Reason Foundation

Why is the CDC Being Anti-Science on State Liquor Privatization?

Posted on May 14, 2013, 2:26pm | Leonard Gilroy

When policymakers in any of the liquor "control" states—the 17 states (plus parts of Maryland) that still, puzzlingly, retain Prohibition-era, psuedo-Soviet state-run liquor stores and/or a state-run liquor wholesale business—broach the subject of liquor privatization, government unions and anti-alcohol activist opponents raise fears that privatization will bring an increase in alcohol-related societal malaise, including more drunk driving, more binge drinking and more underage drinking.

The academic evidence for these predictions are thin at best, and more recent research from Duquesne University scholars Antony Davies and John Pulito suggests quite the opposite.

That hasn't stopped the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from stepping in to muddy the waters on privatization. In fact, the CDC's independent advisory board—the Community Preventative Services Task Force—has gone on the record officially opposing any further privatization of state liquor monopolies, a position now echoed by the CDC itself. (Forget for a moment that the cat's already way out of the bag, as 32 states have never had state-run liquor monopolies to begin with, and Washington State voters opted to privatize their state-run wholesale and retail systems last year).

The primary justification for the CDC's stance is an analysis the task force conducted reviewing 17 different studies on privatizing retail alcohol sales, which concluded that "[t]he evidence consistently showed that privatization of retail alcohol sales was associated with a substantial increase in per capita sales of the privatized beverages." (p.425) The report and task force recommendation has been received by government unions and anti-liquor activists as manna from heaven and has been widely used in states like Pennsylvania to scare policymakers, media and citizens into believing that privatization will bring untold social horrors (again, despite the lack of said horrors in the 33 states already privatized).

However, two recent media articles call the CDC report's analysis and findings into question. First, Forbes ran a lengthy article yesterday by contributor Trevor Butterworth that debunks several key aspects of the study. Here's a teaser:

In examining 17 studies on the effect of privatization, the Task Force found that the median consumption of alcohol increased by 44.4 percent. Did this increase lead to an increase in harm? The two studies addressing the issue had mixed results and “methodological limitations;” but “Single Distribution Theory,” for which the Task Force said there is “extensive evidence,” shows that a mean increase in alcohol consumption leads to an increase in overall risk.

This all sounds quite persuasive – and why would anyone not trust an independent expert task force advising the CDC on the best scientific evidence? Well, the first problem is the extensive evidence that Single Distribution Theory does not explain the relationship between the availability and consumption of alcohol – so extensive, in fact, that the theory was largely abandoned in the early 1990s for its inability to explain, and in many cases, fit the empirical data on alcohol consumption.

Read the whole thing for a rich debunking of the CDC's findings. Skipping to the punch line:

Of course, whatever way you parse the recommendations of the Task Force, and their adoption by the CDC, such reasoning is about as robust as Styrofoam. This is an astonishing abuse of data in the service of trying to sway legislation – and one which points to an agency being driven by politics and ideology, and not by science.

In addition to the Forbes article, The Inquirer in Philadelphia recently published an op-ed by a former chair of the American Medical Association, Dr. Raymond Scalettar, who is also a clinical professor of medicine at GWU Medical Center and a medical adviser to the Distilled Spirits Council. Dr. Scalettar writes that the studies reviewed by CDC do not support the claim that privatization would harm public health:

Robert Brewer, who leads the alcohol program in the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, has repeatedly pointed to a review by CDC's Community Task Force. It found a 44 percent median increase in per capita sales of privatized alcoholic beverages within jurisdictions that underwent privatization of retail alcohol sales.

Unfortunately, Brewer has never explained what the 44 percent estimate really means. This data, which has been presented out of context, is misleading and useless in the Pennsylvania privatization discussions.

The 44 percent figure was derived by analyzing 17 studies that looked at the impact privatization had on the privatized beverage. The 44 percent growth estimate is not an estimate of total alcohol consumption, nor is it an estimate of alcohol-related harms.

Of the 17 studies analyzed, six showed no increase in consumption, and four showed only moderate increases. This fact alone would give most researchers pause with regard to any kind of sweeping conclusion.

Importantly, the Community Task Force's review found no pattern of increased alcohol-related harms in the studies it analyzed, which ultimately is what the public is most concerned about.

Again, readers should review the whole article for Scalettar's full critique. He concludes:

The CDC has the imprimatur of a respected, science-based government organization. Brewer has the responsibility to honestly present research in an unbiased, forthright manner so the public and elected officials can make decisions based upon the best available evidence.

Both articles provide ample evidence that policymakers and citizens in the 17 "control" states like Pennsylvania should take the CDC's anti-privatization stance with a major grain of salt, as it rests on a dubious scientific foundation. But the big question that still remains unanswered is why is the CDC being so anti-science on liquor privatization? Could it, as Butterworth suggests, be driven more by political and ideological considerations? That would certainly be unfathomable in this day and age, right?

For more, see here for my recent writeup on developments on state liquor privatization from Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013.

Washington State Enters New Era of Liquor Privatization

Posted on May 31, 2012, 10:42am | Leonard Gilroy

Friday will mark a historic first: Washington State will become the first of 18 liquor "control" states to fully privatize its state-run monopoly on the wholesale and retail trade in distilled spirits, assuming that the state's Supreme Court doesn't strike down the ballot initiative that mandated privatization when it issues a final ruling on a court challenge later this morning.

I detailed the Washington State initiative in Reason Foundation's recent Annual Privatization Report 2011 (full report here), and I've posted a standalone version of that article here for convenience.

This will be interesting to watch on many levels. One topic of particular interest will be the impact of privatization on liquor prices. Many observers expect prices to increase overall, which on the surface might seem counterintuitive when considering the establishment of a competitive market among private vendors where one previously did not exist. However, to secure enough political support for privatization, drafters of the ballot initiative made a strategic calculation that merely replacing revenues to the state (via new excise taxes to replace the previous state monopoly markup, or profit) would not be enough to secure voter approval.

As I detail in the article linked above, drafters opted to add new fees on top of an already high state tax burden on alcohol to generate higher net alcohol-related revenues to the state after privatization. At the state level, increased revenues are estimated to be $216 million to $253 million over the next six fiscal years, with a similar $186 million to $227 million increase in local government revenues expected over that same period.

So if prices increase overall, well…it would make sense, since you're tacking on new fees onto already high taxes. But we should be clear: if prices do rise, then it will be due to that particular policy decision, not a natural result of privatization. Observers in other states like Pennsylvania, where a policy debate over liquor privatization is ongoing in the legislature, should keep that context in mind as they consider how to design similar initiatives.

And in Washington State, policymakers always have the option of lowering the alcohol tax burden to drive prices down, though I don't suspect that many policymakers there will be rushing to do so given their interest in higher tax revenues.

At a larger level, it will be interesting to see how Washington's experience influences the liquor privatization discussion in the other 17 so-called "control" states, which retain post-Prohibition era wholesale and/or retail liquor monopolies. As I discussed at length in this February 2012 blog post, I see these government-run businesses as relics of a bygone era when there was a false belief (hubris?) in a minority of states that somehow you can only trust government to sell liquor (though it's perfectly fine to have private sales of beer and wine).

But that logic is severely flawed: if government being the direct monopoly wholesaler and retailer of potentially harmful substances is everything it’s supporters say it’s cracked up to be, then:

• Why not have state governments expropriate and take over operation of all Walgreens, CVS’s and the myriad other pharmacies out there that dispense potentially dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals? Or ban private sales of tobacco products and establish state-run tobacco store systems?
• Why didn't any of the dozen-plus states that have legalized medical marijuana in recent years opted to pursue direct state control of sale and distribution, despite over 75 years of experience with the state spirits monopolies in the “control” states.

No one is seriously suggesting that these things happen, and it’s for a good reason: government’s proper role is in the regulation of these substances, not their direct sale and marketing.

Governments tend to be bad at running business enterprises because they're not actually business and it’s not a core expertise. By contrast, the private sector is in the business of business, and hence the proper place for that, with government responsible for enforcing regulation of the market. In fact, you have the same regulatory tools available in control and privatized states: those are controls on price and controls on availability. Open market states have control over excise tax rates, as well as the number and location of liquor licenses. It’s that regulatory function that is the critical aspect of “control”, not whether the clerk behind the counter is a public employee or not.

Check back here for more in the coming days and weeks on Washington State's privatization rollout.

UPDATE: Hot off the presses, the state Supreme Court has just issued a ruling upholding the constitutionality of Initiatve 1183, so the full conversion to private liquor sales in Washington State will take place at midnight.

New at Reason: Review of State Privatization Issues in 2010 and Today

Posted on February 18, 2011, 3:48pm | Harris Kenny

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2010 continues today with the release of the State Government Privatization section, authored by Reason's Leonard Gilroy, Harris Kenny, Shirley Ybarra and Tyler Millhouse. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships (PPPs) in state government. Topics include:

• Privatization initiatives in New Jersey, Louisiana and Puerto Rico;
• Divesting state alcohol monopolies;
• PPPs for state parks management;
• Lottery privatization in Illinois;
• Privatization of state workers compensation programs and economic development agencies;
• PPPs in higher education;
• Contracting for performance in child welfare privatization and more.

» APR 2010: State Government Privatization [pdf, 900 kB]
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2010

Ending Government Liquor Monopolies

Posted on October 29, 2010, 4:36pm | Anthony Randazzo

There are currently 18 states in the U.S. that have monopolies on the sale of liquor. It's a longstanding remnant of prohibition, but one that might be finally going away in a few states soon. The first "control" state to take on ending state control of liquor sales is Washington, with two different ballot initiatives next week. The second state will be Virginia. Governor McDonnell has already proposed one plan to privatize Virginia's ABC stores, and the state legislature plans to take up the issue in the spring. A third state, Pennsylvania might join the privatization movement soon as well if gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett wins office.

This growing debate is the subject of an op-ed I co-authored with Jason Mercier at the Washington Policy Center, published today at FoxNews.com:

Seventy-seven years after the end of prohibition the battle of the “wets” versus the “drys” is alive and well in those states considering ending their government monopolies over the sale of liquor. Though not as colorful as the epic battles between Al Capone and Elliot Ness, the underlining debate continues over whether government control of liquor sales has measurable societal benefits. [...]

Proponents of government control over liquor sales argue a state monopoly serves numerous social goals, such as preventing under-age drinking and reducing alcohol related deaths. 

A central argument against private liquor sales is that ending government monopolies would lead to drastic social costs. For example, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association argues that privatization of liquor sales would increase binge drinking and decrease road safety.

But a recent Commonwealth Foundation study looking at national per-capita alcohol consumption questioned the supposed link between state control and achieving social goals.

Read the whole op-ed here.

Reform, Transportation Trump Revenue-Neutrality in Virginia ABC Privatization Plan

Posted on October 8, 2010, 5:00am | Leonard Gilroy

In my new column, I argue that the rationale for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's plan to disable the Commonwealth's wholesale and retail spirits monopoly goes far beyond revenue-neutrality. Policymakers take their eyes off the ball when they fail to account for: (1) the benefits that accrue to the state and taxpayers from new transportation investment (which ABC privatization plan would facilitate), and (2) getting the state out of an archaic, non-core enterprise that abuses taxpayers. An excerpt:

Still, some in the Assembly are complaining that the current plan would not be revenue-neutral, since the annual revenue derived from the proposed spirits excise tax would fall $47 million short of the $226 million currently raised through the existing ABC monopoly markup and excise taxes (which would be eliminated under the plan). This argument isn't unexpected-state legislators do not release their grip on state revenue streams easily, after all-but it is short-sighted, for two key reasons.

First, the current ABC monopoly is profitable because it does what monopolies often do-it abuses its monopoly status by overtaxing spirits consumers, sending profits to the state's general fund to pay for general government services. Those services ostensibly benefit all Virginians, so the costs of those programs should properly be borne by all taxpayers alike, not just the convenient target of spirits consumers.

In that light, the fact that the proposed ABC plan would generate less revenue for the state suggests a major step in the right direction, since it implies that consumers and taxpayers would gain some relief from overtaxation concurrent with the benefits of more choice, convenience and competition. Weaning the state from excessive monopoly profits should not be construed as a bad thing, despite the inevitable complaints from legislators that would always prefer more tax dollars to spend.

Second, ABC privatization is not a fiscal issue, it's a government reform issue. Running a liquor monopoly is not a core function of government, as Gov. McDonnell and others have stated repeatedly. A majority of 32 states rejected the state ABC monopoly model outright at the end of Prohibition-opting for privatized spirits wholesale and retail from the outset-and no state has ever transitioned from a privatized model to a state monopoly model. Texas, Arizona, Georgia, California and the other 28 privatized states simply recognized early on that alcohol is alcohol, and it doesn't make sense to treat spirits any differently than beer or wine.

Check out the full article here, as well as a related piece here.

Costco Steps Up for Liquor Privatization in WA State

Posted on May 26, 2010, 6:20pm | Leonard Gilroy

Costco is stepping up its support for getting Washington State out of the liquor business. As the Seattle Weekly reports, the retailer plans to have its employees help to gather signatures to get Initiative 1100—which would privatize the state-run liquor retail monopoly—placed on the fall ballot.

Issaquah-based retail giant Costco has been trying for years to change liquor laws in Washington. It sued the state Liquor Control Board to force the state to allow high-volume buyers like itself to get discounts on wholesale beer and wine.

Having lost that effort, Costco has started on a new campaign. The retail giant is throwing its weight behind state ballot initiative 1100--the one that would allow Washingtonians to decide whether the state should relinquish its monopoly on liquor sales altogether.

In fact, starting next Tuesday, company employees will help gather signatures at Costco stores across the state. Kristina Logsdon of the Washington Ballot Initiative Network says she's heard of small businesses making petitions available at their stores. But she's never heard of a major company like Costco using its retail outlets and employees to actively gather signatures.

The employees' time technically counts as an in-kind contribution from Costco to Modernize Washington, the organizing committee behind Initiative 1100. And while Costco is required to report the amount of employee-hours donated, state law doesn't put a cap on in-kind donations in ballot measure campaigns.

More here from Costco's press release:

Virtually since its inception, Costco has sought to reform the patchwork of outmoded laws that govern distribution and sale of liquor, wine and beer in the State of Washington. Earlier this year, it briefly appeared that bringing private enterprise and competition to the sale of liquor in Washington might get serious attention in the legislature. It did not. In April and May, various initiatives, none initially sponsored by Costco, were filed.

After careful review of the options, Costco decided to support Initiative 1100 because the Company believes it bests serves the interests of its members (and consumers generally) -- providing them greater choices in their purchasing options and allowing them to benefit from efficiencies that the private sector and competition can bring to the sale of liquor, wine and beer.

"We serve our members in many states and around the world by selling them spirits, beer and wine at competitive prices," said Jim Sinegal, chief executive officer of Costco. "We should be able to do so in Washington State too, and other retailers should be able to similarly serve their customers. We are excited that Washington voters will be able to have a direct voice in determining these important policies."

As a backdrop to this discussion, last December the Washington State Auditor's Office released a report finding that the state could increase revenue from liquor sales and distribution by up to $350 million over five years beginning in fiscal year 2012 if it sold the state distribution center and auctioned liquor licenses to private retailers.

ABC privatization is also a hot subject in Virginia right now, which my Reason.tv colleagues featured in this recent video, "Virginia is for Liquor Lovers." As Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell suggests in the video, there's really no justifiable reason for government to be in the business of selling distilled spirits.

Rather, the proper role for government is to serve as the regulator, distributing and enforcing private liquor licenses like they do for beer and wine today. Let the private sector run the business enterprises—after all, business is what businesses do best, right?

Virginia is For (Liquor) Lovers!

Posted on January 26, 2010, 1:53pm | Adrian Moore

New Reason.tv video with VA Gov. Bob McDonnell about privatizing Virginia's liquor monopoly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob McDonnell is a self-professed Pinot Grigio and White Zinfandel drinker.

He's also the new Republican governor of Virginia and is taking aim at the
commonwealth's oppressive and inefficient state-owned liquor monopoly. More
than a dozen states still completely control the sales and distribution of
all distilled spirits.

The result? Higher payrolls for state governments (state-workers are
public-sector employees after all) and rotten selection and service for
customers (state-sanctioned monopolies tend to diminish the shopping
experience).

Despite a reputation as a social conservative, McDonnell thinks that
state-run liquor stores are a bad idea from both pragmatic and philosophical
perspectives. Given budget crises, says McDonnell, "we can't just do things
the same old way.... Certainly there's nothing I gleaned from the [Virginia]
constitution that would have me think it's better or required to have the
government controlling distilled spirits."

States such as West Virginia and Iowa have gained millions of dollars in new
tax and license revenues by privatizing liquor sales, says Reason Foundation
policy analyst Len Gilroy. And they've also cut government expenditures by
millions of dollars as well.

Will Virginia join them? McDonnell invited Reason.tv to come back in a year
and check in with him. Sure thing, Mr. Governor. We'll bring the questions.
You can bring the White Zinfandel.

Approximately 4.30 minutes. Written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick
Gillespie, who also hosts. Additional footage: Dan Hayes.

For more downloadable versions of all videos, plus links and articles to
related materials, go to Reason.tv.

Why Privatizing Liquor Stores in Virginia to Fund Transportation Makes Sense

Posted on July 22, 2009, 2:12pm | Leonard Gilroy

Bob McDonnell, Virginia's former attorney general and current Republican gubernatorial candidate, released a major policy proposal yesterday to address the Commonwealth's growing transportation needs and funding gap, and a key element would involve privatizing the state's ABC stores—getting the state out of the liquor retail business and using a portion of the proceeds to invest in transportation. Per the Washington Times:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert F. McDonnell on Tuesday proposed privatizing Virginia's liquor stores in order to reap about $500 million in revenue dedicated to funding the state's transportation needs. [...]

"We should get the private sector involved in the distribution of spirits, just like beer and wine," Mr. McDonnell said. "It makes perfect sense to get the government out of this business."

The new revenue would come from selling retail liquor licenses. Virginia is one of 18 states that do not allow private retail sales of alcohol. The state operates 334 liquor stores, which have generated about $1.3 billion in the past five years, said officials with the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Mr. McDonnell said the state would continue to collect the taxes on liquor sales and would collect additional money from property taxes paid by store owners, while no longer being responsible for the $115 million annually associated with running the stores. He said the plan could result in $500 million for Virginia "in the near term."

Legislation would determine how many retail liquor licenses would be sold under the McDonnell plan.

The recommendation to privatize state liquor stores has been around for several years. It was made in a 2002 report to Gov. Mark R. Warner by the Commission on Efficiency and Effectiveness - an advisory body led by former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder that was tasked with finding ways to make state government more effective and efficient.

Mandating that the money go toward transportation is innovative, said Leonard Gilroy, the director of government reform for the Reason Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank that is studying the issue of privatization of alcoholic beverage control agencies. Mr. Gilroy said he knows of no other states that have dedicated the profits of privatization to fixing transportation infrastructure.

In January, state Sen. Mark Obenshain, Harrisonburg Republican, proposed auctioning 1,000 retail liquor licenses. The bill, which did not propose directing the funds to transportation, died on a voice vote in the Senate's Rehabilitation and Social Services committee.

Mr. Obenshain said privatization would bring millions of additional dollars to the state, especially if the plan included licensing of valuable liquor distributorships.

As I told the reporter, Sarah Abruzzese, yesterday in an interview, I do indeed find this an innovative and sensible plan. To clarify my statement in the article, it's true that I'm not aware of privatizing an ABC operation and using the proceeds to invest in infrastructure, but in the larger world of privatization, there's certainly precedent for that. For example, Gov. Mitch Daniels privatized the Indiana Toll Road and is using the $3.8 billion upfront payment to fully fund a ten-year statewide highway investment program.

As I wrote here, I believe that fiscal responsbility demands that the proceeds from these sorts of transactions be invested in areas with long-term benefits to taxpayers, such as infrastructure, paying down debt or paying down long-term state pension and health obligations. By doing just that, McDonnell's plan meets the fiscal responsibility test, in my mind.

Also, as the fiscal house of cards collapses around us, is there anyone in their right mind that can argue that there's something inherently governmental about selling liquor? You can walk into a grocery store in Texas, Arizona or Louisiana and buy a bottle of Southern Comfort—can Virginians not be trusted to do the same? As a born and bred Virginian, I have my own personal anecdotes about having to deal with the stupidity of a state-run liquor store system (imagine having a party and then having to deal with the equivalent of the DMV to obtain supplies). But I digress.

Privatizing Virginia's ABC retail operation would benefit consumers through increased choice and lower prices. Private stores have more freedom and flexibility to innovate and be more responsive to the customer. For example, store hours and locations would be driven by market demand, offering more and tailored options than centrally owned and operated entities. Under the current system, some parts of populous Northern Virginia still don't have enough stores to meet demand, a situation that makes no business sense whatsoever. That's why governments need to get out of the business of business—they're just not very good at it.

Another benefit of eliminating the government's monopoly on spirits is that independent—but regulated—private sector businesses are forced to compete on price, quality, and choice. Some other key points:

• Even if the state isn't running the ABC stores, the revenue stream to the state would not be negatively impacted. Taxes on spirits wouldn't go away with privatization, and you'd be shedding the costs of running stores and paying state employees, so revenues will continue to flow, if not increase, with higher sales. Revenues that are collected from licensing bars and restaurants will also continue to flow into the Commonwealth’s coffers.
• You be generating a new form of revenue through privatization in fact: the licensing of existing and new retail stores. Even with privatization, the state would retain its role as a regulatory body, which would include serving as the licensing body for new retail establishments. Further, privately-run stores would also pay income and property taxes, representing new revenue streams to the state and local governments (state stores are currently tax-exempt). This has been the experience of Iowa, West Virginia and Alberta, Canada—the most recent governments to privatize alcohol control operations—where policymakers were able to increase revenues at the same time that they lowered alcohol taxes.
• Social do-gooders and MADD types will certainly scream that privatization will lead to more drinking and driving and teen alcohol abuse, but that's just false. We're conducting research on ABC privatization right now that has found no significant differences between "control states" like Virginia (where government controls wholesale operations, retail operations or both) and license states on the key metrics of per capita alcohol consumption, drunk driving and underage alcohol abuse.
• Last, there's no reason to stop at Virginia's retail operation. As state Senator Obenshain suggested in the excerpt above, privatizing the wholesale operation could be another huge boon to the state. And again, there's nothing inherently governmental about running a wholesale business for spirits.

McDonnell's proposal will still need to be fleshed out further, but I think its a sensible and innovative idea that Commonwealth policymakers should seriously consider. You've got a state with massive transportation needs, and it just so happens to run a very lucrative business that could be run better and generate more revenue in the private sector. Put those two things together, as McDonnell has done, and you've got something that merits a serious policy discussion.

» Reason's Privatization Research and Commentary

Which States Make the Most Beer?

Posted on April 21, 2009, 6:19pm | Adrian Moore

SloshSpot has a cool map and post showing the number of US breweries per capita.

Reason.tv’s “Beer: An American Revolution” video looks how government regulations have protected the big beer companies and how the "microbrew movement gave rise to massive consumer choice."

Hat tip to Governing's 13th Floor

California's Dime a Drink Tax Proposal

Posted on April 17, 2009, 10:07am | Edward Stringham

My new column for the Orange Country Register:

California's taxes just aren't high enough yet. So Assemblyman Jim Beall Jr., D-San Jose, has introduced a bill that would raise alcohol taxes by a dime a drink. The government figures it can raise $1.2 billion a year by taxing every drink you choose to have.

In a press release, Mr. Beall explained why you need to pay more taxes: "The alcohol industry creates devastating problems – traffic accidents, alcoholism – and walks away with money stuffed in its pockets while the public – including nondrinkers – are left to pay billions for the mess."

And you thought that glass of wine with your dinner wasn't hurting anybody.

Mr. Beall is parroting the Marin Institute's deceptive and inaccurate claim that alcohol "costs" California taxpayers $38 billion a year and that high taxes will somehow reduce high-risk alcohol consumption. Let's look at a few ways the folks at Marin allege alcohol is costing you money.

They contend drinking costs the state "$25.3 billion in lost productivity and reduced earnings."

That claim, simply, is false. My 2006 Reason Foundation study found that drinkers earn 10 percent to 14 percent more money than nondrinkers. Men who drink socially, visiting a bar at least once a month, bring home an additional 7 percent in pay.

A 2005 study sponsored by the National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse similarly found that drinking actually increased the returns to both education and work experience. And a 2001 study, "The Impact of Problem Drinking on Employment," found that even "problem drinking is not negatively related to labor supply."

The Marin Institute says another $8 billion in annual costs to taxpayers stem from alcohol-related crime. Research indicates about one-third of violent crimes involve alcohol. The explicit assumption in blaming these crimes on alcohol is that the offenses would not have occurred without it. There is no proof of that. Just as there is no guarantee that criminals committing violent crimes would be upstanding, law-abiding citizens if they refrained from drinking.

The overwhelming majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly. At some point, personal responsibility has to enter the equation and the choices people make have to receive the blame.

Full Column at OCRegister.com

2006 Study: Drinkers Earn More Money Than Non-Drinkers

New Documentary Beer Wars and Live Event With Ben Stein On April 16th

Posted on April 6, 2009, 5:19pm

Reason Foundation is partnering to bring you the new documentary Beer Wars. The film makes its world premiere in a special live simulcast event in over 400 theaters on Thursday, April 16th. Beer Wars tells the David and Goliath story of the American beer industry and takes you inside the big business of beer - where the big are getting bigger, consolidation reigns and free enterprise often takes a back seat. The evening will feature the debut of Beer Wars, followed by a live discussion led by Ben Stein and featuring some of America’s leading independent brewers and experts.

You can purchase tickets to the LIVE premiere event here.

The Beer Wars Official Website

Reason.tv's Beer: An American Revolution Video