Vermeervan Delft.geb 1632-1775

David Teniers 1610 – 1690

American Alcohol Consumption

The Alcoholic Republic, 1800-1855

Americans steadily drank more and more whiskey during the early 1800s
as supply increased and price tumbled. The annual per capita consumption
of distilled spirits in 1830 was five gallons–nearly five times the
amount people consume today. Like rum, whiskey was legal tender. People
bartered with whiskey, paid their taxes with whiskey, and on some
occasions, paid their ministers’ salaries with whiskey. It was also a
dietary staple because the supply of other beverages was unreliable and
water sometimes carried disease.

Liquor and socializing were closely entwined. Taverns and inns served
as important community centers. They sheltered and fed travelers and
often served as the local trading post, post office, auction house,
courtroom, polling place, recruiting and militia office, stage coach
depot, and liquor retailer. As community gathering spots, they encouraged
patrons to drink and smoke–often and in great quantities.

As whiskey consumption accelerated, drunkenness increased so markedly
that it caused widespread community complaint and commentary. Family
violence also became a more visible fact of life. Accounts of inebriate
mothers neglecting their children spread, but these stories were
outnumbered by incidents of wife and child beating.

These social ills coupled with rising incidents of alcohol-related
illnesses alarmed many Americans, giving rise to a temperance movement
between 1820 and 1850. The cries for temperance–moderate use of
alcohol–and for complete abstinence swept across the United States with
a wave of religious revivals. Secular societies also organized, including
the Washingtonians, a support group similar to today’s Alcoholics
Anonymous. As a result of the temperance movement, drinking rates sharply
dropped from five gallons per capita in 1830 to less than two gallons in
1840.

In California bicycles are not included within the definition of a motor
vehicle therefore license suspensions or violations are not applicable to
a bike. But section 21200.5 of the Vehicle Code does make it illegal to
operate a bicycle upon a highway a misdemeanor and punishable under such
law. The difference being one does not have to take a chemical test, you
may be asked to and the implied consent rule would follow (license
suspension if you don’t complete it or later refuse). And remember all
violations with a bicycle do not go on your license since you don’t need
to have a license to ride a bicycle, according to California Vehcile
Code: 1803

Thursday, March 8, 2001

Many Bicyclists Drunk in Accidents

By Ira Dreyfuss

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – As a drunken bicyclist, Martin Guttenplan thought he was
doing fine. “I was pretty giddy and could hardly ride the bike, but I
thought I did a great job,” said Guttenplan, a Florida state
transportation planner who got deliberately drunk to demonstrate how
alcohol affects bike riding.

Guttenplan teaches bike education for the League of American
Bicyclists, a riders’ group. He was on a test course for a segment of the
TV program “Inside Edition.” He had reached a 0.12 percent blood-alcohol
level 0.08 percent can get a person arrested in Florida.

“I moved way out into the lane. I was going on the wrong side of the
cones. All those sorts of things,” Guttenplan recalled of the segment,
shot about three years ago. “But what was most scary about it was that,
in that state, I thought I was doing OK. Any sense of judgment was also
affected.”

Guttenplan’s experience is reflected in a new study. Researchers at
Johns Hopkins, reviewing 124 Maryland accidents involving cyclists ages
15 years or older, found that 24 percent of those who died and 9 percent
of those seriously injured had blood-alcohol levels of 0.02 percent or
higher.

“The great majority of the ones who had been drinking were above 0.10
percent, which is the Maryland point at which you are considered to be
impaired,” said researcher Susan P. Baker. “The average blood-alcohol
concentration was 0.18 percent, which is very, very high.”

Riding a bike takes more physical ability than driving a car, yet many
of the riders in the accidents were pretty far gone, Baker said. At a
blood-alcohol concentration of 0.18 percent, “you or I probably would not
be able to find our bicycles,” she said. “It suggests to me that, if they
can ride bicycles with blood-alcohol concentrations that high, they are
probably pretty serious drinkers.”

Risks of injury rose with the blood-alcohol level, the study found. At
0.08 percent, the risk was 20 times the level faced by people with levels
below 0.02 percent.

The researchers compared those cases to 342 other cyclists who were
stopped later at the same places and times of day of the accidents. Those
riders were given breath tests to determine blood-alcohol levels.

About 3 percent of the random rider sample had blood-alcohol levels of
0.02 percent or more. However, the data probably understate the
prevalence and danger of drunken biking, said the report in the Feb. 21
issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings
only cover daylight accidents, because researchers felt it unsafe to have
investigators out at night for the onsite surveys. “Alcohol is even more
of a problem at night,” Baker said.

Researchers also found that drunken riders were less likely to wear
helmets. Thirty-five percent of the interviewed riders wore helmets,
compared with 5 percent of those in accidents. Perhaps the riders in the
accidents did not own a helmet or chose not to put one on, the report
speculated. Another possibility is that the riders were too impaired to
realize they needed a helmet, it said.

Although the study did not examine it, Baker suspected many of the
injured riders had taken to biking because they had lost their drivers’
licenses due to driving under the influence of alcohol.

A police officer in Boulder, Colo., has found this often to be the
case in his area. “I would say maybe 30 percent are people who don’t have
a license because of DUI restrictions,” said Sgt. Rob Bustrom. “They are
trying an alternate mode, but they haven’t quit the DUI part of it.”

Drivers and cyclists under the influence commonly think their ability
is greater than the alcohol tests reveal, Bustrom said. “Most people
involved in the testing feel they are doing real good … when they
don’t,” he said.

———————————————————————-

Friday, February 13, 2004

Drunken Bicyclists Could Catch Break

By Dan Tuohy

Staff Writer

CONCORD — A Senate committee passed a bill yesterday to exclude
bicycles from state motor vehicle laws so a bicyclist riding under the
influence of alcohol would not face the same penalties as a drunken
automobile driver.

Sen. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry, a sponsor of the bill, drafted an
amendment to treat bicyclists under a separate violation with a $350
fine. A bicyclist subject to the penalty would not suffer the loss of his
motor vehicle license, nor face automatic license suspension, he
said.

Current state law for the “rules of the road” holds that anyone riding
a bicycle is subject to the same duties applicable to the driver of any
other “vehicle” on the road.

The standard was put to the test last year when Timothy Bradley of
Londonderry was arrested and charged with riding his bicycle while
drunk.

Bradley, 44, of Auburn Road, pleaded guilty to reckless conduct in
connection with the case and the Londonderry police dropped the charge of
driving while intoxicated. He was riding a bicycle after losing his
license on a previous drunken-driving case in Massachusetts. He insisted
he was not drunk. When he refused to take a sobriety test, police took
him into custody and charged him with DWI, which for a second offense
carried a penalty up to a year in jail, a $2,000 fine, and extended loss
of driving privileges.

Richard Monteith, an attorney for Bradley, had argued the state’s
drunken driving law for motor vehicles did not extend to bicycles.

Local police and Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams disagreed.

The full Senate will consider the amended bill next week. Sapareto,
whose cosponsor is Rep. Richard Morris, R-Seabrook, said he does not
propose the change in any way to condone or encourage people to ride
their bikes when intoxicated.

But Sapareto insisted that riding a bicycle is not the same as
operating a motor vehicle. He initially proposed the change to clarify
state law.

“So now there is no gray area for prosecutors,” he said.

As far as driving while intoxicated prohibitions go, the bill would
also exempt wheelchairs from the definition of “motor vehicle.”

The Legislature is looking into several other DWI reforms this year,
including a bill to increase the penalty for drivers found to be under
the influence when they are carrying a passenger under the age of 16.

Rep. Robert L’Heureux, R-Merrimack, the sponsor of the bill, said the
penalty of aggravated DWI, a misdemeanor, would bring a minimum fine of
$500 and a mandatory loss of a driver’s license for at least one
year.

All References in the Bible of the Theme Drunkenness

DEU 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son
is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton,
and a drunkard.

DEU 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones,
that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel
shall hear, and fear.

DEU 29:19 And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this
curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace,
though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to
thirst:

DEU 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD
and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that
are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out
his name from under heaven.

SA1 1:14 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put
away thy wine from thee.

PSA 69:12 They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the
song of the drunkards.

PRO 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is
deceived thereby is not wise.

PRO 21:17 He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth
wine and oil shall not be rich.

PRO 23:20 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: PRO
23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and
drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

PRO 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who
hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of
eyes?

PRO 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed
wine.

PRO 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth
his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

PRO 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an
adder. PRO 23:33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart
shall utter perverse things.

PRO 23:34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the
sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.

PRO 23:35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick;
they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek
it yet again.

PRO 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink
wine; nor for princes strong drink:

PRO 31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment
of any of the afflicted.

PRO 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine
unto those that be of heavy hearts.

PRO 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his
misery no more.

ISA 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they
may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame
them!

ISA 5:12 And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine,
are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither
consider the operation of his hands.

ISA 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of
strength to mingle strong drink:

ISA 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the
righteousness of the righteous from him!

ISA 19:14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst
thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a
drunken man staggereth in his vomit.

ISA 24:9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be
bitter to them that drink it.

ISA 24:11 There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is
darkened, the mirth of the land is gone.

ISA 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose
glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat
valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

ISA 28:3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be
trodden under feet:

ISA 28:4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat
valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the
summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his
hand he eateth it up.

ISA 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong
drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through
strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way
through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

ISA 56:12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill
ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much
more abundant.

JER 25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of
hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall,
and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.

HOS 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart. HOS 7:5
In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with bottles of
wine; he stretched out his hand with scorners.

HOS 7:14 And they have not cried unto me with their heart, when they
howled upon their beds: they assemble themselves for corn and wine, and
they rebel against me.

JOE 1:5 Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of
wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth.

JOE 3:3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy
for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.

AMO 2:8 And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by
every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of
their god.

AMO 2:12 But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink; and commanded the
prophets, saying, Prophesy not.

MIC 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying,
I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be
the prophet of this people.

NAH 1:10 For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they
are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully
dry.

HAB 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest
thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on
their nakedness!

HAB 2:16 Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and
let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD’s right hand shall be
turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.

MAT 24:49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and
drink with the drunken;

MAT 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh
not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

MAT 24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with
the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

LUK 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth
his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to
eat and drink, and to be drunken;

LUK 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh
not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in
sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

LUK 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and
so that day come upon you unawares.

ROM 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and
drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and
envying.

CO1 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any
man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one
no not to eat.

CO1 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

CO1 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GAL 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

GAL 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies,

GAL 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

EPH 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled
with the Spirit;

EPH 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

EPH 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

EPH 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

TH1 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be
drunken are drunken in the night.

Alcohol: the American Experience

The history of alcohol consumption in the United States could even
predate the arrival of the Puritans if we are to believe that the
Vikings, on their adventurous voyage of exploration, resulted in the
discovery of Vineland. The Vikings always carried with them a supply of
their favorite beverage: mead. an alcoholic beverage made of fermented
honey. Which probably explains why they ended up on the northeast coast
of the American continent rather than their intended destination.
Historical records aside, I really doubt if they had intended to sail
more than 3,000 miles in open sea in a craft designed for fjords and calm
inland waters.

Moving on (about 700 years on), the first settlers who set foot on
Plymouth rock were Puritans who we had painted in the bleakest colors.
The popular imagination holds an odd ambivalence toward the Puritans.
While insisting on seeing them as the origin of America, it is equally
insistent on describing them as dour, irascible, self-righteous,
hypocritical people who hated sex, joy, and life. They dressed in black,
they hated nature, they burned witches, and they repressed all natural
desires. Imagine if you will, the pilgrims as present-d ay hard-core
Muslim extremists. It doesn’t take much imagination or reading to discern
as much. American literature of the time is littered with novels such as
the Scarlet Letter. Had there been a logic to history, we would be living
in a country no different from Saudi Arabia or Iran. But that did not
happen. History’s progress knows no such logic.

Actually, the Pilgrims’ history offers ample evidence that they
carried with them a supply of good old English ale, the brewing of which
they had continued in Holland, according to their own method and formula.
At this point, however, legendary fiction appears to have invaded the
historical investigation. It is said that this supply of beer was
exhausted somewhat earlier than the organizers of the migration scheme
had anticipated, and that, therefore, a landing was effected at the
rather uninviting spot since then immortalized in song and story as
Plymouth Rock. Whether conceived in a facetious spirit, prompted by a
knowledge of the Puritans’ well-known appreciation of liquid cheer, or
based, as it is claimed, upon the semi-historical authority of a private
diary, the story is characteristic enough in all its bearings to be true;
and if it were so, what a splendid illustration it would be of the old
axiom, that in history very insignificant causes sometimes produce most
marvelous effects!

Moving on, (about 150 years on), a true sense of American history is
beginning to take shape. Americans are, by their very nature skeptical of
the status quo and authority. And rather than sit back meekly to allow
things to happen, they take action: by emigrating out of or taking arms
against the occupation of a suppressing country. The first case is
evident from the waves of immigrants that arrived during the early years,
the second case was evident in the local uprising that was later called
the American Revolution.

In 1773, Britain’s East India Company was sitting on large stocks of
tea that it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy.
In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which
gave the company the right to export its merchandise directly to the
colonies without paying any of the regular taxes that were imposed on the
colonial merchants, who had traditionally served as the middlemen in such
transactions. With these privileges, the company could undersell American
merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. The act proved
inflammatory for several reasons. First, it angered influential colonial
merchants, who feared being replaced and bankrupted by a powerful
monopoly. The East India Company’s decision to grant franchises to
certain American merchants for the sale of their tea created further
resentments among those excluded from this lucrative trade. More
importantly, the Tea Act revived American passions about the issue of
taxation without representation.

So on the evening of December 16, 1773, patriots led by a the local
innkeeper Samuel Adams (yes, that Sam Adams) boarded the three ships
carrying the tea and broke open the tea chests and heaved them into
Boston Harbor. I just wonder if it were an Ale Tax.

More of oOur Founding Fathers also had the taste for the grape and the
hop. When Thomas Jefferson was summoned to Annapolis in 1783 to arrange
lodging for Gen. George Washington, his first order of business was
probably to check the wine list at Mann’s Tavern. Gen. Washington was to
resign his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental armies.
Jefferson’s job was to find a party site for more than 200 dignitaries.
Mann’s Tavern was a well-known watering hole, and Jefferson was careful
to select good wine for the 13 toasts the general would eventually
receive.

The wine must have been pretty good. The bar tab was $644. No American
president has taken as much interest in wine as Thomas Jefferson. Though
many presidents, such as Richard Nixon, developed a discriminating taste
for wine, only Jefferson made it an educational endeavor. Traveling
extensively through Europe, he discovered wines whose labels are still
known to collectors today.

So did Benjamin Franklin. To paraphrase “On Wine,” by Benjamin
Franklin. In vino veritas, says the wise man, — There is truth in wine.
Before the days of Noah, men had nothing but water to drink and therefore
could not discover the truth. Thus they went astray, became abominably
wicked, and were justly exterminated by water, which they loved to
drink.

The good man Noah, seeing that through this pernicious beverage all
his contemporaries had perished, took it in aversion; and to quench his
thirst, God created the vine, and revealed to him the means of converting
its fruit into wine. By means of this liquor he discovered numberless
important truths; so that ever since his time the word to divine has been
in common use, signifying originally to discover by means of wine Thus
the patriarch Joseph took upon himself to divine by means of a cup or
glass of wine; a liquor which obtained its name to show that it was not
of human but of divine invention. Since that time, all things of peculiar
excellence, even the deities themselves, have been called divine or
divinities.

He continues to say that God made wine to gladden the heart of man. Do
not, therefore when at table you see your neighbor pour wine into his
glass be eager to mingle water with it. Why would you drown truth? I give
you this hint as a man of the world; and I will finish as I began, like a
good Christian, by making a religious observation of high importance,
taken from the Holy Scriptures; I mean, that the apostle Paul counselled
Timothy very wisely to put wine in his water for the sake of his health,
but that not one of the apostles or holy fathers ever recommended putting
water into wine. Let us, then, with glass in hand, adore this benevolent
wisdom — let us adore and drink!

As an example of Party Time During the Colonial Period. The year was
1787. The banquet was in honor of General George Washington. The place
was Philadelphia’s City Tavern. It was a wild party — political types
and men dressed in wigs. In total, 55 revelers were there, down on Second
Street. And this is what they drank: Fifty-four bottles of Madeira; 60
bottles of claret; 8 bottles of old stock; 22 bottles of porter; 8
bottles of hard cider; 12 bottles of beer; and 7 large bowls of
punch.

How else did you think America’s founding fathers kept warm during the
terrible winters of the 18th century? In the early days of America,
alcoholic beverages were seen as more healthful than water. They warmed a
person on cold nights and kept off chills and fevers. Indeed, the
colonists consumed more alcohol than modern Americans.

Most alcohol was consumed in the form of beer, rum and cider. Wine had
to be imported and was a rare commodity. During the period of colonial
rule, European wines were so heavily taxed that the price was
prohibitive. Only the wines of Madeira, from the Portuguese island off
the African coast, were exempt from the British tax, making them a
favorite among the revolutionaries.

Despite the price, many of the founding fathers had a special fondness
for wine. Benjamin Franklin wrote that wine was “constant proof that God
loves us, and loves to see us happy.” George Washington adored
Champagne. One colonist for whom wine was a particularly serious passion
— indeed he called it “a necessity of life” — was , again, Thomas
Jefferson, statesman, diplomat and third president of the United States.
He was also one of the most experienced and knowledgeable wine
connoisseurs of his age. Within two weeks of arriving in Paris as the
ambassador to France in 1784, he had purchased 276 bottles of wine,
primarily Bordeaux vintages.

For nearly half a century, Jefferson attempted to grow wine grapes at
Monticello with little success. He even invested (along with George
Washington) in a winery outside Charlottesville that was run by an
Italian physician. Interestingly, the land has recently been restored as
a vineyard, planted with French and Italian grape varieties, and named
Jefferson Vineyards.

Later, while serving as America’s first secretary of state, Jefferson
doubled as President Washington’s wine consultant; as president, he
stocked the White House wine cellar with excellent vintages. He
considered wine “the only antidote to the bane of whisky.” By keeping
taxes on wine low, Jefferson hoped to make America a wine-drinking
nation. He regarded heavy levies on wine not as a tax on luxury, but as
“a tax on the health of our citizens.”

He also loved Burgundies, Rhone wines, Spanish sherry, and a whole
host of Portuguese wines. Of course, among them were the sweet, silken
fortified wines of Madeira, specifically “of the nut quality and of the
very best.”

Madeira wines are among the world’s longest-lived, and often take on a
nutty character with age. Bottles from Jefferson’s time are quite
exquisitely lush and complex — and rare. Fortunately for the colonists
(and contrary to most wines), Madeiras actually improved from long sea
voyages.

They are available in a range of styles that vary in sweetness from
the driest to the richest: Sercial, Verdelho, Boal and Malmsey (or
Malvasia). Jefferson preferred the highest-quality Malmseys (cheap
Madeiras can taste coarse and cooked), but when he could no longer afford
them, he took to mixing a 10th part of “superfine” Malmsey with the
ordinary Madeira.

The Whiskey Rebellion
…To Execute the Laws of the Union…” The Whiskey Rebellion
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania October 3, 1794.” In September 1791 the western
counties of Pennsylvania brokeout in rebellion against a federal excise
tax on the distillation of whiskey. After local and federal officials
were attacked, President Washington and his advisors decided to send
troops to pacify the region. It was further decided that militia troops,
rather than regulars, would be sent. On August 14, 1792, under the
provisions of the newly-enacted militia law, Secretary of War Henry Knox
called upon the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania for 12, 950 troops as a test of the President’s power to
enforce the law. Numerous problems both political and logistical, had to
be overcome and by October, 1794 the militiamen were on the march. The
New Jersey units marched from Trenton to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. There
they were reviewed by their Commander-in-Chief, President George
Washington, accompanied by Secretary of the Treasury and Revolutionary
war veteran Alexander Hamilton. By the time the troops reached
Pittsburgh, the rebellion had subsided, and western Pennsylvania was
quickly pacified. This first use of the Militia Law of 1792 set a
precedence for the use of the militia to “execute the laws of the union,
(and) suppress insurrections”. New Jersey was the only state to
immediately fulfill their levy of troops to the exact number required by
the President. This proud tradition of service to state and nation is
carried on today by the New Jersey Army and Air National Guard.

Recently, economists have entered the alcohol policy arena by pointing
out that consumption, and also abuse, may be reduced through price
increases induced by taxation. Articles have appeared on various aspects
of alcohol abuse, such as driving under the influence, youth alcohol
abuse, and labor market effects. Many of those articles have the goal of
estimating the elasticity of abuse with respect to a tax increase. The
notion that abuse can be curbed by taxation has led to a call for
increased taxes on alcohol. However, the economic justification for a tax
increase is that it meet the social cost-efficiency criterion–that is,
the marginal external cost of alcohol abuse should exceed the existing
marginal tax rate. Although the studies referred to were well executed in
terms of the particular focus and econometric technique, very little has
been done recently to examine the justification of a tax increase in
terms of social costs.

The question of the external cost of alcohol use, as contrasted with
abuse, is complex and paradoxical. It is complex because there are two
classes of consumers: abusers and moderate drinkers. Although
externalities are associated mainly with abusers, both classes pay the
tax because it is impossible to differentiate between abusers and
moderate drinkers at the point of sale. Hence, a tax on alcohol is an
externality for moderate drinkers. The main negative externalities are
driving-under-the-influence (DUI) fatalities and injuries, increased
medical insurance premiums, and the effect on social security funding of
premature death.

The paradox of alcohol taxation arises because of the effect on the
health and economic welfare of moderate drinkers. Although it is well
known that excessive drinkers often have major health problems, it is
less well known that moderate drinkers have above-average health, above
the average of both abusers and abstainers alike. This phenomenon is
referred to as the U-shaped curve.[1] Recent medical research has
provided increasing evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is
associated with a decreased occurrence of coronary artery disease (CAD)
and increased longevity.

Readers are informed in some prominent health-related publications
that moderate consumption may carry health benefits. Among those
publications are the Berkeley Wellness Letter (May 1994), the Harvard
Heart Letter (March 1994), the New England Journal of Medicine, and The
Healthy Heart Handbook for Women (the NIH). CAD claims a half million
lives annually with medical costs alone exceeding $60 billion.

Because it is impossible to levy taxes solely on abusers, tax
increases will cause welfare losses for moderate drinkers through a
reduction in consumers’ surplus.[2] If moderate drinkers have lower
medical care costs, medical insurance premiums will be lower for
abstainers, resulting in a positive externality for nondrinkers. That
insurance consequence, plus the loss in consumers’ surplus, makes the
calculation of the social cost of alcohol abuse alone inappropriate for
evaluation of increased taxation.

The purpose of this article is to identify and quantify the positive
and negative external costs of alcohol consumption, not just abuse, in
order to evaluate the efficacy of a tax increase. The article relies on
previous estimates of the effects on use and abuse of price increases,
which seem quite reliable and accurately done. Following W. Kip Viscusi’s
(1994) analysis of the social costs of smoking, the article provides a
range of estimates based on varying assumptions.

The article begins by looking at previous estimates of social costs of
alcohol abuse and their methodology. Previous estimates of social cost
have ranged from $9.3 billion to $130 billion. Next, the costs particular
to DUI deaths and injuries and the subsequent issue of the value of a
statistical life are analyzed. The following section deals with the
welfare losses to moderate consumers. The impact of moderate and abusive
drinking on medical care insurance costs are analyzed next. The last
section examines these costs under various assumptions and draws some
conclusions regarding the efficacy of taxation.

Previous Estimates of the Social Cost
of Alcohol Abuse

The best known of these attempts are the various studies funded
periodically by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA). The first such study, by Ralph Berry and James Boland (1977),
set the methodological tone for those to follow. Successive studies done
by the Research Triangle Institute for 1978 and 1983 were followed by a
study for 1988. Updates of these estimates also appear periodically in
special reports by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the U.S.
Congress entitled Alcohol and Health.

Dale Heien and David Pittman (1989) criticized the NIAAA methodology
and demonstrated that the NIAAA estimates greatly overstate the costs
through systematic bias and selective interpretation of the data. The
nexus of the criticism is that the cost estimates do not follow the
economic paradigm of external costs.[3] For example, the cost figures
include the value of lost wages due to alcohol abuse and the value of the
lives of drunken drivers. Those costs are incurred by individual choice
and are not externalities. The value of lost wages accounted for over
half of the total costs. Other problems with the NIAAA-funded studies
were faulty statistical techniques, lack of overall accounting and
methodological framework, continual use of the most liberal estimates
despite the claim that only the most conservative estimates were used,
and attributing causality to alcohol abuse where none had been shown to
exist in the scientific literature.

Two recent studies have produced estimates that are consistent with
the definition of social costs used in economics. The study by Willard
Manning et al. (1991) bases the social costs of abuse on three main
factors: DUI auto fatalities (excluding drunk drivers) and injuries,
higher medical insurance premiums, and the effect of premature death on
social insurance funds. In another study of the social costs of alcohol
abuse, Heien and Pittman (1993) estimated the external costs to be $9.5
billion for 1985. The main difference between their findings and those of
Manning et al. (1991) are the value of human life. Neither study took
into account either the welfare cost on moderate consumers of tax
increases or the effect of moderate consumption on medical insurance
rates. This study deals with both these areas as well as taking a closer
look at DUI deaths and injuries.

External Costs of DUI Fatalities and Injuries

In 1993 there were 40,115 traffic fatalities in the United States.
Traffic fatalities include pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and motorcyclists
as well as automobile occupants. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration defines two types of accidents involving alcohol. A fatal
crash is defined as “alcohol-related” if either a driver or a
nonoccupant had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.01
grams per deciliter (g/dl). Drivers with a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater
are termed “intoxicated.” This level is the common norm for a DUI
conviction. Using the intoxicated criterion, there were 13,984 fatalities
in accidents involving an intoxicated driver or nonoccupant in 1993. This
figure compares with 19,174 fatalities a decade earlier.

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not the externalities of DUI
should be defined as those within the intoxicated or alcohol-related
classes, there are more important distinctions to be made within both of
these classes. Table 1 presents the various classifications of fatalities
for the intoxicated driver crashes.

The foregoing classification presents a challenge as to which
fatalities are externalities. Clearly few would argue that intoxicated
drivers are an externality. They drink and drive of their own free will
and bear the risks and consequences of doing so. Not surprisingly, the
NIAAA estimates count the intoxicated drivers as an externality. Table|1
shows a large number of intoxicated drivers relative to the
nonintoxicated ones. This result is attributable to the fact that the
vast majority of DUI crashes involve one car. Similar considerations
apply to the intoxicated nonoccupants category. Here, there are two main
explanations: intoxicated pedestrians stray into traffic and intoxicated
motorcyclists have single-vehicle crashes. The last category consists
mainly of nonintoxicated bicyclists who are struck by intoxicated auto
drivers. Hence, it is reasonable to classify the deaths of nonintoxicated
drivers and nonintoxicated nonoccupants as externalities of drunken
driving.

The real debate occurs over the classification of passengers. In most
cases, it is not known if passengers are intoxicated or not. It is not
relevant whether or not they are. The main criterion is whether or not
passengers were in the car of the intoxicated driver or in the other
vehicle. For those in the other vehicle, there is clearly an externality
in just the same manner as the death of the driver is an externality.
However, most occupants of a drunken driver’s car are aware of the
condition of the driver and exercise their own free will in choosing to
ride with him or her.[4] Often they are related to the driver being
either a spouse or children.

Published data exist for 1986 on the number of passengers who were in
the drinking driver’s car. Perrine et al. (1988: Table 6) indicate that
83.3 percent of the passengers were in the drunken driver’s car. Applying
that percentage to the foregoing 1993 figures results in 487 external
deaths. The total external deaths are those 487 individuals, the 938
nonintoxicated drivers, and the 615 nonintoxicated nonoccupants. The
total of those three groups is 2,040 individuals.[5]

The choice between alcohol-related and intoxicated is somewhat
problematic. Numerous studies have shown that the relative risk of crash
involvement rises with the BAC (Perrine et al. 1988). Those studies also
show that the relation between risk and BAC is essentially flat until the
.08 or .09 level for BAC (Hurst et al. 1994). Because .10 is the cutoff
level for the intoxicated classification, it might be reasonable to take
20 percent of the alcohol involved crashes as being due to alcohol abuse.
That assumption would result in total external deaths of 2,550.

There are human, vehicular, and environmental factors that interact
with alcohol to contribute to accidents. Among them, the greatest amount
of research has been done on the human aspect. Numerous studies have
found that many of the personality traits that lead to reckless driving
are found in alcohol abusers, especially among young drivers. On a
per-mile-driven basis, fatal involvement is greatest for young drivers
and for older drivers (Massie et al. 1995). Donovan et al. (1990)
compared DUI conviction rates between a group of drivers with four prior
traffic convictions or accidents within the last year and the general
population in that age group. The “bad driver” group had over five times
the DUI conviction rate of the general population group.

In a similar previous study, Donovan et al. (1985) studied three
groups of male drivers: DWI (those arrested for DUI); HRD (those who had
received multiple nonalcoholic traffic violations or been involved in an
accident); and, GDP (general driving population). Attitudinal questions
showed the HRD and DWI groups to be generally more deviant than the GDP
group. The HRD and DWI groups did not differ significantly from each
other on any of the measures of personality function or hostility. The
authors concluded, “The noted similarities between the DWI and HRD groups
are consistent with the contention that these two groups may represent
subtypes within a larger population of high-risk drivers” (Donovan et
al. 1985: 375).

No estimates exist of the number of alcohol-related crashes that would
not have occurred if alcohol had not been present. However, drivers
between the ages of 16 and 34 accounted for 61 percent of all drivers in
fatal-alcohol related crashes.[6] Over 90 percent were males. If one
assumes that this group has the same alcohol-relative odds as the older
group, then 56 percent of the 16 to 34 age group fatalities were
incorrectly ascribed to alcohol. Still, young males also drink
proportionately more than older individuals. Adjusting for this fact
results in an overstatement of 20 percent–that is, there are 20 percent
fewer fatalities in this age group attributable to drinking. That
adjustment results in a 12 percent reduction in external deaths caused by
DUI.

A related area is that of the role of drugs either in conjunction with
alcohol or used alone. Mercer and Jeffery (1995) studied blood samples
from 227 fatally injured traffic victims and found that 43 percent had
neither alcohol nor drugs, 37 percent had alcohol and no drugs, 11
percent had both, and 9 percent had drugs only. Although no attempt will
be made to estimate the number of deaths attributed to drug abuse
ascribed to alcohol, it should be considered that increases in alcohol
taxes are likely to cause individuals to substitute drugs, which are not
taxed, for alcohol.

Another aspect of the drunken-driver problem is that there are
considerable injuries caused by DUI accidents and there is considerable
property damage to the autos involved. Both factors should be treated in
the same manner as deaths caused by DUI. Classification of external costs
are the same here as for the fatalities and follows the estimates of
Kenkle (1993), with an update to 1993 for changes in medical care
costs.

Value of Statistical Lives

Whenever the abuse of alcoholic beverages causes a loss of life and
that life is considered an alcohol externality, then the life must be
valued to arrive at the cost of the externality. There are two main
methodologies for computing the value of a statistical life. The first is
the human capital method, a method that takes the earnings profile for
the remaining years of the life and computes the present value of those
earnings. The main advantage of this method is that it is the legal norm.
Wrongful death suits use the human capital approach to compute
compensation for plaintiffs.

A conceptually more satisfactory alternative is the “risk reduction”
methodology. The difference between the wage in risky jobs versus safe
jobs is taken as the measure of the compensation required to get workers
to do risky jobs. By dividing this risk premium by the probability of
death, one arrives at the value of life for that risk.

The standard approach is to estimate econometrically a hedonic wage
equation based on individual data. Such estimates are subject to a number
of problems. First, there are all of the standard econometric problems of
nonexperimental data and mutual causality. Second, risky jobs tend to be
unattractive (e.g., noisy and dirty). Hence, there may be a high
correlation between the unattractive features of a job and the risk.
Because those features are seldom measured, their effects are captured in
the risk coefficient. If so, then the coefficients for an industry or
occupation will overstate the risk premium.

Similar considerations apply to the estimate of the probability of
death (risk) in an industry. Probabilities are based on historical
frequencies that may or may not hold in the future or that may be based
on inaccurate data. Also, there is a subjective element to probabilities
that reflect risk. Some individuals may, through training, upbringing, or
heredity, deal with certain risky situations better than other
individuals.

Problems associated with the risk reduction approach are discussed in
greater detail by Viscusi (1993). Although his article outlines many
criticisms of the risk approach, it should not be misunderstood as being
a refutation. Conceptually, this methodology is correct. However, there
is great variation in the empirical estimates. The estimates given in
Viscusi (1993) for air travel risk for standardized individuals range
from a low of $0.8 million to a high of $29.4 million. Such variation
does not inspire confidence in the estimates. Viscusi (1994) uses a value
of life for nonsmoking victims of environmental tobacco smoke of $5
million for 1993. Although this value is the midpoint of studies reviewed
by Viscusi (1993), it seems to be somewhat generous. Manning et al.
(1991) use a value of $1.66 million ($1986) or $2.11 million ($1993), and
Kenkel (1993a) uses $2.0 million ($1986) or $2.54 million ($1993). This
study uses the $5 million value as an upper limit.

Medical Insurance Externalities

Excess medical care costs for abusers are assumed to be passed along
to nonabusers in the form of higher medical care premiums. Hence,
estimates of the difference in medical care costs attributable to the
cost of alcohol abuse must be made. The concept behind those estimates is
to arrive at a statistical model of a “nondrinking drinker”–that is, an
individual who is like an abuser in everyway (demographically,
sociologically, and economically) but who does not abuse alcohol.
However, econometric estimates using that approach are plagued by
problems of unobserved components. Abusers lead lifestyles that include
smoking, poor nutrition, and poor self-care in general. It is difficult
to obtain samples where those traits are not present in abusers. Hence,
alcohol becomes a proxy for them. Many abusers do not have insurance and
pay for the care themselves, in which case it is not an external cost.
Also, medical care is often paid for in a state or county hospital, or is
paid through social security disability insurance. Although state
hospitals are tax supported, the cost of running those institutions may
not be an externality to taxpayers (Lee 1991).

The notion of excess medical care premiums is based on the finding
that medical care costs for abusers are above average. Although that is
true, it ignores the lower medical care costs incurred by moderate
drinkers. Using the 1988 Health Interview Survey, Lewin-VHI (1994) has
estimated the per capita medical care costs for all drinkers to be $3,295
versus $4,430 for nondrinkers. Those estimates are consistent with
medical research findings on the relation between moderate alcohol
consumption and health.

Over the past 20 years numerous studies have appeared in medical
journals, indicating that moderate alcohol use is associated with reduced
risk of CAD and greater longevity.[7] Those studies include the Harvard
study by Rimm et al. (1991), Stampfer et al. (1991), Boffeta and
Garfinkel (1990), and Klatsky et al. (1990). Because light to moderate
drinkers have substantially lower rates of CAD and mortality than do
nondrinkers or heavy drinkers, their medical care costs will be less.

Those medical findings have been extended by several economists to
examine the effect of alcohol on earnings. Given that moderate drinkers
have better health and longevity than abstainers and abusers, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that they also earn more. Articles by French
and Zarkin (1993) and Heien (1995) confirm a U-shaped relation between
earnings and alcohol consumption–that is, moderate drinkers earn more
than abusers and nondrinkers.

In the study by Manning et al. (1991), taxes on earnings were
approximately equal to the costs of collectively financed medical care
for all discount rates. Considering that study, it seems reasonable to
assume that taxes and medical costs are equal and cancel each other.
Manning’s finding can then be used as a lower limit estimate of the net
medical care cost of alcohol abuse. The exact incidence of the effect of
moderate drinking on health is complex, and a detailed analysis is beyond
the scope of the present study. However, if drinkers as a class have
lower medical care costs, then those costs will be a positive externality
for abstainers. The Lewin-VHI figures suggest that the net savings in
medical care costs (and hence presumably premiums) result in a positive
externality for nondrinkers of $21.58 billion. That figure will be used
as an upper limit for the external costs of alcohol use.

Revised Estimates of the Social Cost
of Alcohol Abuse

This section attempts to look at the range of social costs implied by
the various foregoing estimates. The main areas of negative external
costs are the value of the external lives lost and injuries attributable
to DUI accidents and the increase in medical insurance premiums
attributable to alcohol abuse, net of the social security not collected
due to premature death of abusers. The main positive externality is the
reduction in medical insurance premiums attributable to the health
benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. As mentioned previously,
estimation of social cost will be done under high and low assumptions to
permit a range of estimates.

The estimated number of external deaths from DUI driving was 2,040
using the intoxicated driver criterion and 2,550 for the alcohol-related
category. Those figures do not include the estimated 12 percent reduction
for drivers who would have crashed even if they were not drinking. The
alcohol-related figure less 12 percent, or 2,244, will be used as the
lower estimate. The upper estimate will follow Kenkle (1993) and take
one-half of the alcohol-related passengers as external and make no
adjustment for those who would have crashed anyway. That method results
in 3,765 external deaths.[8] When the external cost of injuries resulting
from DUI crashes is calculated on a pro rata basis, using Kenkel’s
figures updated by the CPI for medical care, the result is an upper limit
of $6.18 billion and a lower limit of $3.68 billion.

As previously discussed, the value of life of $5 million used by
Viscusi (1994) could be considered somewhat high given the problems of
omitted variables in measuring the risk premium and in view of estimates
used by Kenkel (1993) and Manning et al. (1991). The CPI updated value of
Kenkel’s estimate of the value of life is $2.54 million. That figure will
be used as the lower bound and Viscusi’s estimate of $5 million as the
upper bound. Applying those upper bounds of the values of life and the
DUI fatalities gives an estimate of the fatal DUI externalities of $18.83
billion. Following the same procedure for the lower limits gives an
estimate of $5.71 billion. Next, the external cost of DUI crash injuries
is estimated to be $6.18 billion for the upper limit and $3.68 billion
for the lower, which gives total costs for upper and lower bounds of
$25.00 billion and $9.39 billion. This article follows the result found
by Manning et al. (1991) that the increase in medical insurance premiums
are exactly offset by the loss in uncollected social security benefits.
Hence, the total positive external costs of alcohol use range from $9.39
to $25.00 billion.

Table 2 presents the totals for the upper and lower positive and
negative external costs and contrasts those costs with the current level
of taxation of $17.97 billion.[9] The upper value in the DUI category
reflects a greater value of life ($5 million versus $2.54 million) and
greater external deaths (3,765 versus 2,244). The difference between the
upper and lower estimate in the medical insurance category is simply the
lower cost of medical insurance premiums for nondrinkers. Tax revenues
exceed the external costs in both the lower and upper limit cases. Hence,
the externalities of alcohol use, when properly framed, are more than
accounted for by current levels of taxation.

Because the taxation levels are too high, prices are higher than they
should be for social efficiency and there is a loss in consumers’
surplus. Hence, it is appropriate to compute the loss in consumers’
surplus attributable to those excessive taxes. The loss of consumers’
surplus is offset by the level of tax receipts in excess of that needed
to cover the externality. That loss is given in the next to the last row
of Table 2.[10] The last row gives the deadweight loss–that is, the
difference between the efficiency loss and the loss of consumers’
surplus. The deadweight loss may in fact be much larger depending on the
efficiency with which the government uses the tax receipts.

What accounts for the reversal of the results from previous studies?
Several factors are prominent. First, the number of alcohol-related
fatalities and injuries have declined by 26 percent since 1986, the date
of the previous study. On the other hand, the value of life and injury
costs have risen. Those opposing forces resulted in a DUI cost of $25
billion based on the same definition of an externality, of $25 billion,
which is close to the $20 billion figure found by Manning et al. (1991)
in their study based on 1986 data. Another major factor is the increase
in alcohol tax receipts as a result of the 1991 federal excise tax
increase on alcohol. Finally, the current study accounts for the reduced
medical care costs for nondrinkers resulting from lower costs to moderate
drinkers. The more stringent definition of DUI externalities given by the
lower bound plays a role, but only for the lower bound.

The foregoing analysis results in the conclusion that total tax
revenues exceed total external costs by at least $8 billion. As long as
second order conditions are satisfied, marginal positive external costs
are much less than marginal tax rates if their respective totals are
nearly equal, as shown. Thus, on the basis of the analysis, there is
every reason to believe that the level of taxation is far beyond the
point of social efficiency.

The Historical and Fairness Standards

A recent article by Cook and Moore (1993) presented two new rationales
for increased taxation on beverage alcohol. Those are the historical
standard and the fairness standard. The historical standard says that
alcohol taxes should be maintained at their (real) historical levels and
not be allowed to be eroded by inflation. Because alcohol taxes are
generally levied on a per gallon basis and are not ad volarem, that
standard seems to have some validity. However, there are two strong
arguments against the historical standard. First, the result will depend
on what date is chosen as the historical reference. Cook and Moore choose
1951, the last time excise taxes were raised. Had an earlier date been
chosen, the result would have been different. More important, their
approach ignores the substantial increase in other alcohol taxes over the
period. Sales and excise tax rates at the state and local levels have
increased substantially over the postwar period so that the overall real
tax rate on alcoholic beverages has not declined.

The fairness standard is derived from three criteria: (1) the
“horizontal equity” criterion (equals should be treated equally); (2)
the vertical equity criterion (unequals should be treated differently, so
people with greater ability to pay taxes should pay more than lower
income people); and (3) households that receive greater government
benefits should be taxed higher. On the horizontal equity criterion, a
tax increase will fall equally on moderate drinkers, who are not the
source of the externalities, as well as the abusers. That criterion is,
in effect, no different than taxing abstainers for the costs of alcohol
abuse.

The violation of the vertical equity criterion is even more obvious.
It is generally conceded that alcohol taxes are regressive–that is, they
bear more heavily on poor people because lower-income individuals tend to
drink more, and alcohol taxes are levied on a quantity basis (e.g.,
dollars per gallon).[11] The finding that expenditures on alcohol tend to
be a constant fraction of income is based on the fact that consumers
demand better quality as their incomes rise.

Finally, the criterion concerning receipt of government benefits is
reasonably clear. Cook and Moore (1993) state that alcohol abusers
clearly receive more from government programs than do others.
Nevertheless, the really interesting fact about the fairness standard is
that it says noting about what the level of taxation should be. It
addresses only how the burden should be distributed.

The Public Health Approach

In addition to the three standards–social cost, historical, and
fairness–another standard exists for measuring the cost of alcohol
abuse, namely the public health standard (Cook 1990). This standard is
used by the NIAAA and attempts to measure the economic cost of alcohol
abuse. The problem with this approach is that it is inconsistent with
Western notions of individual freedom and responsibility. Under the
public health standard, actions that harm only the abuser or his family
are lumped together with true external costs. The resulting costs are
quite high–$130 billion for the United States in 1990. The analysis by
Heien and Pittman (1989), however, strongly questions the validity of
such calculations and notes that many of the inseparable effects on
moderate consumers are ignored–including the impact on social security
funding and the health aspects of moderate drinking.

Conclusion

Recent articles by some economists have called for increased taxation
of alcoholic beverages. The evidence presented here indicates that the
net external costs of alcohol do not exceed the current level of
taxation. Much like the case for the taxation of tobacco (Viscusi 1994),
the rationale for a tax increase on alcohol does not pass the social-cost
test when all costs, including those imposed on moderate drinkers, are
juxtaposed against the current levels of taxation.

Alcohol bashing has become one of the “feel good” issues of the
1990s. Alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse are declining by any
objective measure. The implied notion that alcohol consumption is sinful
is a moralistic one and not supported by objective analysis. The very
title, “sin taxes,” plays on the old moralistic sentiments that led this
country to the disastrous policy of prohibition.

———————————————————————-

References

Berry, R.R., and Boland, J.P. (1977) The Economic Cost of Alcohol
Abuse. New York: The Free Press.

Boffeta, P., and Garfinkel, L. (1990) “Alcohol Drinking and Mortality
among Men Enrolled in an American Cancer Society Prospective Study.”
Epidemiology 1: 342-48.

Cook, P. (1990) “The Social Costs of Drinking.” In The Negative
Social Consequences of Alcohol Use, Chap. 2. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

Cook, P., and Moore, M. (1993) “Taxation of Alcoholic Beverages.” In
M. Hilton and G. Bloss (eds.) Economics and the Prevention of
Alcohol-Related Problems, Chap. 1. Research Monograph No. 25. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Donovan, D.M.; Queisser, H.R.; Salzberg, P.M.; and Umlauf, R.L. (1985)
“Intoxicated and Bad Drivers: Subgroups within the Same Population of
High-Risk Men Drivers.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46: 375-82.

Donovan, D.M.; Umlauf, R.L.; and Salzberg, P.M. (1990) “Bad Drivers:
Identification of a Target Group for Alcohol-Related Prevention and Early
Intervention.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 51: 395-428.

French, M.T., and Zarkin, G.A. (1995) “Is Moderate Alcohol Use Related
to Wages? Evidence from Four Worksites.” Journal of Health Economics 14:
319-44.

Heien, D.M. (1995) “The Relationship between Alcohol Consumption and
Earnings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57(5): 536-42.

Heien, D.M., and Pittman, D. (1989) “The Economic Costs of Alcohol
Abuse: An Assessment of Current Methods and Estimates.” Journal of
Studies on Alcohol 50: 567-79.

Heien, D.M., and Pittman, D. (1993) “The External Costs of Alcohol
Abuse.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54: 302-8.

Hurst, P.M.; Harte, D.; and Firth, W.J. (1994) “The Grand Rapids Dip
Revisited.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(5): 647-54

Isaac, N.E.; Kennedy, B.; and Graham, J.D. (1995) “Who’s in the Car?
Passengers as Potential Interveners in Alcohol-Involved Fatal Crashes.”
Accident Analysis and Prevention 27: 159-65.

Kenkel, D.S. (1993) “Do Drunk Drivers Pay Their Way? A Note on Optimal
Penalties for Drunk Driving.” Journal of Health Economics 12:
137-49.

Klatsky, A.L.; Armstrong, M.A.; and Friedman, G.D. (1990) “Risk of
Cardiovascular Mortality in Alcohol Drinkers, Ex-Drinkers and
Nondrinkers.” The American Journal of Cardiology 67: 1237-42.

Lee, D. (1991) “Environmental Economics and the Social Cost of
Smoking.” Contemporary Policy Issues 9: 83-92.

Lewin-VHI (1994) “The Benefits for Healthcare Expenditures from
Moderate Wine Consumption.” Fairfax, Va.

Lyon, A.B., and Schwab, R.M. (1995) “Consumption Taxes in a Life-Cycle
Framework: Are Sin Taxes Regressive?” The Review of Economics and
Statistics 77: 389-406.

Manning, W.G.; Blumberg, L.; and Moulton, L.H. (1995) “The Demand for
Alcohol: Differential Response to Price.” Journal of Health Economics
14: 123-48.

Manning, W.G.; Keeler, E.B.; Newhouse, J.P.; Sloss, E.M.; and
Wassermann, J. (1991) The Costs of Poor Health Habits. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.

Massie, D.; Campbell, K.; and Williams, A.. (1995) “Traffic Accident
Involvement Rates by Driver Age and Gender.” Accident Analysis and
Prevention 27: 73-87.

Mercer, G.W., and Jeffery, W.K. (1995) “Alcohol, Drugs, and Impairment
in Fatal Traffic Accidents in British Columbia.” Accident Analysis and
Prevention 27: 335-43.

Perrine, M.W.; Peck, R.C.; and Fell, J.C. (1988) “Epidemiologic
Perspectives on Drunk Driving.” In Surgeon General’s Workshop on Drunken
Driving: Background Papers, 35-76. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Public Health
Service.

Rimm, E.B.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Willett, W.C.; Colditz, G.A.; Ascherio,
A.; Rosner, B.; and Stampfer, M.J. (1991) “Prospective Study of Alcohol
Consumption and Risk of Coronary Disease in Men.” The Lancet 338:
464-68.

Stampfer, M.J.; Sacks, F.M.; Salvini, S.; Willett, W.C.; Hennekens,
C.H. (1991) “A Prospective Study of Cholesterol Apolipoproteins, and the
Risk of Myocardial Infarction.” The New England Journal of Medicine 325:
373-81.

U.S. Department of Transportation (1993) Traffic Safety Facts 1993:
Alcohol (NHTSA). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Viscusi, W.K. (1993) “The Value of Risks to Life and Health.” Journal
of Economic Literature 31(4): 1012-46.

Viscusi, W.K. (1994) “Cigarette Taxation and the Social Consequences
of Smoking.” Working Paper No. 4891. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau
of Economic Research.

Cato Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 2-3 (Fall/Winter 1995/96). Copyright
© Cato Institute. All rights reserved.

Dale M. Heien is a Professor of Economics in the Department of
Agricultural Economics at the University of California-Davis. The author
acknowledges the useful comments given by Richard Sexton.

———————————————————————-

Notes

[1] In the more popular press, it is sometimes referred to as “The
French Paradox” after the popular “60 Minutes” television program
segment of the same name.

[2] According to evidence based on self-reporting of the American
Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Mental
Disorders, 7.41 percent of the adult population abuse alcohol.

[3] All of the NIAAA-sponsored studies refer to the costs as the
“economic” costs of alcohol abuse. However, no definition of this
concept is contained in any of the studies nor is any mention made of the
concept of external costs.

[4] This assertion has some empirical verification in the study by
Isaac et al. (1994). They found that where there were adult passengers,
alcohol involvement by those passengers was high (80 percent).

[5] This figure compares with a total of 7,400 deaths in Manning et
al. (1991: 97) and 5,760 in Kenkle (1993: 142). Part of the difference
between their estimates and those above reflects the fall in DUI
fatalities from 1986 to 1993.

[6] For the statistics on fatalities by age, see U.S. Department of
Transportation (1993). For an analysis of age involvement, see Massie et
al. (1995).

[7] The main causes of CAD are smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes,
and obesity. Death usually results from heart attack caused by blood
vessel blockage.

[8] It should be noted that the 3,765 estimate is considerably lower
than Kenkel’s estimate of 5,760. His estimate is for 1986, mine is for
1993. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of DUI fatalities over
the 1986-93 period.

[9] This total is composed of $7.6 billion federal excise tax
receipts, $3.6 billion state-and-local excise tax receipts, $4.57 billion
state sales taxes, and $2.21 billion local property taxes. The total does
not include liquor license and distribution fees.

[10] An estimate of -0.7 was used for the elasticity of demand. That
estimate came from Manning et al. (1995) and also conforms with other
econometric studies.

[11] The regressivity of alcohol taxes has been reaffirmed in a recent
study by Lyon and Schwab (1995).

———————————————————————-

The Cato Journal is published in the spring/summer, fall, and winter
by the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.
20001-5403. The Views expressed by the authors of the articles are their
own and are not attributable to the editor, editorial board, or the Cato
Institute. Printed copies of the Cato Journal may be ordered by calling
1-800-767-1241. Back issues are also available on the Cato Institute Web
site: http://www.cato.org. Email comments or suggestions to
[email protected].

MADD And Takata Launch Annual Tie One On For Safety Holiday
Ribbon Campaign To Save Lives
Silver Ribbons Commemorate MADD’s 25th Anniversary

DALLAS (Nov. 17, 2005) – Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and
Takata, the world’s largest manufacturer of seat belts, today launched
the 2005 Tie One On For Safety holiday ribbon campaign. This is the 19th
year of the campaign and the third consecutive year that the
organizations have joined forces to encourage motorists to tie a ribbon
to their vehicles as a pledge to drive safe and sober, and to always
buckle up while in a vehicle during the Thanksgiving to New Year’s
holiday season. To commemorate MADD’s 25th anniversary, the campaign
ribbon has been issued in a special silver edition.

“The holiday season is a busy time on our nation’s roads with a high
incidence of alcohol-related fatalities,” said MADD national president,
Glynn R. Birch. “Drunk driving crashes are the most frequently committed
violent crime in America, yet they can be prevented if the public would
simply remember the three keys to safety before they head out the door to
their holiday destinations: drive safe, drive sober and buckle up. Tie
One On For Safety asks motorists to tie a silver ribbon to their vehicles
as a pledge to do just that.”

Alcohol-related traffic deaths from Thanksgiving to New Year’s Eve
dropped from 1,579 in 2003 to 1,316 in 2004. Unfortunately, the number of
unrestrained and/or alcohol-related traffic deaths increased in 2004 over
this same time frame from more than 2,100 in 2003 to 2,237 and
nationally, there are still nearly 17,000 alcohol-related traffic
fatalities annually.

Bob Kittle, vice president of sales and marketing for Takata, said,
“Takata is in the business of saving lives, and our passion is to reduce
traffic fatalities by constantly educating people on the critical
importance of wearing a seat belt. Ninety percent of the fatalities on
our roads are caused by drunk drivers or failure to wear seat belts;
since a buckled seat belt is the best defense against a drunk driver,
supporting MADD is the right thing to do for Takata.”

Consider these facts supporting why seat belts are the best defense
against a drunk driver:

From 1975 through 2004, it is estimated that safety belts saved
195,382 lives, including 15,434 lives saved in 2004. If all passenger
vehicle occupants over age 4 wore safety belts, 21,273 lives (that is, an
additional 5,839) could have been saved in 2004. (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 2005)

Alcohol-impaired drivers are less likely than drivers without alcohol
to use seat belts, and the higher their blood alcohol content (BAC) the
lower the use of seat belts. (McCartt & Williams, 2004).

The higher the driver’s BAC, the more likely that a child passenger
will be unrestrained. (Quinlan et al, 2000)

Studies have found that states that pass a primary seat belt law
increase average seat belt usage by nine to 14 percentage points.
(Dinh-Zarr et al, 2001)

Tie One On For Safety is MADD’s most recognizable and longest running
national public awareness campaign. More than 6 million ribbons are
distributed annually. In addition to picking up a ribbon, there are other
ways communities can get involved this holiday season. Everyone can
access MADD’s free safe party guide with mocktail recipes and tips for
hosting safe and fun parties and honor victims/survivors online. MADD
will host a Candlelight Cybervigil of Hope and Remembrance from November
23 through January 2, 2006, to help families and friends honor those who
have been killed or injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes. The
public can light a “virtual candle” this holiday season and share a
message to acknowledge their loss experience and support others who share
in that loss.

“Drunk driving is a 100 percent preventable crime,” Birch noted. “In
25 years, we have helped save more than 300,000 lives and prevented
countless injuries with the help from leaders nationwide. We are
especially grateful for the support of Takata this holiday season and for
helping MADD raise awareness about the need for primary seat belt laws in
every state.” MADD aims to reduce drunk driving fatalities and injuries
by 25 percent by 2008 with a primary focus on general law enforcement
deterrence such as seat belt mobilizations and sobriety checkpoints.

Takata, National Presenting Sponsor of MADD’s Tie One On For Safety
ribbon campaign, is the world’s largest provider of seat belts and a
leading global automotive safety systems supplier. Takata’s U.S.
automotive safety headquarters are in Auburn Hills, Mich.
www.takata.com

Founded in 1980, MADD is a non-profit organization with approximately
2 million members and supporters nationwide. MADD’s mission is to stop
drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent
underage drinking. www.madd.org/toofs.

Contacts:

Misty Moyse, MADD National, (469) 420-4558

[email protected]

Rick Bourgoise, Strat@comm, (248) 649-8000, ext. 210

[email protected]

SOURCE:

MADD Fights Holiday Drunk Driving

Wilmington, NC – In an effort to
combat the sharp increase in drunk driving fatalities that occur around
the holiday season, a MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) group from
Wilmington kicked off a special holiday campaign.

With almost 400 deaths in the state of North Carolina last year, the
group has plenty of motivation for their efforts. The Wilmington MADD
group paired with the law enforcement of New Hanover County for “Tie One on
for Safety.” The campaign motivates citizens to tie a red ribbon to
their cars to increase awareness about being cautious on the roads during
the holiday season.

November 18, 2005

MADD President Glynn Birth Applauds Delaware
Enforcement
By Ben Penserga Daily Times Staff Writer

SALISBURY — It took almost 20 years, but Glynn Birch
finally has the chance to say thank you.

In 1988, Birch’s young son Courtney was walking across the street to
get ice cream when he was struck by a drunken driver going 70 mph. The
boy — three months shy of his second birthday — was dragged 150 feet
before the car stopped and was killed instantly.

In the following months, Glynn Birch’s local Mothers Against Drunk
Driving helped him through the grieving process up until the driver, who
had a blood-alcohol level of .26 and had three prior drunken-driving
convictions, was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

But throughout the entire process, Birch never got to acknowledge the
police officers who responded to the scene on May 3, 1988, and helped
prosecute the case — until Friday at the MADD Ribbon Kickoff and Law
Enforcement Recognition Breakfast.

“I think back to all the missed opportunities to thank law
enforcement,” said Birch, who was recently selected as the first-ever
male MADD president. “But I’m getting that chance now.”

Birch told the crowd of police and prosecutors at the Fountains
Weddings and Conference Center in Salisbury that one of the advocate
group’s main goals is strengthening ties with law enforcement.

And hosting an event that recognizes law enforcement officials from
all nine counties on the Eastern Shore goes toward that, said David
Elzey, victim advocate for MADD’s Eastern Shore chapter.

“It’s to show our appreciation for police getting drunken drivers off
the road,” he said. “It also means a lot to the victims that have been
helped by (police) over the years.”

Friday’s event also serves as the beginning of their holiday ribbon
program that urges motorists to tie the MADD ribbon to their vehicles as
a pledge to be safe on the roadways and especially to buckle up.

Birch urged police to keep up their high level of vigilance.

“Please continue the work because it is making a difference,” he
said.

Anyone interested in participating in MADD’s ribbon campaign should
call 410-742-6233.

Reach Ben Penserga at 410-845-4648 or [email protected].

Originally Published November 19, 2005