More booze isn’t what the doctor ordered
Raising price of booze could prevent harm, help cover Canada’s post-pandemic tab
DAPHNE BRAMHAM
Uncertainty and anxiety, job losses, pay cuts, isolation, and fears about getting or transmitting COVID-19 — it’s taking a toll on all of us.
When I Zoomed into my book club meeting this week, I asked what everyone was doing to stay happy. All but one of the participants raised a wine glass; the only holdout quickly said she simply hadn’t had time to pour one.
Alcohol is overwhelmingly Canadians’ legal drug of choice. So much so that most governments, including B.C.’S, declared liquor stores to be essential services during the pandemic.
To reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 as we wait in liquor store lines, most governments have even made it easier for us to get our fix, with restaurants and liquor stores now allowed to deliver beer, wine and even cocktails.
They have done so, even while research indicates that the easier it is to get liquor, the more we drink. And, the more we drink, the more likely we are to die as a result of alcohol-related harm, from diseases to traffic accidents.
To be fair, politicians and public health officials are making decisions during a pandemic that is ravaging both lives and economies.
But they’re also spending money like drunken sailors, which is an apt introduction to an idea that Tim Stockwell, director of the Canadian Institute on Substance Use Research (CISUR), has been banging away at for years.
Raise the price.
It’s an idea that could help governments facing post-pandemic debt hangovers, as well as dampen Canadians’ enthusiasm for drinking while they shelter at home, waiting for a vaccine to be found.
Despite being derided as a “sin” tax, government revenue from liquor sales is less than the cost taxpayers incur for alcohol-related harms.
Stockwell was lead author of CISUR’S 2019 study that found Canadian governments’ $10.9 billion in annual alcohol-related revenue recovered only three-quarters of the $14.6 billion in alcohol-related costs of policing, courts, jails, health care and lost productivity.
In the territories, that gap skyrockets, with Nunavut getting only $1.75 million in revenue, despite overall harm costs of $43 million.
In Alberta, costs are more than double the revenue, while Ontario pays out $1.4 billion more than it earns, and B.C.’S costs exceed revenue by more than $300 million.
“Alcohol should be made to pay its way,” Stockwell said this week.
The simplest and most effective way would be to set a national minimum price. Stockwell suggests $1.75 for a beer, regular pour of wine or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor.
Taxation should also be based on how much ethanol — the intoxicating ingredient — is in the beverage. If it were, cheap sherry wouldn’t exist.
While that might not be good for Granny’s pocketbook or hardcore drinkers, a tax based on alcohol content wouldn’t affect the vast majority of drinkers.
The benefits, however, would be three-fold.
“Governments would make a lot more money. Industry would make more. And all of us would be less likely to have (alcohol-related) injuries,” Stockwell said.
Liver disease, epilepsy, several types of cancer and poisonings, along with injuries from road traffic accidents, physical and sexual assaults and other crimes have all been linked to alcohol use.
In 2014, 14,800 Canadians died of alcohol-related diseases and injuries, according to the CISUR study. There were also 87,900 hospital admissions and 139,000 years of lost productivity.
Over the last 100 days, we have come to know and trust our public health officials. We have obeyed their orders, even the painful ones that have separated us from our beloved elders. We have (mostly) followed their advice to stay at home, wash our hands frequently and maintain physical distance. Most political leaders have also moved swiftly on their advice, even on contentious policies such as temporarily supplying safe drugs, including hydromorphone, benzodiazepines, alcohol and tobacco to addicts to encourage physical distancing.
From a public health perspective, everything possible should be done to discourage consumption. Although many of us are using alcohol to self-medicate at a time of heightened stress and anxiety, the truth is that it actually makes things worse.
Alcohol is also linked to higher rates of public assaults, as well as physical and sexual assaults behind closed doors, and child neglect, which is why the World Health Organization recommended restricting access to alcohol during the pandemic.
It’s why both Greenland and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut have banned it, and why a number of First Nations leaders have urged other governments to follow suit.
Drinking heavily also increases the risk of respiratory infections. Not good at the best of times, it could be fatal now.
From an economic standpoint, there is no downside.
So why not do this now?