I'm delighted to report that Prof. Philip Cook, ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy, and Professor of Economics and Sociology, at Duke University, will be guest-blogging this week. I first got to know Prof. Cook through his scholarship on gun control, where he is one of the leading scholars on the pro-control side. As readers of this blog know, I am generally more skeptical of gun control, but I nonetheless much respect his work on the subject.
This week, Prof. Cook will be posting about his work on alcohol control policy, and in particular about his new book, Paying the Tab: The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control. I don't know much about the subject myself, but I do know that it eminently deserves serious attention.
Alcohol causes a tremendous amount of harm, including externalities imposed on nonparticipating third parties -- as well as a great deal of pleasure, and apparently a considerable amount of health benefit. The legal system extensively regulates alcohol, and it's certainly possible that it should regulate it more, or more effectively. My preconceptions are to be skeptical of such increased control (or increased tax) proposals; but it's far from clear that these preconceptions are right, given alcohol's harmful externalities. And even those who share those preconceptions should, I think, confront the arguments for greater control. Prof. Cook is one of the leading scholars in the field, and one of the most credible sources of such arguments.
Here is the quick summary, from the book's flyer; we will of course hear the arguments in much more detail in the coming week:
What drug provides Americans with the greatest pleasure and the greatest pain? The answer, hands down, is alcohol. The pain comes not only from drunk driving and lost lives but also addiction, family strife, crime, violence, poor health, and squandered human potential. Young and old, drinkers and abstainers alike, all are affected. Every American is paying for alcohol abuse. Paying the Tab, the first comprehensive analysis of this complex policy issue, calls for broadening our approach to curbing destructive drinking. Over the last few decades, efforts to reduce the societal costs -- curbing youth drinking and cracking down on drunk driving -- have been somewhat effective, but woefully incomplete. In fact, American policymakers have ignored the influence of the supply side of the equation. Beer and liquor are far cheaper and more readily available today than in the 1950s and 1960s. Philip Cook’s well-researched and engaging account chronicles the history of our attempts to “legislate morality,” the overlooked lessons from Prohibition, and the rise of Alcoholics Anonymous.
He provides a thorough account of the scientific evidence that has accumulated over the last twenty-five years of economic and public health research, which demonstrates that higher alcohol excise taxes and other supply restrictions are effective and underutilized policy tools that can cut abuse while preserving the pleasures of moderate consumption. Paying the Tab makes a powerful case for a policy course correction. Alcohol is too cheap, and it’s costing all of us.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Last Call:
- The Amethyst Initiative
- A Free Lunch?
- Price Matters:
- An Insurrection and 2 Constitutional Amendments:
- Philip Cook Guest-Blogging on Alcohol Control Policy:
Perhaps instead of taxing alcohol at a higher rate, which affects both the minority that can't handle it, and the majority that can, it might make more sense to use rules equivalent to "felon in possession" for alcohol?
Still, the idea that simply coercively raising prices will prevent substance abuse seems to be belied by both drug and alcohol prohibition, both of which raised costs much higher than any possible tax. You might cut down on overall consumption, but actual abuse will increase on the newly-subsidized black market. When it comes to substance prohibition, the law of unintended consequences takes no prisoners.
Still, the idea that simply coercively raising prices will prevent substance abuse seems to be belied by both drug and alcohol prohibition, both of which raised costs much higher than any possible tax. You might cut down on overall consumption, but actual abuse will increase on the newly-subsidized black market. When it comes to substance prohibition, the law of unintended consequences takes no prisoners.
The analogy to guns is actually quite strong. Very restrictive gun control laws tend to discourage gun ownership by people for whom a gun isn't terribly important, or who are unwilling to break the law to own a gun. Someone who uses a gun for business purposes (armed robbery, for example) or for whom it is a symbol of power and control (gun predators, for example), are among the least likely to be discouraged from ownership by restrictive gun control laws.
In Michigan, until we had a GOP governor in the 90s, it was a democrat machine used strictly to limit the number of outlets so as to favor large donors, and give easy 'jobs' to party hacks. The GOP played the same game, now the dems are really showing them how to play it hard ball that they are back on top.
When I first got my law degree I thought transactional guys were joking that a liquor license transfer cost 10-15k in consult fees to former commission members. That sounds a lot like a bribe. Not in Michigan. The average license costs 20k, so 1/2-2/3s of the cost is paid again to a 'consultant' who asks the commission to vote on the matter and does no other work.
Don't pay the money? It takes an extra year or two to get around to reviewing your application.
The taxes are also just the start, hard alcohol can only be sold directly to retailers from a state warehouse at huge markup, and beer and wine wholesalers are strictly limited to a few family businesses who make large and big political donations to keep their meal ticket.
The whole thing makes me a little mad...
I doubt that taxing alcohol more will do much good, but I don't think our experiences with alcohol and drug criminalization tell us much about what will happen if we increase the price of alcohol through taxation.
Criminalization raised the price of alcohol, but the reason that production/distribution was placed into the hands of criminal syndicates was that there was no price at which alcohol could be legally enjoyed. If you wanted to have a drink, you had to break the law. I don't think that even doubling the price of alcohol would encourage many people to risk a criminal record by buying/producing moonshine.
If you want to discourage alcohol consumption without encouraging criminal activity, you have to keep taxes low enough so that the new price of legal alcohol is still lower than the price of illegal alcohol. There's reason to believe that there's plenty of room before we get to that point. Take marijuana, for example. Let's assume that the production costs for legal marijuana would be roughly the same as tobacco, so that legal marijuana would cost about $7 at current tax rates. Now how much would you expect to pay for twenty five-gram joints? That's like three ounces, so what, between $600 and $900? So you could put a tax of $100 on each pack of legal marijuana and it would still be a bargain.
You both need to research the history of cigarette taxation and smuggling in Ontario, Canada. Legal or no, smuggling increases as tax increases.
Thankfully, there are so many people in this country that regularly use alcohol that any excise tax would be widely opposed by the public no matter how many meddling social engineers supported it. The effort to turn these externalties into the next "second hand smoke" will meet constant resistance from the voter, across nearly all constituencies. It would be political suicide to introduce a bill creating a massive new excise tax on alcohol.
I also suspect the alcohol industry will stand up for itself if it were attacked like that. They're pefectly happy to play the PR game and run all those "drink responsibly" ads if they think it'll keep the government from regulating or suing them out of business. But I don't think they'll go quietly, and they have alot of money to spend to defend their businesses.
-Homer Simpson
That solution seems market friendly, but unlikely because there's nothing in it for governmentalists.
I don't doubt that it does. Interesting stuff always happens at the margins. Introduce a deadweight loss into the legal economy and someone, somewhere is going to try to capture a piece of that.
The question, I think, is the level that we're willing to tolerate. A couple of cartons or Marlboros sold behind a bowling alley by a guy running a one-man interstate tax arbitrage scheme is tolerable. Gun battles in the streets and assassination of judges is intolerable.
Your entire screed about alcohol sounds like someone who doesn't want to face that there are substantial social costs to alcohol consumption.
no, it doesn't. this language (imprecise at best) is amazing from an allegedly libertarian blog.
alcohol is a drug, and like all drugs it has benefits and drawbacks.
depending on how it is used/abused, it causes tons of harm. but alcohol, LIKE a gun, does not cause harm.
alcohol provides many people with pleasurable experiences, there are some health benefits to it, etc.- based on how the people USE it. similarly, many people abuse alcohol, and it causes them (and others) massive problems.
but let's not do the same (incorrect) thing with alcohol, that gun control people do with guns.
whether or not govt. should exert greater control over the sale, possession, manufacture, and distribution of alcohol *is* a subject worthy of debate.
but again, i find it simply amazing that a libertarian blogger would open this discussion in such a manner.
Your argument, however, seems to assume that the higher alcohol usage among the lower classes is coincidental with these being the lower classes. If alcohol became more expensive, reducing consumption, does it perhaps reduce the number of people in the lower classes? I've seen a lot of people for whom alcohol was a major factor in making them poor and incompetent--the sort of people for whom higher alcohol taxes might actually improve their condition.
Unfortunately, raising the cost of alcohol just moves some people to smoking marijuana, with similar consequences.
false. there are substantial costs to alcohol abuse and overconsumption.
that's a behavior issue.
if i have a beer with dinner, there are exactly ZERO costs to society. there are health benefits as well, to my doing so.
responsible use of alcohol causes exactly ZERO social costs.
again, i have no problem with discussion whether increased regulation of alcohol is warranted. but let's not pretend an inanimate liquid ABSENT BEHAVIOR has any costs to society.
I have to compliment Clayton for this. I often disagree with him, but this seems to me to be an eminently fair characterization of both the alcohol and gun issues and what the problem is that faces any would-be regulator.
there is some argument (that i agree with) that marijuana eradication and enforcement in hawaii, which results in EXTREMELY expensive mj moves many people to try drugs like crystal meth that are (at least when i worked there) substantially cheaper.
similar situation.
let's not forget... alcohol - the poor man's antidepressant.
:)
-Homer Simpson ...
that is quite possible, but those are entirely different things (saying alcohol causes X vs. some people's misuse of alcohol results in them having greater propensity to commit crime etc.)
the point is that when you recognize that the problem is not alcohol per se, but HOW people use it, you actually understand the problem AND look at alcohol fairly, as a drug with many dangers, and some benefits. that is how we should look at drugs. evidence based, etc.
not blaming them for people's misuse.
Well, one out of two so far....:
http://tinyurl.com/9qhhpz
http://tinyurl.com/8z4kvv
to some extent it does cause behavioral changes. and we still have free will, and some people choose to use it responsibly and some don't
again, i am a libertarian. i resist the "we're all helpless in the face of evil alcohol and we need govt. to be our mommy/daddy" statist "logic".
fwiw, all sorts of chosen behaviors (drug involved or not) cause behavioral changes, etc. our brains are adaptable etc. to stimuli.
none of these things eliminate free will or responsibilty, and all must be understood in the context of chosen behavior.
That's the bad thing about getting older; you get a life worth of memories of watching people destroy their careers, their futures, and their families, because they can't resist getting drunk or stoned. Beautiful ideologies don't survive first exposure to the real world.
Still, if you can discourage the misuse of alcohol by taxation, you can improve the lives of vast numbers of people. And of course, that's the if of this: I'm skeptical that raising alcohol taxes is likely to work, since it will disproportionately discourage those not inclined to abuse alcohol, rather like the way that restrictive gun control laws tend to disarm those who are the least part of the problem.
no, but they (included the OP) are using false (or imprecise at best) language regarding alcohol, which helps justify such arguments.
i repeat... alcohol does not cause X (bad stuff). misuse of alcohol does.
period.
the OP was thus imprecise AT BEST, and that's especially ridiculous considering it was imprecise in the direction of our statist overlords... in a libertarian blog.
as cop, and former firefighter, i can attest firsthand- i have friends killed by drunk drivers. i have been personally injured by a drunk driver. when i work night shift, they are the #1 or close to it physical danger i face.
i deal with alcohol abusers every frigging day and their frigging problems - DV's, drunk drivers, etc.
so spare me.
principles still matter. and the fact remains - ALCOHOL does nto cause these problems. how people use/misuse alcohol does.
i am all for discussion of regulation etc. fwiw, i have said many times i think DUI enforcement should be more strict, especially considering it's the only crime i have aware of where the innocent have about ZERO percent chance of being charged/convicted (since the breathalyzer is impartial and accurate witness to a false arrest).
lol. read my first post.
i quote the OP ***AGAIN***
"Alcohol causes a tremendous amount of harm, including externalities imposed on nonparticipating third parties "
that *is* blaming alcohol for how people misuse it.
it was the entire point of my posting here.
you are wrong. hth
It is also difficult for the average person to know for sure if they have had enough alcohol to qualify as impaired. I would prefer a simpler rule: you may not drive if you have consumed any alcoholic beverage in the last eight hours. I suspect that this would substantially reduce the number of people driving who are just "slightly" impaired.
If Prof. Volokh had written: "Alcohol consumption by people causes a tremendous amount of harm, including externalities imposed on nonparticipating third parties" would you be happier?
that's absolutely correct, but imo irrelevant to t he fact that the state can set whatever prima facie limit it wants to.
there is no "right" to drive with ANY etoh in yer system, so it's not a problem.
but yes,a practiced alcoholic may maintain homeostasis at .10
you still don't get it. amazing
the issue is not "consumption". it's abuse etc.
i consumed a beer a few nights ago. it caused ZERO harm , especially amongst "externalities"
John McCardell is up for a guest stint from the seemingly more libertarian side of this issue.
I won't speak for Whit, but I fixed it for you.
It makes me happier because the obvious rejoinder changes from "the law should regulate alcohol (or alcohol consumption)" -- resulting in increased taxes and other losses of liberty that are too broad -- to "the law should regulate people who misuse alcohol".
I don't know about him, but I could care less whether it has "substantial social costs". I don't think that the negative social utility of an activity justifies government intervention. If you accept that it does justify intervention, then you're left having to engage in complex, fact-intensive battles with everyone who comes along wanting to ban or tax the hell out of something you like to do. If you only believe in individual liberty when it "works" under some criteria of social utility, then you're no friend of freedom.
Well, it might possibly reduce the number of people driving who are 'slightly' impaired *by alcohol*. Is slight impairement by anger, lust or glee any better? Not to be flip, but at that level of concern, a huge chunk of the population shouldn't go near a wheel even 'unimpaired'.
Not to mention that hardcore DWIs will drive under suspension, anyway.
Perhaps, to carry your (correct, IMHO) gun analogy further, the requiremnts for a driver's license should be much more rigorous.
Reminds me of the joke about the economist commenting on some public policy initiative:
"Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
fwiw, i never expressed as to whether alcohol should be more OR less regulated.
i merely pointed out that the language used by the OP was incorrect/imprecise and fails to recognize the problem.
I have wondered if, when you turn 18, you should get endorsements on your license - F for firearms, A to buy booze, D for drugs, whatever. If you do something inappropriate with a gun, or commit lack of anger management type crimes, you lose the F. If you do something inappropriate involving booze - DWI, picking fights at a bar while drunk, whatever, you lose the A for some period of years. Then card everyone, and make it a minor crime to knowingly supply a prohibited person.
It wouldn't stop a determined drunk, of course, but it seems to make more sense than just letting someone walk into the liquor store the day after a DWI and stock up, and it minimizes the impact on everyone who isn't imposing externalities on society.
and note. i never claimed i agreed or disagreed with ANY ideas about alcohol POLICY
my argument was purely semantic. that the OP's claim that ALCOHOL caused all this woe and misery is imprecise. it fails to address the fact that MISUSE of alcohol is the culprit.
i know better than most the crap that alcoholics, abusers, etc. inflict on themselves and on society.
The same argument can be made for food, tobacco, cars, or anything whose costs are supported in the public environment. In this scenario, public costs will be transferred to their users to support the public expense in managing the problem. We see how well this worked in the tobacco settlement. We are also seeing the same problem played out in the any gasoline tax/road repair debate.
In any case freedom and personal responsibility are diminished by this practice. After all, why should I quit drinking, I am paying for my pleasure through my taxes?
Yup. This is America. Your ideologically based approach will get you traction with perhaps 10% of the population. You just lost the public policy debate.
No, I recognize that I live in a society that sees individual liberty as valueless.
except policy issues aside (makes sense) , drinking alcohol, let alone drinking and drivign is in no way, shape or form a right.
guns are.
so, while we may disagree about specific policies, i am totally fine in general, with much stricter regulation of alcohol, than of guns.
for example.
i think a good argument could be made that criminalizing driving after ANY alcohol consumption (.02 or above) might be good policy.
it would save metric a**loads of dumb litigating during DUI trials, unless one made it a lesser crime (driving after any consumption vs. dui - the latter being a more serious charge), and it would draw a nice bright line.
I would agree with you. The primary intended purpose of gun ownership of the Second Amendment is a critical right; alcohol consumption isn't in the same category of criticality.
I agree. I would argue for a period of time, perhaps eight hours, after consumption, because that is even more of a bright line, and not dependent on individual metabolism, weight, etc.
If that other 90% thinks its okay to use government to interfere with their neighbors, then they're simply wrong and I have no desire to join them. The proper response to "He took away my right to do X!" should not be "Well, I'll take away his right to do Z!" If you get into that game, you're no better than they are.
The people who love freedom do ourselves a disservice every time we cave in and accept the premises of somebody like this Phillip Cook. When we do so, it merely gives them sanction to continue their aggression against our liberties. At the very least, we should demand that they justify any suggested government action by showing in the first instance what moral right the government has to regulate in this area. A pure social utility analysis could justify bans or prohibitive taxation on everything from rock climbing to homosexuality, so what is the social engineer's logical reason for drawing the lines where they do (assuming they draw any such lines at all for anything other than purely political considerations.)
Wow. That's either terribly imprecise or an extreme version of constitutionalism, not libertarianism.
Yes, alcohol is the most loved &used, scourge of society, but as a legal substance, its not easy to clean things up at all ! Whats even worse, here in Canada, we have a large number of Government Liquor Stores, with the lowest prices &usually the largest selection, with better locations. Having said that, unfortuantely, all the profits go straight down Gov't coffers ! Therefore, our many efforts trying to convince them, of needed Health Warning Labels, for every container, appears to go completely unnoticed !! Then there's the large number of individuals, suffering with life time health afflictions, caused only from liquor consumption, are too embarressed &ashamed to speak out, warning others, especially our youth, who need to be alerted !
What do you think will happen, when us old farts are in nursing homes, being spoon fed &diaperred, who's going to take over our many Professions ?? If young people have destroyed their health earlier in life, from the almighty drink ?!?
May God help us all.......!
Yes, alcohol is the most loved &used, scourge of society, but as a legal substance, its not easy to clean things up at all ! Whats even worse, here in Canada, we have a large number of Government Liquor Stores, with the lowest prices &usually the largest selection, with better locations. Having said that, unfortuantely, all the profits go straight down Gov't coffers ! Therefore, our many efforts trying to convince them, of needed Health Warning Labels, for every container, appears to go completely unnoticed !! Then there's the large number of individuals, suffering with life time health afflictions, caused only from liquor consumption, are too embarressed &ashamed to speak out, warning others, especially our youth, who need to be alerted !
What do you think will happen, when us old farts are in nursing homes, being spoon fed &diaperred, who's going to take over our many Professions ?? If young people have destroyed their health earlier in life, from the almighty drink ?!?
May God help us all.......!
Yes, alcohol is the most loved &used, scourge of society, but as a legal substance, its not easy to clean things up at all ! Whats even worse, here in Canada, we have a large number of Government Liquor Stores, with the lowest prices &usually the largest selection, with better locations. Having said that, unfortuantely, all the profits go straight down Gov't coffers ! Therefore, our many efforts trying to convince them, of needed Health Warning Labels, for every container, appears to go completely unnoticed !! Then there's the large number of individuals, suffering with life time health afflictions, caused only from liquor consumption, are too embarressed &ashamed to speak out, warning others, especially our youth, who need to be alerted !
What do you think will happen, when us old farts are in nursing homes, being spoon fed &diaperred, who's going to take over our many Professions ?? If young people have destroyed their health earlier in life, from the almighty drink ?!?
May God help us all.......!
Of course, piloting an aircraft while impaired or hung over strikes me as at least a not very thinly veiled suicide attempt.
no, it's not.
libertarianism doesn't mean we pretend driving is a right (hint: it isn't). libertarianism recognizes that many things that are NOT rights under the constitution, should still be free from govt. scrutiny, regulation, etc.
those are two different things. one speaks to constitutional law, the other to policy.
for example, as a libertarian, i am for decriminalization of mj.
it does not therefore follow that there is a RIGHT to smoke mj.
on another constitutional note, i do believe that govt. prosecution of medical MJ users and clinics (otherwise legal under state law) IS a constitutional violation, as well as a violation of the principle of federalism. sorry, but growing your own MJ to smoke as legal medical MJ should not fall under the "commerce clause" unless one redefines commerce to mean "anything the scotus wants to pretend it means"
I actually think that there is a good argument that federal laws regulating drug use (except through the interstate commerce clause) are unconstitutional. It appears that Congress shared that same view when it passed the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1906--hence the very complex tax stamp structure, later borrowed for the National Firearms Act (where even proponents admitted that Congress lacked authority to pass a ban on machine guns).
The states, however, are not similarly limited by the U.S. Constitution. Enormous authority was reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, especially in the area of public health, safety, and morals. Not every such law is automatically sensible--but it takes something more than, "The Constitution is a libertarian document" to demonstrate that state laws are unconstitutional.
1. Get locked up.
2. Armed revolution.
3. Move.
Am I happy with how much power 90% of Americans think the government should have? No, not really. The strongest argument for limited government is that most people are paying no attention to public policy questions, and make voting decisions for the most absurd and foolish reasons.
I also recognize that the concerns that drive much of governmental authority are based on the substantial damage associated with many of those items and practices that are regulated. You have two choices on how to deal with this:
1. Get high and mighty about the government should not care if people are ruining their own lives, and those of others around them, and let them starve to death in the streets.
2. Try to focus public policy questions on what makes sense. Does raising the tax on alcoholic beverages actually reduce the very real problems associated with misuse? Would we better off trying to educate people about the hazards of misuse? Fining and punishing misuse of alcohol? Discouraging those with alcohol problems from buying alcohol through some sort of background check system?
You may feel very superior taking approach #1. But it is rather like Mark Twain observed: "Clothes make the man. Naked people have very little influence on society."
If libertarians were anything but a tiny fraction of Americans, your arguments would be persuasive. But they aren't. Most Americans want the government to intervene in a variety of social areas. Most Americans believe that the government has an obligation to provide at least basic needs of life, such as food, shelter, and at least emergency medical care. This isn't new; Blackstone's Commentaries explains that this is part of a Christian commonwealth, and most Americans still share this view (including nearly all Republicans that I have ever met). (Liberals come up with non-Christian rationalizations instead for the welfare state.)
Once you have opened Pandora's box by providing these basic needs, you then have opened up the question of how far should the government go in regulating self-harm. People that eat until they weigh 400 pounds are a major public health problem. So are people that smoke, or drink to excess, or use at least some of the psychoactive illegal drugs (such as marijuana, meth, heroin, cocaine. Ditto for most couch potatoes. People that insist on having random, unprotected anal sex with strangers put themselves at enormous risk of getting AIDS. Highly promiscuous sex has a lesser, but not trivial set of STD problems. All of these create a terrible public policy decision:
1. Let people do what they want, and get stuck with enormous medical bills because Americans want basic care provided for the incompetent or hopelessly stupid.
2. Try to rein in some of the excesses of licentious behavior.
Option 3--a libertarian society where we let people die in the streets because of their stupidity--isn't available. Not even close.
i agree that there is a least an argument in re: the federal aspect. i DEFINITELY think that raiding people in various states, by the feds, who are legally possessing their own homegrown under medical mj IS unconstitutional, because there is no "commerce"
fwiw, and thanx for the props, i look at it this way.
good law can be unconstitutional
really bad law can be constitutional.
that keeps me away from pretending that just cause i think the law is bad, that it is necessary uncosntitutional.
as a libertarian, when it comes to policy, there is a huge burden to overcome for ANY legislation that restricts liberty.
imo, people are too quick to cede liberty.
That freedom from the government is called "liberty". It's a "right" (see e.g. the Declaration of Independence).
Cowardly ad homenim much? You don't have any idea what my policy preferences are.
that's a nice opinion, but i was referring to constitutional rights. read the post again. the declaration of independence is many things, but it does not lay out constitutional rights. that pesky little thing called the constitution does.
that's const. law 101.
the declaration of independence is an inspiring document, a rationale for our breaking away from england, and it's a good read.
but if you want to find out what rights the framers recognized, check out that thing called the constitution.
hth
"liberty" is a concept by which you can argue policy. i do. see: libertarianism.
but it is not an argument about constitutional rights.
for example. driving is not a constitutional right. the govt. sets all sorts of regulations/limitations on driving behaviors, licensing, etc.
it has significant latitude to do so, because ... despite the fact that these regulations impinge on liberty... there is no (constitutional) right to drive.
etc.