and sustained when the majority favors a policy, whereas softening public opinions may lead to regulations being weakened or overturned (Greenfield et al, 2004;Latimer et al, 2003). This is why in studying outcomes of the Washington privatization initiative and how implementation evolves over time, periodic assessments of public opinions and attitudes toward the perceived outcomes are particularly important.…”

Article Commentary: “Confict of interest” and beyond

“…This approach has as yet unproven potential. In North American studies, public opinion on alcohol policy tends to be most supportive of the less effective interventions and ambivalent with regard to others such as increased taxes and controls on density of outlets that have a stronger evidence base (Giesbrecht & Greenfield 1999;Greenfield et al 2004). …”