SAN FRANCISCO, CA (October 27, 2011) – Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) added its voice of opposition today to the primarily Costco-financed alcohol privatization initiative I-1183 in the state of Washington. The alcohol industry watchdog is encouraging the state’s voters to reject, once again, a profit-driven corporate retailer effort to steal state alcohol sales.
 
“Costco, Trader Joe’s and Safeway are buying this election so they can exponentially pump up their alcohol sales and profits,”stated Bruce Lee Livingston, Executive Director and CEO of Alcohol Justice. “Last year, voters defeated Costco’s lonely hail Mary deregulation attempt. This year it’s a corporate retailer blitz with Costco throwing a $22.7 million tailgate party for votes.”
 
If passed, I-1183 will dismantle the protections that Washington’s current control system promotes. Now the state is able to directly and efficiently ensure that liquor is being sold in a responsible manner. Shifting liquor sales to the private sector will further burden state resources by requiring the licensing of many grocery and retail stores to sell liquor, and additional enforcement officers to ensure that all these new licensees are complying with state law. Considering that privatization will cost the state revenue in the long term, enforcement and regulatory activity will not keep pace with the costs associated with an increased number of privately licensed alcohol retailers.
 
“The corporate interests behind I-1138 transparently wrap their rhetoric in choice, convenience, and quick, one-time profits for the state,” said Sarah Mart, Director of Research at Alcohol Justice.  “Yet the truth is that deregulation seeks to merely replace a socially responsible method of collecting revenue with one that allows for private profits while increasing harm.”
 
In addition to long-term state revenue losses, privatization of liquor sales negatively impacts public health. Liquor control states have a lower prevalence of drinking and binge drinking among people between 12 and 25 years of age. Furthermore, control states have a lower death rate for people under the age of 21 killed by alcohol-impaired driving. More broadly, history has shown that in states where alcohol sales were privatized, alcohol outlet density dramatically increased. Studies consistently demonstrate that increases in availability and outlet density are correlated with increases in alcohol-related harm.
  
“Ultimately, I-1183 will cost the people of Washington,” added Livingston. “Whether due to decreased revenue, increased harm from alcohol consumption, or both – the Costco-led corporate blitz to privatize Washington’s alcohol sales will hurt the state’s bottom line.”
  
Alcohol Justice formally opposes passage of I-1183, and joins with the Protect Our Communities - No on 1183 campaign to defeat the initiative.
  

  
  
Costco shattered single-donor campaign contribution records in Washington State last week in its attempt to pass Initiative 1183, legislation that would privatize Washington’s liquor sales and allow grocery stores to sell spirits. If we needed another example of an American corporation attempting to buy its way into legislation that harms the public but boosts profits, this definitely fits the bill.
  
Just a year ago, Washington voters soundly defeated two ballot measures designed to reduce state control of alcohol sales, successfully defending a system which has protected public health for decades. But Costco didn't want to listen to the public opinion of state voters. It found a way to spin an argument that the voters were wrong, and say that they really did want alcohol privatization, despite the 2010 defeats. 
 
This year Costco put forward a new ballot measure: Initiative 1183, which could foreseeably increase the number of spirits outlets by more than 4 times the current number. (That doesn't even include convenience stores, which could float right through a big loophole in the initiative and get to sell spirits too.) Since then, Costco's done everything in its power to ram 1183 down voters' throats.
 
Anyone doubting the harmful effects of privatizing alcohol sales should find this data sobering:** 
  

• Residents of control states consume 14% less spirits and 7% less total alcohol than residents of license states.

• States with spirits retail monopolies have a lower prevalence of drinking and binge drinking among people between 12 and 25 years old.

• As many as 45 deaths per year could be prevented by state monopolies over alcohol sales.

• Compared to states that license private sellers of alcohol, states with retail monopolies over wine and spirits have:

  • 14.5% fewer high school students reported drinking alcohol in the last 30 days;
  • 16.7% fewer high school students reported binge drinking in the last 30 days;
  • A death rate for people under age 21 killed by alcohol-impaired driving that is 9.3% lower.

• A review of 17 studies found that after privatization, alcohol sales increased by an average of 42%.

To date, Costco has donated more than $22 million dollars to the Yes on 1183 campaign – a figure that shatters the previous single-donor record of $16.1 million. The total that "Yes on 1183" has raised from other donors? Less than $250,000. There’s no doubt about it – this is an initiative designed by Costco, for Costco profits. The public's health and the state’s finances be damned.

  
 
The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States exceeded $223 billion dollars in 2006 - the equivalent of  $746 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S - according to a new study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Taxpayers pay the largest chunk of these costs, with an estimated $94.2 billion tab billed to government. 

Of the total costs, 72.2% ($161 billion dollars) is attributed to lost productivity in the workforce. The remaining costs are attributed to healthcare (11%), criminal justice (9.4%), and effects such as property damage (7.5%). While the CDC has had strong data on premature deaths caused by alcohol consumption (79,000 annually, with an estimated 2.3 million years of potential life lost each year), it last performed an economic cost analysis in 1998, when the annual cost was estimated to be $184.6 billion.
 
While $223.5 billion dollars is a massive number – almost 3 times what the federal government spent on pre-primary through secondary education in 2010 – the authors of the study believe that it is a substantial understatement of the true costs of alcohol use in the United States. They recommend “effective interventions to reduce excessive alcohol consumption—including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, maintaining and enforcing the minimum legal drinking age of 21 years, screening and counseling for alcohol misuse, and specific countermeasures for alcohol- impaired driving such as sobriety checkpoints.” With the national cost of alcohol consumption ringing in at nearly $2 per drink, we could not agree more.
  
Click here for the article abstract, and here for the CDC's press release.
 
 
  

Advertising

September 28, 2010
Massachusetts Deprt of Public Health / Bureau of Substance Abuse Services Policy Forum, Boston, MA

Facebook and Big Alcohol: Partners in Harm
August 19, 2010
Enforcing Underage Drinking Law (EUDL) Leadership Conference, Anaheim, CA

Failure of Self-Regulation of Alcohol Advertising
November 10, 2009
American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA
 
Out-of-Home Alcohol Advertising
October 30, 2009
Washington State Prevention Summit, Yakima, WA


AEDs & Alcopops


Bringing the new alcopops down to size: Current problems and model policy solutions

 
Building a Charge for Harm Alliance: Campaigning to Hold Big Alcohol Accountable
August 19, 2010
Enforcing Underage Drinking Law (EUDL) Leadership Conference, Anaheim, CA

Big Alcohol

December 5, 2010
Alcohol Policy 15, Washington, DC
Big Alcohol, Youth, and Prevention
September 29, 2010
American Council on Alcohol Problems, Sacramento, CA
  
The Alcohol Industry in the 21st Century: How a Few Global Corporations Control the Market, Advertise to Youth, and Undermine Public Policy
September 21 & 22, 2010
Alcohol Policy Project of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Big Alcohol Politics: A View from the United States
November 23, 2009
European Center for Monitoring Alcohol Marketing, Brussels, Belgium
  
Big Alcohol and Underage Drinking
October 30, 2009
Washington State Prevention Summit, Yakima, WA



Public Health

Educating Lawmakers About Public Health and Effective Alcohol Policies
June 21, 2010
National Conference of State Liquor Administrators (NCSLA) 2010, New Orleans, LA

Public Health and Alcohol Policy: Dispelling Myths, Forging Solutions
December 6, 2009
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association, Charleston, SC

Public Health and Alcohol Policy - Dispelling Myths, Forging Solutions 
October 19, 2009
Center for Alcohol Policy Alcohol Law Symposium, Chicago, IL
 


State Control
Preemption in Alcohol Control: Lessons Learned the Hard Way 
November 9, 2009
American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA

 
Kudos to Governor Brown for signing AB 183, to ban alcohol sales through self-serve checkout machines in California. His action on this landmark legislation marks a significant victory for public health and safety in California that will hopefully be replicated across the country. Alcohol is the most dangerous, most abused drug in California. It costs us all $38.4 billion a year with government's share pegged at nearly $9 billion. Enacting point-of-sale restrictions, like those necessary for other dangerous substances like tobacco, drugs, guns and ammunition is a no-brainer. Take a bow Gov. Brown for reducing evidence-based public dangers instead of  pumping-up retailer's profits through dangerously automating alcohol sales. Underage drinkers and already intoxicated adults will be denied access and harm will be reduced. A great thank you to the thousands who helped campaign for this success over the past three years, two legislatures and two governors. Click here to Read the Press Release.





    

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                    
English
Spanish                    


 

 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (October 10, 2011) -- Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) praised Governor Jerry Brown today for signing a bill to ban alcohol sales through self-serve checkout machines in California. The bill, AB 183, authored by Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), was approved by the legislature in September and had been sitting on the Governor’s desk for nearly a month.
  
“Until he did it, we really weren’t sure what the Governor was going to do,” stated Michael Scippa, Public Affairs Director at Alcohol Justice. “But a last minute demonstration of impassioned support by state religious leaders may have helped him understand that the bill is not just about preserving union jobs as opponents tried to unfairly characterize the measure.  AB 183 is about preserving the public health and safety of all California residents and visitors.”
  
A rise in self-serve checkout lanes in California stores that sell alcoholic beverages was beginning to create a recipe for disaster. Research over the past few years from UCLA and San Diego State University indicated self-checkout machines failed to operate properly almost 10% of the time when alcohol was scanned, and that up to 32% of the time students were not asked to show ID. In addition, Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry found that young people were able to "game" the self-checkout system an amazing 70% of the time, by scanning a 12-pack of soda and bagging a 12-pack of beer. But concerns went beyond dangerous youth access. Self-serve checkout machines also do not prevent already intoxicated adults from illegally purchasing more alcohol.
  
“Easy access to alcohol is a key driver of over-consumption, which in turn causes violent crime, car crashes, and high-risk sex,” stated Jorge Castillo, Alcohol Justice Advocacy & Outreach Manager. The opponents of AB 183 chose to ignore all the evidence-based research on the dangers and tried to paint the effort as a self-serving  ‘union-sponsored bill.’ Thankfully the Governor recognized that protecting public health and safety was more important than protecting additional profits from automating alcohol sales.” 
 
In addition to strong support from faith-based leaders statewide, AB 183 enjoyed support from a broad alliance of organizations that included MADD, Consumer Federation of California, California Council on Alcohol Problems, California Police Chiefs, Alcohol Justice, California Narcotic Officers Association, California's Police Officers (PORAC), California Professional Firefighters, and thousands of individuals. Many of these supporters also fought to pass an earlier version of bill authored by former Assembly Member Hector De La Torre (D-Los Angeles).  His bill, AB 523, was originally introduced in 2008, with an updated version, AB 1060, passing through the legislature in August of 2010. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, vetoed it in September of 2010. Mr. De La Torre termed-out of the legislature at the end of 2010.
  
“We sincerely appreciate Governor Brown’s decisive leadership on this issue,”added Scippa. “He has set a strong, admirable example for other states to follow. In California we recognize that the only responsible way to sell dangerous products, like tobacco, drugs, guns, ammo, and now alcohol, is through a face to face encounter with a trained clerk.”
 
For more information on the dangers of self-serve alcohol sales, go to: http://bit.ly/nC0jnU
 

  

For Immediate Release   
English  
Spanish                                                    

 



SAN FRANCISCO, CA (October 5, 2011) – Religious leaders from across the state are asking California Governor Jerry Brown to sign AB 183 to ban alcohol sales through self-serve checkout machines in California. The bill, authored by Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), passed through the state legislature in early September and is awaiting the governor’s action by October 9.
 
“Our Catechism teaches that ‘grave guilt’ is brought upon anyone who ‘by drunkenness... endangers their own and others' safety,’stated Bishop Gabino Zavala, Archdiocese of Los Angeles. “We need laws that protect the souls of our people, young and old alike, who are tempted to abuse alcohol and those who are the victims of that abuse.”
 
Research over the past few years from UCLA and San Diego State University shows that self-checkout machines failed to operate properly almost 10% of the time when alcohol was scanned, and that up to 32% of the time students were not asked to show ID. Moreover, Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry found that young people were able to "game" the self-checkout system almost 70% of the time, by scanning a 12-pack of soda and bagging a 12-pack of beer.
 
“As a parent and religious leader I call upon the Governor to protect our children from easy access to alcohol by banning the sale of all alcohol through self-check-out registers,”said Bishop Mark W. Holmerud, Sierra Pacific Synod, ELCA. “It is our responsibility to ensure that children, families and our communities are protected through appropriate control of alcohol sales.”
 
It has also been noted that self-serve checkout machines do not prevent already intoxicated adults form purchasing more alcohol. “These machines fail 10% of the time to stop alcohol purchases,”said Rev. Walter Contreras, National Coordinator Hispanic Ministries, Evangelical Covenant Church. “One out of ten times youth try to purchase beer, wine or spirits they won’t even get carded. Our responsibility as a society is to help the least among us, and this is the least the Governor can do to control teen drinking.”           
 
A broad alliance of supporters for AB 183 includes not only top religious leaders throughout the state, but many organizations including MADD, Consumer Federation of California, California Council on Alcohol Problems (CalCap), Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California, California Police Chiefs, Alcohol Justice, California Narcotic Officers Association, Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry, California's Police Officers (PORAC), and California Professional Firefighters.
 
“If stores must sell alcohol, we ask adult clerks to be responsible for the sale process from beginning to end in making sure they are not selling it to those underage or inebriated,”stated Shakeel Sayd, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. “I am proud to work with other faiths and community groups to see that alcohol sales are adequately controlled.”
 
Many groups, organizations and individuals have campaigned for the passage of AB 183 through the legislature and are now asking the Governor to sign it to protect youth and help reduce alcohol-related harm in California – which according to a 2008 report by Alcohol Justice is a catastrophic annual $38.4 billion dollar drain on the state.
 
“One thing every faith has in common is a concern for safe and healthy children,”said Rev. Alan H. Jones, Chair, California-Nevada Annual Conference Board of Church and Society, UMC. “We can’t trust an easily manipulated machine to be in charge of alcohol sales.”           
  
For more information on the dangers of self-serve alcohol sales, go to: http://bit.ly/nC0jnU

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE        10/5/11 
English
Spanish
     

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (October 5, 2011) – Industry watchdog Alcohol Justice, formerly Marin Institute, released a new report today that chronicles an obscene outlay of Big Alcohol dollars to California legislators in 2010.
 
The report, Drunk with Power: Industry Kills Alcohol Mitigation Fees in California 2010, documents more than $5 million dollars spent to influence all levels of government last year. A majority of the alcohol industry spending went toward campaign donations; lobbying state and local lawmakers; and contributions to political action committees in support of state initiative Proposition 26.
 
“Big Alcohol’s $5 million investment in 2010 was a really bad deal for California,”said Sarah Mart, director of research at Alcohol Justice and report co-author.  “The politicians and the alcohol industry gained, while California youth, communities and government agencies lost big as they struggled to pay for increasing alcohol-related harms with ever-decreasing resources.”
  
The biggest recipients of alcohol funding included Daryll Steinberg, D-Sacramento ($96,500), Sam Blakeslee, R-San Loius Obispo ($60,600), Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima ($53,645), Michael Villanes, R-Clovis ($47,970), Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles ($47,796), Isadore Hall, D-Los Angeles ($47,672), Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa ($42,177), Bill Emmerson, R-Hemet ($39,200), Felipe Fuentes, D-Los Angeles ($38,200), and Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino ($36,867).
  
The alcohol industry also spent more than $1.3 million to lobby state government on at least 49 proposed bills in 2010. Alcohol lobbyists focused on issues such as alcohol taxes, fee programs, alcohol licenses, and inter-state wine shipping. The greatest single focus of Big Alcohol’s spending last year totaled more than $2 million to pass state initiative Proposition 26, making it virtually impossible to establish any new alcohol mitigation fees.
 
The top alcohol lobbyist employers in California in 2010 included Diageo ($220,061), Anheuser-Busch InBev ($165,000), MillerCoors ($165,000), Wine Institute ($142,000), Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America ($138,000), California Beer and Beverage Distributors ($96,000), and the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States ($87,600).
 
“Our state government is operating under the influence of Big Alcohol political contributions and lobbying,”stated Bruce Lee Livingston, Executive Director/CEO of Alcohol Justice. “Critical revenue for alcohol-related programs was denied, as alcohol impact fees were ultimately defeated by Prop 26. The industry passed several bills to increase access to alcohol, while policymakers failed to protect public health and safety. This is what happens when government accepts Big Alcohol bucks.”
 
Drunk with Power also notes that only $10,000 was reported being spent by the industry in San Francisco to defeat Supervisor John Avalos’ Charge for Harm fee, despite their major grassroots campaign that produced a veto by wine distributor Mayor Gavin Newsom after the Board of Supervisors passed the fee. “We question whether there has been full disclosure of lobbying efforts by Platinum Consulting and Barbary Coast at the behest of the alcohol industry, and encourage them to rectify it immediately,”added Livingston.
 
Read the entire report now at www.AlcoholJustice.org

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    
                                                            
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (September 29, 2011) --- Alcohol industry watchdog Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) took direct aim today at Diageo and Facebook’s egregious new youth-oriented alcohol marketing partnership, the first of its kind in social networking history. 
 
“A new low point in Big Alcohol self-regulation has been reached,” stated Sarah Mart, Director of Research at Alcohol Justice. “First, alcopop and spirits giant Diageo announced a multimillion dollar advertising deal with Facebook to pump up sales with youth-attractive content to promote alcohol brands such as Smirnoff. Next, DISCUS, the D.C.-based front group for huge spirits corporations, trumpets their new ‘guidelines’ for alcohol ads on social networking sites; continuing its charade, as meaningless as the industry’s ‘Drink Responsibly’ campaigns.”
 
The industry-drafted digital marketing guidelines take effect tomorrow, September 30, 2011, in the U.S and Europe. They stake the alcohol industry’s claim to branded alcohol promotion on websites, social networking sites, blogs, mobile communications, and in applications. While they advise alcohol marketers to restrict such messages to venues where at least 71.6 percent of the user audience is the legal drinking age or older, age-restricting mechanisms to insure compliance are essentially ineffective.
 
Nearly two years ago to the day, Alcohol Justice (then Marin Institute) sounded an alarm with an article in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, exposing the excessive amounts of alcohol marketing and other content to promote alcohol brands and dangerous drinking on Facebook. The site now boasts over 800 million active users worldwide, with one-third of users estimated to be under the legal drinking age.
 
"We saw this train wreck coming two years ago,” said Mart, lead author of the 2009 article, Alcohol Promotion on Facebook. “Now it’s here; Big Alcohol is spending more than ever before to exploit users, particularly young people, by digitally befriending them and seamlessly integrating alcohol brands into their online lives.  Meanwhile, the industry front group keeps spinning the same old self-regulation rhetoric for members to hide behind.”
 
Research has shown that alcohol is the third leading cause of preventable death and the most widely used drug among youth in the United States. Incessant promotion of alcohol on social networking and social media sites is driving double-digit sales growth: Diageo reports its brands in the US have enjoyed a 20% increase in sales as a result of Facebook activity.
 
Alcohol Justice recommends immediate action by the Federal Trade Commission:

• Stop all paid alcohol ads on social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube
• Stop free alcohol-related content on social media platforms
• Monitor the alcohol industry’s presence in social media and enforce regulations, and apply penalties for violations
• Establish an independent, external, third-party review body that includes public interest representation