Price Control
At least half of the trauma that comes into an emergency department is alcohol related. The cost to the community is simply staggering, both in terms of health and in terms of money (at least $2 billion a year). Several emergency department specialists have spoken out and have suggested that the price of alcohol should be raised substantially. This, they surmise will reduce the number of alcohol related injures and associated health problems. It is almost a pity that they are wrong.
It is true that raising the price of something reduces its use. This same argument was used for smoking and it worked reasonably well. Rates of smoking fell sharply with raised prices. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to the fact that the people who gave up smoking where the ones originally smoking only low numbers of cigarettes and they did not have addictive personalities. In other words, price controls simply weeded out the one’s who weren’t hooked. Those who were addicted to smoking continued to pay the higher prices. As these people were predominantly in the low-income bracket, high cigarette prices made their budgets far worse. Addicts in higher income brackets sought help and were able to give up more easily, partly due to peer pressure.
Although the consequences were not good for poorer people, at least smoking rates were reduced. As smoking has no safe limit, this translates to substantial future health benefits.
Unfortunately, the story for alcohol is quite different. Low to moderate drinking has little or no downside and possible health benefits in terms of reduced heart disease. There is a maximum safe limit (10 standard drinks a week and maximum 2/day). Raising the price of alcohol will certainly deter safe drinking, but will do little or nothing to curb binge drinkers and absolutely nothing to stop alcoholics. These are the very people who crowd our emergency departments. I predict that doubling the price of alcohol would make half of New Zealand virtually teetotal, but only drop alcohol related trauma by a few percent (10% if we are lucky)
It would also make my wine collection very valuable – so go ahead please! 
Related posts:
- Alcopopped The government is revisiting the drinking age as part of...
- Subsidized Price There is a nice illustration in the Dom Post of...
- Drinking Your Way to Cancer Here’s a piece of research that will make the Food...
- Pushing the Limit I see the police are attempting to revive the debate...
- The Revised Price of Life Just a quick update to the famous Herceptin saga. The...
Dec 14 08 9:47 am
Agree with you. Take the Nia Glassie household.. 3-4 adults, one working, child and housing assistance.. net income north of $50,000 plus “extras” from dope and/or petty crime. Costs pretty much minimal, no car that I ever saw there, plus the benefits of communal living. Plenty of money for booze and plenty enough even after a big rise in the cost of.
Repeat that exercise throughout NZ with a father/mother/daughters with kids/sons and hangers on.. or the other common one where everything is in the solo mother’s name and there’s a floating population in and out.
Sex, food and a roof are commodities with “in kind” trading values, alcohol being one. A little while ago the authorities did an input/output study on Murupara.. outgoings exceeded income by 20% or more.. thousands per household. If you put up the price of alcohol the unofficial “income” will rise to meet the extra costs.
We are not dealing with “just” an alcohol problem, but a way of life which has its own way of sourcing and pricing commodities. It’s the communities around these disfunctional units that bear the costs, and the health system.
JC