I have been dismayed to read much of the comment around the Commonwealth’s plan to raise taxation on ‘alcopops’ in an effort to curb the risks associated with binge drinking. While there should be no surprise that the opposition have rubbished it and alcohol industry groups are unhappy, the general critiques that I've seen are very poor. As ever, of the commentaries, the Herald Sun leads the way in outrage. One that really got me riled up (enough to post about it here), was a piece in Crikey titled ‘Voodoo tax policy on alcopops’.
In it, Bernard Keane speaks of ‘handwringers’ and ‘wowsers’ with a set against kids having fun. He claims that “we’ve still yet to see any evidence that binge drinking is now any worse than in the past”, and makes particular note that the tax ‘attacks’ young women unequally. In not sure where he has been looking, but a quick note of the stats around alcohol-related hospital admissions, alcohol-related family incidents (mostly domestic violence), alcohol-related assaults (particularly those committed by females), and alcohol-related deaths will give you plenty of evidence that the harms around the misuse of alcohol are very real, and have risen with regards to oung women. Only on alcohol-related serious road injuries can you seriously claim that ‘things are better’. [For a snapshot, see: Anne-Marie Laslett, Paul Dietz & Sharon Matthews, A Summary of Alcohol-related Harm for Victorian Local Government Areas 2005.]
While I agree that talk of an ‘epidemic’ is not particularly helpful, we have had in Australia an unhealthy attitude towards alcohol for quite a long time now. Remember, problems around alcohol problem use (and misuse) are much more complex than simple consumption per person. We have to ask: ‘who is drinking?’; ‘where it is being drunk?’, ‘why are people drinking?’, ‘what are they doing when drunk?’. At the heart of this is exploring and understanding the ‘culture’ of alcohol consumption and the behaviours that accompany it. Moreover, we have to ask what are the risks that arise from this culture? To do this properly, we must consider the links of alcohol 'misuse' to domestic violence, sexual assault, as well as violence more generally, and think about the costs to the wider community.
Similarly, while some of the talk of ‘windfall’ tax revenue is just plain stupid (the intention should be on eliminating the market, not raising revenue), the notion that any initial windfall should be directed towards preventative health programs seems eminently sensible to me.
I think that the saddest part of the piece though is the condecending sneer of the Crikey piece in its self-assurance that the policy shift represents ‘voodoo taxation’, and the assumption that it will never achieve the desired effect. Keane does not appear for a moment to have actually endeavoured to explore the evidence base, rather leap to his inclusion based on his (seeming) contempt for government. What’s more galling is that at the same time he berates Rudd for not having an evidence base! This seems to be a familiar theme in the critiques that I have seen and it drives me up the wall.
You see, most of the contemporary literature demonstrates that disincentives through taxation on alcohol actually work in reducing problem drinking in the long term. Obviously, it will not (and cannot) eliminate it outright, as there will always be a shift in new patterns of drinking. But what we do know is, where such measures have been targeted; hospital admissions through ‘accidents’, street assaults and sexual assaults - all good measures of ‘unsafe’ patterns of drinking - all drop.
Similarly, broad 'catch-all' education programs (which seem to be far more appealing to some) have been proven repeatedly to have minimal impact with regard to shifting 'unsafe' patterns of drinking. At the very least, they are cost ineffective. As one analyst said "if the evidence says they are ineffective, how could they be cost-effective?" This is especially true when one compares it to taxation levers. Targeted, focused education campaigns on particular vulnerable have generally proven more successful, but most are far more cost and time intensive than broader campaigns. In addition, you have to know which vulnerable people to target, and that is not always a category that is a) easily identifiable; or b) easily accessible.
Of course, taxation on its own cannot and will not succeed on its own. Generally, the most successful policy responses that we have seen have been those that combine taxation levers, a review of outlet density and targeted education campaigns. It is early days yet, but some of the early signs are positive that we can see a halfway decent policy response, certainly an advance on what we have seen under the previous government, who appeared oblivious to the precedents elsewhere.
There has been a lot of work done on this, and quite a bit is easily accessible online. Nothing annoys me more than professional commentators who seek to influence public opinion one way or the other who have completely and utterly ignore the huge amount of research out there on the social, cultural and epidemiological studies of alcohol, drugs and gambling behaviour and problems. Similarly, they do not appear to have even looked at all of the research – millions of dollars worth of research – that has been done on the social responses to alcohol and drug problems, and of the measurement of the effects of policy changes. It just seems so unprofessional.
If anyone is still reading my rant here, and is interested in the topic, I would recommend the highly accessible summary of the World Health Organisation report Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. It really is where the cutting edge of the research is at right now, and some of the Australian media could well do to get a hold of it before they comment.
In it, Bernard Keane speaks of ‘handwringers’ and ‘wowsers’ with a set against kids having fun. He claims that “we’ve still yet to see any evidence that binge drinking is now any worse than in the past”, and makes particular note that the tax ‘attacks’ young women unequally. In not sure where he has been looking, but a quick note of the stats around alcohol-related hospital admissions, alcohol-related family incidents (mostly domestic violence), alcohol-related assaults (particularly those committed by females), and alcohol-related deaths will give you plenty of evidence that the harms around the misuse of alcohol are very real, and have risen with regards to oung women. Only on alcohol-related serious road injuries can you seriously claim that ‘things are better’. [For a snapshot, see: Anne-Marie Laslett, Paul Dietz & Sharon Matthews, A Summary of Alcohol-related Harm for Victorian Local Government Areas 2005.]
While I agree that talk of an ‘epidemic’ is not particularly helpful, we have had in Australia an unhealthy attitude towards alcohol for quite a long time now. Remember, problems around alcohol problem use (and misuse) are much more complex than simple consumption per person. We have to ask: ‘who is drinking?’; ‘where it is being drunk?’, ‘why are people drinking?’, ‘what are they doing when drunk?’. At the heart of this is exploring and understanding the ‘culture’ of alcohol consumption and the behaviours that accompany it. Moreover, we have to ask what are the risks that arise from this culture? To do this properly, we must consider the links of alcohol 'misuse' to domestic violence, sexual assault, as well as violence more generally, and think about the costs to the wider community.
Similarly, while some of the talk of ‘windfall’ tax revenue is just plain stupid (the intention should be on eliminating the market, not raising revenue), the notion that any initial windfall should be directed towards preventative health programs seems eminently sensible to me.
I think that the saddest part of the piece though is the condecending sneer of the Crikey piece in its self-assurance that the policy shift represents ‘voodoo taxation’, and the assumption that it will never achieve the desired effect. Keane does not appear for a moment to have actually endeavoured to explore the evidence base, rather leap to his inclusion based on his (seeming) contempt for government. What’s more galling is that at the same time he berates Rudd for not having an evidence base! This seems to be a familiar theme in the critiques that I have seen and it drives me up the wall.
You see, most of the contemporary literature demonstrates that disincentives through taxation on alcohol actually work in reducing problem drinking in the long term. Obviously, it will not (and cannot) eliminate it outright, as there will always be a shift in new patterns of drinking. But what we do know is, where such measures have been targeted; hospital admissions through ‘accidents’, street assaults and sexual assaults - all good measures of ‘unsafe’ patterns of drinking - all drop.
Similarly, broad 'catch-all' education programs (which seem to be far more appealing to some) have been proven repeatedly to have minimal impact with regard to shifting 'unsafe' patterns of drinking. At the very least, they are cost ineffective. As one analyst said "if the evidence says they are ineffective, how could they be cost-effective?" This is especially true when one compares it to taxation levers. Targeted, focused education campaigns on particular vulnerable have generally proven more successful, but most are far more cost and time intensive than broader campaigns. In addition, you have to know which vulnerable people to target, and that is not always a category that is a) easily identifiable; or b) easily accessible.
Of course, taxation on its own cannot and will not succeed on its own. Generally, the most successful policy responses that we have seen have been those that combine taxation levers, a review of outlet density and targeted education campaigns. It is early days yet, but some of the early signs are positive that we can see a halfway decent policy response, certainly an advance on what we have seen under the previous government, who appeared oblivious to the precedents elsewhere.
There has been a lot of work done on this, and quite a bit is easily accessible online. Nothing annoys me more than professional commentators who seek to influence public opinion one way or the other who have completely and utterly ignore the huge amount of research out there on the social, cultural and epidemiological studies of alcohol, drugs and gambling behaviour and problems. Similarly, they do not appear to have even looked at all of the research – millions of dollars worth of research – that has been done on the social responses to alcohol and drug problems, and of the measurement of the effects of policy changes. It just seems so unprofessional.
If anyone is still reading my rant here, and is interested in the topic, I would recommend the highly accessible summary of the World Health Organisation report Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. It really is where the cutting edge of the research is at right now, and some of the Australian media could well do to get a hold of it before they comment.
Comments
As a chronic smoker for most of my life...the one thing that stopped me in the end (apart from watching my mother die from emphysema...a direct result of smoking)was the increased taxation of cigarettes to a point where I could not justify the expenditure anymore. It was not any of the graphic ads or informative literature that abounds.
Like alcohol, the demographic they’re struggling to hit is younger females. For whatever reason, young blokes are quitting smoking at greater levels, and starting up altogether less. Interestingly, here we know that the targeted campaigns that focus on vanity and social status are far far more successful the preventative health campaigns. That is “this hunky guy won’t kiss that stinky girl” or “smoking makes your teeth yellow” are way more likely to get a teenage girl to either stop smoking or not start than “it will kill you” or photos of rotting limbs, pus-filled lungs etc. It goes to show why I’ve never really understood the complex mystery that is teenage girls!