Upstreaming Alcohol Policy

Just what is the responsibility of elected representatives with regard to public health and safety?

Being a legislator at any level of government involves maintaining a delicate balance among a bevy of considerations and constituencies.

So what would motivate a “public servant” to suddenly throw that balance askew by putting all their weight behind economic “development,” even when the product being “developed” is the third largest actual cause of death in the United States, surpassing microbial agents, toxic agents, and firearms (Mokdad, et al., 2004)?

That question should be directed to the members of the U.S. House of Representatives (228 at last count) who are co-sponsoring H.R. 836, the Beer Tax rollback.

Lowering beer taxes (which are already 75% lower than in 1951, adjusted for inflation), effectively guarantees that alcohol-related problems will increase, resulting in a net loss of government income,* as well as incalculable human misery.

There can be only one explanation:  infusions of campaign cash by the alcohol industry and its symbionts.  What Tom Friedman calls “the wild excess of money in politics” could as well be called “the wild access of money in politics.”  And, as Joe Scarborough has noted, there are no lobbyists for poor people.  At least none that can shell out over $5 million in less than 2 years, as can Anheuser-Busch.

Regardless, each and every Representative that signs on to that bill should be held to account for any increases in their district of the following problems (all of which have been definitively linked to alcohol prices):

- Motor vehicle crashes and fatalities

- Alcohol-impaired driving

- Liver cirrhosis deaths

- All-cause mortality

The excess mortality, morbidity, and related economic costs should be laid at their doorstep when next November rolls around.

* Rosen, Miller, & Simon (2008) calculated that each drink consumed in California in 2005 cost the state $2.80 in social costs (excluding quality-of-life costs) or $6.25 (including them), while bringing in $0.08 in federal and state excise taxes.  Even if one were to multiply the $0.08 figure by a (generous) factor of 10 to arrive at an overall economic benefit of $0.80 per drink, the cost to the state is still between 3.5 to 7.5 times higher than the benefit.

References:

Mokdad, A.H., Marks, J.S., Stroup, D.F. & Gerberding, J.L. (2004).  Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.  JAMA, 291(10), 1238-1245.

Rosen, S.M., Miller, T.R., & Simon, M. (2008).  The Cost of Alcohol in California.  Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(11), 1925-1936.