Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 24–28 | Cite as

Alcohol-Related Policy Measures in Ontario: Who Supports What and to What Degree?

  • Lise Anglin
  • Lynn Kavanagh
  • Norman Giesbrecht


Using 1998 provincial survey data (n = 1,205), the authors examine responses to 7 items concerning public opinion on alcohol-related policy in Ontario. The purpose of the study is to get a sense of overall public opinion on certain topical policy-related measures and to see whether this opinion is predicted by demographic characteristics of respondents (sex, age and self-reported drinking pattern). Cross-tabulations of opinion items with demographic variables revealed strong majority support for the status quo with regard to number of liquor and beer stores, beer and liquor store hours, and prohibition of the sale of alcohol in corner stores. A somewhat less robust majority also supported the status quo for alcohol taxes and legal drinking age. Among the demographic groups, high-risk heavy drinkers stood out for their greater support of relaxation of controls and this finding was confirmed by means of logistic regression. The majority of all groups, except frequent bar-goers, liked the idea of warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers. The authors conclude that, according to these survey data, policy initiatives towards greater access to alcohol, such as extended liquor store hours and sale of alcohol in corner stores, are not mandated by the majority of the population of Ontario.


En utilisant des données d’un sondage de 1998 (n = 1 205), les auteurs étudient en particulier les réponses à 7 questions ayant rapport à l’opinion publique sur la réglementation de l’alcool en Ontario. Le but de l’étude est d’évaluer l’opinion publique à l’égard des réglementations sur l’alcool en général, et de voir si on peut prédire cette opinion d’après les caractéristiques démographiques des répondants (le sexe, l’âge, le niveau de consommation). Les résultats montrent que la majorité préfère le statu quo quand il s’agit du nombre de brasseries et de marchands de vins et de spiritueux, des heures de vente, et de la vente de l’alcool aux épiceries. Une majorité moins forte préfère aussi le statu quo pour les taxes sur l’alcool et l’âge légal pour boire de l’alcool. Ce sont surtout les grands buveurs qui voudraient moins de restrictions de la disponibilité de ce produit. La plupart des répondants sont pour les étiquettes avertisseuses sur les conteneurs d’alcool, sauf les personnes qui fréquentent le plus les bars. Les auteurs tirent la conclusion que, d’après ces résultats, la population de l’Ontario, en général, ne soutient pas les initiatives pour augmenter la disponibilité de l’alcool dans cette province.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wagenaar A, Streff F. Public opinion on alcohol policies. J Public Health Policy 1990;11:189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giesbrecht N, Greenfield TK. Public opinions on alcohol policy issues: A comparison of American and Canadian surveys. Addiction 1999;94(4):521–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giesbrecht N, Kavanagh L. Public opinion and alcohol policy: Comparisons of two Canadian general population surveys. Drug Alcohol Rev 1999;18:7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodstadt M, Smart RG, Gillies M. Public attitudes toward increasing the price of alcoholic beverages. J Stud Alcohol 1978;39:1630–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hawks D, Lang E, Stockwell P, Lockwood A. Public support for the prevention of alcohol-related problems. Drug Alcohol Rev 1993;12:243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaskutas LA. Changes in public attitudes towards alcohol control policies since the warning label mandate of 1988. J Public Policy Marketing 1993;12(1):30–37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McAllister I. Public attitudes to the regulation of alcohol. Drug Alcohol Rev 1995;14:179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Room R, Graves K, Giesbrecht N, Greenfield T. Trends in public opinion about alcohol policy initiatives in Ontario and the US 1989–91. Drug Alcohol Rev 1995;14:35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Room R, West P. Alcohol and the U.S.-Canada border: Trade disputes and border traffic problems. J Public Health Policy 1998;19(1):68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis F, Bondy S, et al. The Ontario Drug Monitor, 1996. Technical Guide. ARF Research Document Series No. 132, Toronto: ARF, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis F, Ialomiteanu A, et al. The Ontario Drug Monitor 1997: Technical Guide. ARF Research Document Series No. 140, Toronto: ARF, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis, FJ, Paglia A, Ialomiteanu A. Ontario Drug Monitor 1998: Technical Guide. CAMH Research Document Series No. 3, Toronto: CAMH, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anglin L (Ed.). The Ontario Experience of Alcohol and Tobacco: New Focus on Accessibility, Violence and Mandatory Treatment. A Report of the Ontario Alcohol and Other Drug Opinion Survey (OADOS), 1995. ARF Internal Document #122, Toronto: ARF, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogborne AC, Stoduto G, MacKenzie B. Warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers: Why not Canada? Paper presented at Kettil Bruun Society Meeting, Oslo, June 6–10, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthAddiction Research Foundation SiteTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations