We shouldn’t emulate Swedish liquor laws

Re: “More alcohol will mean more injuries,” column, Aug. 16.

In his recent column, Trevor Hancock suggests that studies have concluded that deregulation coupled with privatization of government-run liquor stores results in an increase in alcohol consumption and its associated negative outcomes. The article goes on to discuss the Swedish-government owned-and-operated model as being one that we should emulate in B.C.

A closer look at Sweden’s alcohol policies suggests that their success in constraining consumption is more a result of elevated pricing and reduced availability than it is of public ownership of retail outlets. In Sweden, drinking alcohol is less socially acceptable than it is in other Western countries, and citizens appear to accept the government’s restrictive approach to alcohol sales.

I think that many British Columbians share Hancock’s public-health concerns in relation to alcohol, but perhaps not to the extent that they would accept Sweden’s alcohol policies. I say this because implementing Sweden’s liquor regulations in B.C. would involve doubling the price of alcohol, reducing the number of retail liquor outlets by two-thirds and cutting store hours by a third.

Notably, Sweden’s reduced store hours involve remaining closed during peak demand periods.

There does not appear to be any evidence that private-sector retail liquor outlets operating in adherence to regulations are any less safe than those operated by government. On the other hand, making any desirable product more accessible is likely to increase consumption — and making it less accessible is likely to reduce consumption. Kim Lonsdale Qualicum Beach