The model alcohol control laws that grew out of the recommendations of the Toward Liquor Control report and disseminated by the National Municipal League, still form the basis for current law and policy. A particular recommendation of the report and the model laws was to treat beer, wine, and spirits differently. Beer was defined as “regular strength” malt beverages with an alcohol content between 3.9 and 6 percent alcohol by volume. Beer was the least intoxicating form of alcohol and was the most common and widely available. Wine was referred to as “table wine” with an alcohol content between 7 and 14 percent alcohol by volume. This moderately intoxicating alcoholic beverage occupied the middle ground in the new
lexicon of regulation. Spirits referred to distilled spirits and fortified wines with a high alcohol content between 26 and 50 percent alcohol by content. Spirits had become the major source of profits for bootleggers under Prohibition and contin- ued to reserve the primary concern of the new approaches to controlling alcohol consumption after repeal.
As the alcohol content decreased, the seeming importance of control of the bev- erage also decreased. Beer was viewed as the least troublesome alcoholic beverage and the most readily available at the lowest cost. Beer became the alcohol choice of the working class, whereas spirits and wine were often more expensive and preferred by the economic and social elites that had formulated the policies. The new, more pragmatic approach to the control of alcohol reflected the drinking habits of the population more than any overriding presumptions about moral behavior. The dif- ference in type of alcoholic beverage and the realities surrounding its manufacture, transportation, and clientele were reflected in the development of each sector of the control systems that emerged across the country.
In the years immediately following repeal of the 18th Amendment, the dis- tilled liquor (spirits) industry became quickly concentrated in a handful of large corporations that operated on a national and international scale. Spirits were more easily transported and preserved for long periods and over long distances and not as subject to changes in climate and temperature. Beer, on the other hand, was typi- cally locally produced and required more immediate shipment because it was often not pasteurized and was subject to deterioration from temperature change and movement over long distances. Multiple regional brewers developed, but these large regional firms tended to force out smaller brewers with less capability to produce and distribute quantities of beer. Wine was a relatively small portion of the alco- holic beverage market in the early to mid twentieth century because most wine was imported from abroad or manufactured in small quantities as “sweet” wines. As the domestic wine industry grew and established itself on both coasts of the country, it gained in market share through the introduction of a broad range of low cost wines in addition to high-end varieties.
What Is Happening at the State Level?
Alcohol policy and legislation over the last third of the twentieth century has cen- tered on four major areas: distribution systems, purchase and sales of alcohol, taxa- tion, and drinking and driving. In a comprehensive study of all fifty states, the University of Minnesota’s Alcohol Epidemiology Program examined state session laws, statutes, case law, and regulatory laws between 1968 and 2000. The study did not examine local ordinances (Wagenaar 2000).
Although there is variation in the particulars of regulations and policies among the states, primary policy activities have involved regulation of alcohol distribution (accounting for close to half of all policies) and regulation of drinking and driving
Policy, Regulation, and Legislation n 83
(accounting for approximately one quarter of alcohol control policies). In contrast, alcohol prevention programs accounted for only 4 percent and taxation and fees for only 3 percent of policy activity in the states during the last thirty years of the twentieth century.
The largest arena for state legislation pertains to issues related to distribution.
Distribution systems are regulated in two ways: either through what is termed control or through licensure. Some states directly control the pricing of alcoholic beverages through operating state or agency stores or through establishing retail prices—
these states are considered to be control states; whereas states that operate indirectly to control alcohol distribution and sales through private businesses typically sell licenses to private providers.
Only eighteen of the fifty states and the District of Columbia are classified as control states. Seven of the eighteen—Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming—exercise control at the wholesale market level for moderate or high alcohol content beverages. The other eleven control states involve both wholesale and retail sales of moderate (wine) and high (spirits) alcohol content beverages (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Utah) or only high alcohol content beverages (Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington). The remaining states and the District of Columbia are licensure states.
Studies have found that when states move from a control system to a licensure system that overall sale of alcoholic beverages increases significantly (Toomey et al., 1993; Toomey and Wagenaar 1999). The state control system does seem to exercise a degree of restraint in the availability of alcoholic beverages (e.g., it is not viewed as desirable for the state when it exercises substantial direct control to advertise spirits or to be too actively engaged in encouraging “sinful” behavior). Licensure of private establishments, on the other hand, allows private enterprise to seek profits through lengthened store hours, lower prices, more outlets, and increased marketing and advertising of alcoholic beverages and hence greater availability to consumers.
Drinking and driving laws are probably the most visible and discussed aspect of liquor control policy and the second most frequent area for legislation and policy proposals. Drinking and driving regulations revolve around blood alcohol content (BAC) standards. In 1968, most states allowed BAC limits of 0.14 g/dL to 0.09 g/
dL. In 1991, Congress began to offer monetary incentives for states to lower accept- able BAC levels by offering supplemental highway grants to those who lowered BAC for youths to 0.02 g/dL (23 USCA 410). In 1994, Congress made 5 percent of a state’s highway transportation grant contingent on adopting laws by 1998 setting youth BAC at 0.02 g/dL or lower (23 USCA 161). With the passage of the U.S.
Transportation Appropriations bill S.2720 in the year 2000, all states were given until 2004 to reduce BAC limits for adults to 0.08 g/dL or face reduced federal transportation funding in their states.
The focus on limiting BAC is based on years of study by the National Highway Transportation Administration (2000) and others confirming that an individual’s
balance, vision, and intellectual functioning are significantly impaired at BAC levels of 0.08 g/dL and higher. The evidence further suggests that reducing BAC levels to 0.02 g/dL for youth significantly reduced fatal and nonfatal traffic acci- dents, especially when coupled with educational and public information campaigns (Blomberg 1992; Hingson 1994).
Although substantially smaller as a proportion of alcohol control activity in recent years, the purchase and sales of alcohol still occupy attention even though the basic rules surrounding purchase and sales are broadly set and accepted. These laws are usually associated with who can buy alcohol when and where (e.g., legal drink- ing ages, hours of operation, type of establishment, presence or absence of food, types and amounts of beverages). The stated intent of controlling purchase and sales has not been to end consumption of alcoholic beverages, but rather to limit the usage by restricting the amount and availability of beverages. In recent years, legis- lation and policy in this area has focused on keg registration and server training.
Although local ordinances existed in many places, Oregon in 1978 was the first state to adopt a statewide keg registration law. Approximately one fourth of the states now have keg laws and regulations. Because research studies demon- strated that youth consumption of alcohol declined with higher alcoholic beverage prices and less availability, keg registration laws were prompted by the desire to inhibit the availability of low-cost beer for youth parties, especially for off-premises consumption (Grossman et al., 1994; Jones-Webb et al., 1997). The argument was presented that by tracking the purchaser of beer kegs, the responsibility for intoxi- cation, and underage drinking could be more readily ascertained or restricted.
Focusing on a different aspect of purchase and sales, the restriction of on-prem- ises consumption of alcoholic beverages for legal consumers in particular has been approached in recent years through the adoption of either mandatory or volun- tary server training programs. The policies surrounding serving alcoholic beverages placed a responsibility, including potential legal liability on the person serving the alcohol to another person who subsequently was involved in an accident or arrest while under the influence of alcohol. By making clear the legal consequences for the seller or supplier of serving alcohol to intoxicated individuals, the expected outcome was that less alcohol would be consumed and fewer intoxicated individu- als would result, especially intoxicated drivers. Slightly fewer than half of the states have adopted server training programs, with approximately half adopting manda- tory requirements and half relying on voluntary compliance as a way to limit server and seller liability.
Evidence of the effectiveness of server training programs is mixed, although the trend is for states to adopt such regulations. Toomey et al. (1998) have found that, regardless of the variation in extent and quality of server training programs, the active involvement of management was particularly important for an effective server training program to have the desired impact of fewer inebriated customers.
A final area of alcohol control policy and at times animated debate is taxes. Taxes have become one of the accepted components of alcohol control policy. Revenue
Policy, Regulation, and Legislation n 85
generation from the 1934 report to today has never been the primary rationale for taxing alcohol, but it has become a frequent and widely accepted form of taxation for government. The actual price of alcohol has declined since 1970 in relation to cost of living and cost of non-alcoholic beverages.
Alcohol taxes, along with taxes on cigarettes and gambling, have been labeled
“sin” taxes (i.e., assessed only against those who decide to engage in a behavior con- sidered to be immoral by many). The argument that adults should be able to decide to engage in these behaviors or not depending on their own moral codes has been legally and politically successful. But it is also accepted that those who do engage in these activities should pay a higher price through taxes to help defray the costs of policing the provisions and the consequences of engaging in the behavior. The actual amount of tax assessed tends to depend on the type of alcoholic beverage—
beer, wine, and spirits are taxed at different rates—and are calculated differently in different states (e.g., on the quantity sold or as a percentage of the sale price).
Toomey and Wagenaar (1999) and others have found that traffic accidents, vio- lent crime, and cirrhosis of the liver decline with increased taxes and thus increased price of alcoholic beverages. Price elasticity seems to be particularly important when considering youth consumption. Despite the evidence of a direct relationship between price and consumption, states have not seemed to use taxation as a way to maintain or increase the cost of alcoholic beverages. The University of Minnesota’s Alcohol Epidemiology Program found in their 2000 study of beer taxes that in most states, the adjusted-for-inflation taxes on beer have typically decreased in rela- tion to 1968, suggesting that higher alcohol taxes have not been used as part of overall policy to restrict consumption. It is likely that the same trend holds true for wine and spirits, although it is more difficult to make the comparisons because of the differential methods of taxing and the control vs. licensure approaches to distri- bution systems.
State policies during the past several decades have changed as states have recog- nized and tried to address aspects of alcohol related issues and problems. The policy changes also highlight many of the challenges in formulating and implementing alcohol control policy. For example, the total prohibition of sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages is not an option since the repeal of Prohibition. The ensuing efforts to control alcohol consumption have tended to focus on those areas where there is broad public support (e.g., placing limits on youth to buy and consume alcohol, but not purposefully raising the price of alcoholic beverages through taxa- tion even when the evidence suggests that increased prices for alcoholic products, such as beer, are associated with reduced consumption). In other words, limiting the ability to purchase beer would affect all consumers, not just youth (who are not supposed to be able to buy beer anyway). Raising both the opposition of adult consumers, especially those of more limited means who may not be able to afford more expensive alcoholic beverages, as well as the manufacturers and distributors of beer who may see reduced consumption as reducing their profits, appears to have limited taxation as a primary means for alcohol control.
Federal Policy and Legislation
The 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, reported that more than half of the U.S. population 12 and older are current drinkers of alcohol and that almost half of those reported binge drinking (five or more drinks on the same occasion) within the past thirty days. For individuals over the age of 21, approximately 60 percent are current drinkers. Any federal policy or legislation is constructed with the reality that a clear majority of the population will be affected by alcohol control legislation or regulation.
During 2002 and 2003, there were 1,639 bills and regulations adopted by the federal government and the states that in some manner directly related to alcohol policy (National Institute of Alcohol Abuse 2004). Of those, only 15 were fed- eral regulations or laws. At the federal level, these regulations and laws ranged from the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’
regulation to add “tannat” to the prime grape variety names for use in designating American wines, to the U.S. Congress’ No Child Left Behind Act (PL 107-110) requiring each local educational agency desiring assistance to submit application to state educational agencies to permit funds to be used for:
coordination of health and social services for individuals returning from incarceration if there is likelihood that such services, including drug and alcohol counseling, will improve likelihood these individuals would complete their education;
requiring correctional facilities receiving funds to provide transition assis- tance to help youth stay in school, including assistance in accessing drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs;
exempting teachers’ limitations on liability for misconduct when under the influence of intoxicating alcohol;
establishing toll free hotlines for students to report substance abuse; and providing grants to reduce alcohol abuse, including through such means as mentoring programs.
The vast majority of both federal and state policy and legislative actions related to alcohol control are minor adjustments to existing policies, regulations, and laws.
Federal activity is especially modest when it comes to alcohol control, especially beyond issues related to youth drinking.
n
n
n n n
Policy, Regulation, and Legislation n 87