Another plausible explanation relates to the fact that the value of goods depends largely on the local context (e.g. on governmental regulations, as well as supply and demand dynamics). In fact, variations in indirect costs, the main driver of total costs, are primarily driven by average wages, which are known to vary greatly between countries, even in rather homogenous regions with a common market, such as Europe. Standardizing the costs to Int$ may have accounted for some, but not all, of the cross-country variations in the value of goods. On the contrary, applying inflation rates (as has been done in this study) is perhaps sufficient to remove major sources of within-country variation, resulting in high intraclass correlation. While our search was systematic and we did not rely only on standard databases but also on expertise from other researchers, we may not have identified all relevant studies, which are often only published on government websites. As the risk assessment indicated, the overall quality of the studies was rated as being of medium quality, meaning that there are important areas to improve upon.
- Some of these studies specifically have focused on high-risk populations, such as adolescents and young adults.
- Likewise, Dee (1999) and Young and Likens (2000) found that there was little relationship between beer taxes and motor-vehicle fatalities, and the significance of the relationship was very sensitive to the specification of regression models.
- Despite numerous pleas to standardize the methodology (e.g. Møller and Matic [14]), we are still faced with a situation in which many different methodologies to estimate these costs have been used over the past decade [13].
- Alcohol use has been identified as a major risk factor for burden of disease [1–3], leading to the introduction of reduction goals in major UN and other international frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals [4, 5].
- The economic costs that result from alcohol use and abuse provide another strong argument for raising excise taxes on alcoholic beverages.
Costs of Alcohol Abuse
Those suffering from alcoholism may begin overspending family budgets to pay for alcohol, start arguments with their spouse when sobriety is discussed, or even get into physical altercations with them. You’ll also be paying higher insurance rates and must pay for DMV administrative hearings and fees to reinstate your license. Altogether, a first-time DUI offense could potentially cost you anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 when all is said and done. The amount you could be saving each year by not drinking could mean a new car, vacation with your loved ones, or a safety net used for unexpected expenses in the future.
Associated Data
In fact, the same level of maverick sober living alcohol exposure will lead to higher burden in countries with lower levels of education, life expectancy and economic wealth [45]. As we did not account for these and other confounding factors in our analyses, the link between alcohol exposure may not be observable. Moreover, we do not have any external criteria for which to validate our weighting method against, thus we cannot say for certain that key methodological variations between studies were accounted for. Hence, unaccounted methodological differences between studies may have masked the underlying association between costs and alcohol exposure. Given the adverse consequences of alcohol consumption, numerous studies have tried to summarize different impacts of alcohol on harm to society, and economic cost studies have proven to be an important way to achieve this goal [11].
In other words, this measure described the tangible costs attributable to alcohol in 2019 Int$ per adult. Second, we calculated a cost equivalent as a percentage of the GDP by dividing the estimated costs by the location-specific GDP of the same year for which costs were estimated. Many studies have shown that not only social drinking but also abusive drinking (i.e., alcohol dependence and/or binge drinking) is responsive to price, although apparently to a lesser extent.
For example, Nelson (1990) found that the prices were slightly higher in monopoly States compared with prices in license States, whereas MacDonald (1986) concluded the opposite. Several studies focusing on the impact of exclusive territory policies for beer distribution determined that these policies did result in higher beer prices (Culbertson 1989; Culbertson and Bradford 1991; Jordan and Jaffee 1987; Sass and Saurman 1993, 1996). In addition, several studies consistently have demonstrated that current excise taxes are substantially below the “optimal” level when one considers the external costs (i.e., costs borne by nondrinkers or moderate drinkers) of alcohol use.
Your Mental & Physical Health
A few studies that used self-reported drinking-and-driving measures likewise concluded that higher prices or taxes would significantly reduce the probability of nonfatal crashes, particularly among youth (e.g., Chaloupka and Leixuthai 1997; Kenkel 1993). Our findings show that the reported costs from alcohol consumption amount to an equivalent of 1.5–2.6% of the study location’s GDP, with the majority of costs due to productivity losses. We gathered further information on gross domestic product (GDP) and on the prevalence of past-year drinkers from the studies or from external sources if not reported. Other required covariates were adult population size (15 years or older) for the respective jurisdiction, alcohol per capita consumption—an indicator for population alcohol exposure, and regional grouping of countries/locations (henceforth, locations).
These fact sheets highlight the public health problem and the status of alcohol policy solutions in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Though in many states there are protections in place to prevent hiring discrimination based on DUIs and misdemeanors, the reality of it is that sometimes having a DUI or other alcohol-related offense on your record could reduce the chances of getting a job offer. Due to the nature of their work, some companies also have policies against employing drivers with DUIs such as Uber and Lyft. You may also begin suffering from mood swings or have trouble concentrating, which could lead to getting agitated more quickly. When this occurs, it can affect the people you are around, especially if you’re romantically involved with someone.
For instance, only a few studies reported measures of uncertainty for selected estimates, which prohibits a complete meta-analytical summary of cost estimates. Furthermore, intangible costs were estimated in very different ways, again prohibiting meta-analytical aggregation. Lastly, indirect costs were mostly calculated following a human capital approach, which make the findings more comparable, but introduces the risk of overestimation costs as the underlying assumptions may not hold true. Costs calculated under the human capital approach heavily depend on the discount rate, yet there is no consensus on which rate is to be used [14]; thus, this will continue to be a what is mary jane drug limitation when comparing cost studies. We calculated two indicators to compare the economic costs attributable to alcohol use across different countries and years.
Most recent research, however, consistently has documented an inverse association between prices (i.e., beer taxes) and traffic fatalities (Elder et al. 2010; Makela and Osterberg 2009; McCarthy 2003; Ponicki et al. 2007; Wagenaar et al. 2010; Young and Bielinska-Kwapisz 2006). For example, using alcohol taxes as instrumental variables to correct measurement errors in price data, Young and Bielinska-Kwapisz (2006) found that higher prices of alcoholic beverages significantly reduced motor-vehicle fatalities. Elder and colleagues (2010), in a review of 11 studies, concluded that the relationship between alcohol prices or taxes and injuries and deaths from motor-vehicle crashes generally was significant and of a comparable magnitude to the relationship between these variables and alcohol consumption. Finally, a meta-analysis of 34 independent estimates also confirmed the statistically significant inverse association (Wagenaar et al. 2010). One commonly used concept in economic studies exploring the impacts of prices on drinking behaviors is termed the price elasticity of the demand for alcohol.
Are there other options for people with limited financial resources?
For (a), we used the two cost indicators (Int$ per adult and % GDP) from all studies reporting both direct and indirect costs and calculated the unweighted Pearson correlation. We repeated the correlation analyses applying study weights in order to account for possible distortions in the correlation introduced by variations in including cost components. Of 1708 studies identified, 29 were included, and the mean costs of alcohol use amounted to 817.6 Int$ per adult (95% confidence interval [CI] 601.8–1033.4), equivalent to 1.5% of the GDP (95% CI 1.2–1.7%).
Share of Direct and Indirect Costs
Summaries of such studies were published more than a decade ago [8, 9] (for a systematic review restricted to the European Union, see Barrio et al. [12]), while several dozen additional studies have been published since [13]. Alcohol-attributable costs to society are captured by cost-of-illness studies, however estimates are often not comparable, e.g. do alcoholics get red noses due to the omission of relevant cost components. In this contribution we (1) summarize the societal costs attributable to alcohol use, and (2) estimate the total costs under the assumption that all cost components are considered.
These weights represented not only an indicator of study quality but further served to estimate the tangible costs under the assumption that all relevant cost indicators were included in the estimates. The calculation of weights started at the lowest level of costs (for a definition of cost levels, see above). First, the relative contribution of each cost category was determined by the share of costs determined by each category, averaged over all studies.
Although the findings are mixed about the relative price sensitivity of abusive and nonabusive drinkers, most studies have reported that heavy/frequent drinkers normally are less responsive to price changes than light/infrequent drinkers. Thus, the estimated price elasticity of abusive drinkers ranges from −0.01 to −0.10 (Chaloupka and Laixuthai 1997; Chaloupka and Wechsler 1996; Cook and Moore 2000; French et al. 2006; Keng and Huffman 2007; Kenkel 1993, 1996; Laixuthai and Chaloupka 1993, Sloan et al. 1995; Stout et al. 2000). A more recent review of 10 studies on the effects of alcohol prices on various measures of alcohol abuse indicated that the average price elasticity was −0.28 (Wagenaar et al. 2009). Excise taxes create a wedge between the price that producers receive for their products and the final retail price that consumers pay. From a theoretical perspective, increases in excise taxes therefore automatically should lead to increases in the final retail prices of alcoholic beverages. The extent to which changes in excise taxes can be passed on to the final prices is an empirical question.
Furthermore, harm attributable to alcohol is not restricted to health but comprises many other aspects of life and sustainable development, such as criminal behaviour [7] and loss of economic productivity (e.g. Rehm et al. and Thavorncharoensap et al. [8, 9]). A recent WHO report describes how alcohol consumption undermines commitments to achieve 13 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, by impacting on not only a range of health-related indicators but also on economic and social development, the environment, and equality [10]. Compared with studies based on aggregated data (mainly State alcohol-beverage sales), studies using individual self-reported alcohol consumption generally found that the demand for alcohol was more responsive to price (Chaloupka et al. 2002; Fogarty 2006; Gallet 2007; Wagenaar et al. 2009). For example, Wagenaar and colleagues (2009), on the basis of an analysis of 112 studies using various types of data, indicated that the average elasticities were −0.46 for beer, −0.69 for wine, and −0.80 for spirits. Likewise, Gallet (2007) showed that among 300 estimates, the median elasticities were −0.36, −0.70, and −0.68 for beer, wine, and spirits, respectively. The Community Preventive Services Task Force—an independent, nonfederal, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts—recommends several evidence-based strategies to reduce excessive alcohol use and related harms at the population level.