Beer Marketer's Insights
>A comprehensive policy-focused assessment of the effects of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) in the US, particularly on drinking, contends that smoking marijuana often acts as a substitute for drinking. Meanwhile, as Colorado and Washington state wade through initial attempts at effective pot policy, familiar tax, availability and health concerns are arising.
The study, completed in 2011 and awaiting publication, zeros in on three states that adopted MMLs in the mid-2000s: Montana, Rhode Island and Vermont. Scientists compared stats from three federal surveys, plus Beer Institute data, to determine MMLs effects on marijuana usage, traffic fatalities, and reported alcohol consumption. While "the passage of a MML was associated with increased marijuana use by adults in Montana and Rhode Island," researchers wrote, that wasn't the case in Vermont. Further, the authors found "no evidence" that the laws have any effect on minors' use of marijuana. They do argue that MMLs led to "a 1.51 reduction in the mean number of drinks consumed by males" per month and a much smaller reduction of drinks consumed by females (medical marijuana patients are largely male). Similarly, researchers suggest MMLs are "associated with a 5.3% reduction in beer sales," implying that increased use of marijuana explains at least part of beer sales declines in those states in the mid-2000s.
Different states have seen varying degrees of participation in MMLs. For example, over 2% of the populations of both CO and MT are a registered medical marijuana patients. The practice is particularly common in CO's capital, Denver which "has more marijuana dispensaries than liquor stores or Starbucks coffee shops," according to the study. That's as just 349 patients are registered to use the substance in VT. Marijuana use among 18-25 year olds increased by 3.3 percentage points after MT passed its MML, significantly more than that of residents age 12+ and that of older residents. Researchers found similar results in RI/VT.
Previous studies have found mixed effects of pot on driving. While "driving-related functions" were affected in lab tests, driving-course tests indicate high drivers tend to compensate for impairment and "experienced users show substantially less functional impairment." That's just as "unequivocal evidence" indicates that "alcohol consumption leads to an increased risk of collision" as drinkers often "underestimate" their impairment and "take more risks." Researchers found that MMLs are associated with an almost 9% decrease in overall traffic fatalities in those states, with more marked results for alcohol-related, nighttime and weekend crashes. Indeed, 3 years after an MML passed, any-BAC fatal crashes decreased by 15%, and high-BAC crashes decreased by nearly 20%. It's hard to believe that such a small number of medical marijuana users, and increased use among 18-25 yr-olds, would have such a significant impact on drinking and fatal crashes, but that's what the authors maintain. Clearly, more research is in order. In any case, they insist that driving under the influence of marijuana is "not necessarily" safer than alcohol, as pot is much more often consumed at home, rather than in public. Ref 3
As states decide how to regulate pot, CO regulators will ask residents to approve one 10% and one 15% tax on state marijuana purchases; Denver officials may ask for another 10% city tax. That's as the Washington State Liquor Control Board recently approved rules for marijuana production and sales there. The release focused on "public safety," and "creating a tightly-regulated" system that provides "reasonable access" to the drug. Growers are subject to strict surveillance rules, background checks and testing; packaging/ labeling requirements and mandatory signage are aimed at keeping consumers informed and children safe.
But the WSLCB has a "thorn in [its] side" in the form of a bar down the street from its offices that saw a loophole in the law and opened up a "private" space upstairs where patrons can smoke pot without anyone bothering them. The state prohibits smoking in public, but the owner of Frankie's in Olympia saw an opportunity and now charges $10 for yearly membership for access to the upstairs smoke-friendly bar, according to the LA Times. He told the paper that "after they start smoking, they may not drink as much. But they sure do eat." Similarly, a report from Toronto on the Marijuana Policy Project's "New Beer" tv ad (which attempts to turn drinkers into pot smokers) identifies the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse's responses to the ad's claims. Among them, while smoking alone "will not cause you to gain weight, you're likely to make up the calories through binge snacking," and that "cannabis-related health problems" only cost the "average Canadian" about $20/yr, while alcohol-related health costs reach about $165/yr and tobacco-related health costs are about $800/yr. CCSA's response supports in part the notion that pot is safer than beer but it does not endorse the use of either substance. Finally, in Australia, the head of the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, veteran public health advocate Robin Room, recently recommended legalizing pot there, as social harm is "substantially less than alcohol and tobacco."
Newsletter
Alcohol Issues Insights
Tagged under
For years, public health advocates have been trying to attach specific suppliers and brands to alcohol problems in a clear attempt to drive policy change and put more pressure on their producers. That "research" is beginning to emerge. Earlier this year, The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) published a study naming the most popular alcohol beverage brands in a sample of underage drinkers. Predictably, most were the same as the most popular brands among legal-age drinkers.
Last week, CAMY announced a very small study of 105 emergency room patients from inner city Baltimore and the brands those patients said they consumed before landing in the ER. Spirits was "over represented": more patients had been drinking spirits than the beverage's overall share of alcohol consumption in the US. But most of the headlines went to the beer brands named, primarily by the male patients (CAMY didn't name the spirits brands), specifically Budweiser, as in "Bud is the King of Beers…at the Emergency Room," as one headline read. Most of the articles that appeared quickly on the internet noted caveats about the size of the sample, the specific Baltimore demographics, etc. But many also renamed the top malt beverage products -- Bud, Steel Reserve, Colt 45, Bud Ice and Bud Light -- as well as the fact that 4 malt liquors "accounted for almost 50 per cent (46% ) of the beer consumed by the sample," as CAMY reported. Again, that's not surprising given the inner city, African-American neighborhood where the ER was situated. More important perhaps, several of the stories picked up on CAMY's policy recommendations: clearer labeling requirements, limits on availability and marketing and "graduated taxation of beer based on alcohol content to discourage consumption of higher-alcohol products." Unmentioned by CAMY or any of the coverage we saw: wouldn't higher taxes on malt liquor, for example, drive some of the beverage's consumers to even higher octane drinks?
Last week, CAMY announced a very small study of 105 emergency room patients from inner city Baltimore and the brands those patients said they consumed before landing in the ER. Spirits was "over represented": more patients had been drinking spirits than the beverage's overall share of alcohol consumption in the US. But most of the headlines went to the beer brands named, primarily by the male patients (CAMY didn't name the spirits brands), specifically Budweiser, as in "Bud is the King of Beers…at the Emergency Room," as one headline read. Most of the articles that appeared quickly on the internet noted caveats about the size of the sample, the specific Baltimore demographics, etc. But many also renamed the top malt beverage products -- Bud, Steel Reserve, Colt 45, Bud Ice and Bud Light -- as well as the fact that 4 malt liquors "accounted for almost 50 per cent (46% ) of the beer consumed by the sample," as CAMY reported. Again, that's not surprising given the inner city, African-American neighborhood where the ER was situated. More important perhaps, several of the stories picked up on CAMY's policy recommendations: clearer labeling requirements, limits on availability and marketing and "graduated taxation of beer based on alcohol content to discourage consumption of higher-alcohol products." Unmentioned by CAMY or any of the coverage we saw: wouldn't higher taxes on malt liquor, for example, drive some of the beverage's consumers to even higher octane drinks?
Newsletter
Alcohol Issues Insights
Tagged under
"We shall decline to impose dram shop liability," concluded the Maryland Court of Appeals recently, echoing similar decisions by the same court in 1951 and 1981. The current court, in refusing to hold a bar liable for a car crash death and injuries caused by an intoxicated patron, used the same rationale as its predecessors. First, "human beings, drunk or sober, are responsible for their own torts. The law…recognizes no relation of proximate cause between a sale of liquor and a tort committed by a buyer who has drunk the liquor." Second, it is "for the legislative branch, not the judiciary" to impose liability. Liquor laws are considered and passed in virtually every session of Maryland's legislature, the court pointed out, plus legislators are very informed about liquor laws in other states. So "the fact that there is now no such law in Maryland expresses the legislative intent as clearly and compellingly as affirmative legislation would" The court recognized, as it did in 1981, that "the failure to enact dram shop liability reflected that its imposition was disfavored as a matter of public policy."
While a handful of other state courts (NJ, ME, WY, MA) apparently have imposed civil liability without legislative action, based on criminal statutes that bar sales to intoxicated patrons, the Maryland court refused to do so. Rather, it "explicitly rejected the notion that the existence of a criminal statute was sufficient to establish civil liability, because the Legislature had not enacted laws to impose civil liability."
The Maryland Appeals Court followed the Supreme Court in neighboring Delaware, agreeing that "the essential rational underlying this line of cases is that the determination of whether to impose liability on tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons involves significant public policy considerations and is best left to the General Assembly." That's because legislatures are "in a far better position" than the courts to "gather the empirical data and to make the fact finding necessary to determine what the public policy should be."
The facts of this case are not pretty. A patron of the Dogfish Head Alehouse in Montgomery County, MD (which is licensed by the Dogfish Head Brewery in Delaware but not otherwise connected to or run by the company) was served while allegedly "clearly intoxicated" according to the plaintiffs. Between 5 and 10PM on August 21, 2008, the patron "allegedly" ordered 14 bottles of beer and two mixed drinks. He left but returned less than an hour later and ordered "three more bottles of beer and shot of tequila." (These numbers far exceed recommendations by consultant Mark Willingham in a presentation to the NABCA legal symposium earlier this year on commercial host liability laws, what he called "reasonable standards of care" and appropriate serving limits, especially for patrons who are driving.).
The patron was then apparently cut off and offered a cab. Instead, he drove away and crashed into the Plaintiffs' car, killing one person and injuring three others. When the plaintiffs sued in Circuit Court, the judge refused to grant the Alehouse's motion to dismiss, stating that "the oral arguments convinced this Court that the factual underpinnings of this case make a change in Maryland's jurisprudence with respect to Dram Shop Liability ripe to the core." But the judge "deviated" from that same opinion when the Alehouse sought a summary judgment, ruling that the case "undoubtedly could serve as the impetus" to change Maryland law, but "this court... is not the proper Court to make such a radical change." Rather, The Court Appeals "is in a unique position where it can harmonize our jurisprudence with current societal conditions." But the Court of Appeals declined to reverse its earlier holdings. Ref 2
While a handful of other state courts (NJ, ME, WY, MA) apparently have imposed civil liability without legislative action, based on criminal statutes that bar sales to intoxicated patrons, the Maryland court refused to do so. Rather, it "explicitly rejected the notion that the existence of a criminal statute was sufficient to establish civil liability, because the Legislature had not enacted laws to impose civil liability."
The Maryland Appeals Court followed the Supreme Court in neighboring Delaware, agreeing that "the essential rational underlying this line of cases is that the determination of whether to impose liability on tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons involves significant public policy considerations and is best left to the General Assembly." That's because legislatures are "in a far better position" than the courts to "gather the empirical data and to make the fact finding necessary to determine what the public policy should be."
The facts of this case are not pretty. A patron of the Dogfish Head Alehouse in Montgomery County, MD (which is licensed by the Dogfish Head Brewery in Delaware but not otherwise connected to or run by the company) was served while allegedly "clearly intoxicated" according to the plaintiffs. Between 5 and 10PM on August 21, 2008, the patron "allegedly" ordered 14 bottles of beer and two mixed drinks. He left but returned less than an hour later and ordered "three more bottles of beer and shot of tequila." (These numbers far exceed recommendations by consultant Mark Willingham in a presentation to the NABCA legal symposium earlier this year on commercial host liability laws, what he called "reasonable standards of care" and appropriate serving limits, especially for patrons who are driving.).
The patron was then apparently cut off and offered a cab. Instead, he drove away and crashed into the Plaintiffs' car, killing one person and injuring three others. When the plaintiffs sued in Circuit Court, the judge refused to grant the Alehouse's motion to dismiss, stating that "the oral arguments convinced this Court that the factual underpinnings of this case make a change in Maryland's jurisprudence with respect to Dram Shop Liability ripe to the core." But the judge "deviated" from that same opinion when the Alehouse sought a summary judgment, ruling that the case "undoubtedly could serve as the impetus" to change Maryland law, but "this court... is not the proper Court to make such a radical change." Rather, The Court Appeals "is in a unique position where it can harmonize our jurisprudence with current societal conditions." But the Court of Appeals declined to reverse its earlier holdings. Ref 2
Newsletter
Alcohol Issues Insights
Tagged under
Just as drinking rates showed a rare increase among 10th and 12th graders in 2012, young adult drinking rates increased slightly as well, as reported by the national Monitoring the Future Surveys. These surveys continue to show that about 2/3 of college students and a larger pool of young adults (age 19-28) drink alcohol beverages at least once per month. And unlike drinking rates among high school students, which are down sharply long-term, monthly drinking rates among all young adults have changed little over the last 2 decades. But the rate for college students increased by a surprising 4.2 points in 2012 survey vs the previous year; the rate among young adults increased by 0.7 points. Interestingly, the just-released Gallup survey for 2013 found that the percentage of all adults (18+), who say they have "occasion to use alcoholic beverages" slipped to 60%, the lowest level since the mid-90s.
Meanwhile, rates of being drunk at least once in the previous month ticked up 0.2 for college students in 2012 and ticked down 0.4 for young adults. That's a reversal of the 10-yr trend. Since 2002, the "been drunk" rate has fallen almost 10% among college students, while rising 5.4% among young adults. Meanwhile, heavy episodic or "binge" drinking rates also fell among college students over the last 10 years, while changing little among young adults.
The MTF studies also support the sales success in recent years of flavored alcohol beverages, especially among college students, be they liquors or malt beverages. Monthly consumption rates of flavored beverages increased almost 14% among college students over the last 5 years. Once again, MTF data shows that very few young adults admit to daily drinking, just 4-6%. That's fewer than admit to daily pot smoking. But rates of daily use rise sharply as young adults get older. Only 4.9% of 21-22 year-olds say they drink every day. But that increases to 7.5% by age 27-28 and to 10.6% among those age 50. Similarly, the most recent Gallup poll showed that only 13% of drinkers, or only 8% of adults, admit to having had more than 1 drink per day over the previous week. The average number of drinks consumed per week among drinkers, according Gallup, was only 3.8 in the last survey, lower than any year since 2000. Ref 1
Go To
Top
| Prevalence of Alcohol Beverage Consumption (%) | |||||
| % chg | |||||
| 30-Day Use | 2002 | 2007 | 2012 | 02-12* | |
| College | 68.9 | 66.6 | 67.7 | -1.7 | |
| YA (19-28) | 68.3 | 69.5 | 69.5 | 1.8 | |
| Been Drunk (30 days) | |||||
| College | 44.4 | 46.8 | 40.1 | -9.7 | |
| YA | 37.1 | 41.4 | 39.1 | 5.4 | |
| Flavored Alc Bevs (30 days) | |||||
| College | 27.5 | 31.3 | 13.8 | ||
| YA | 25.9 | 26.1 | 0.8 | ||
| 5+ Drinks in a Row (2wks) | |||||
| College | 40.1 | 41.1 | 37.4 | -6.7 | |
| YA | 35.9 | 37.8 | 35.5 | -1.1 | |
| Daily Drinking | |||||
| College | 5.0 | 4.3 | 3.9 | -22.0 | |
| YA | 4.7 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 17.0 | |
| Daily Pot Smoking | |||||
| College | 4.1 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 17.1 | |
| YA | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 24.4 | |
| *For flavored alc bevs, trend is for 2007-2012. | |||||