Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 201–206 | Cite as

Public Perception of Alcohol Policy Issues Relating Directly or Indirectly to Privatization

Results from a 1999 Ontario Survey
  • Lise AnglinEmail author
  • Norman Giesbrecht
  • Anca Ialomiteanu
  • Janet McAllister
  • Alan Ogborne
Article

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to measure public opinion on alcohol policy issues relating to youth, litigation, outlet density, and government action. The authors comment on the implications of public opinion with regard to proposals for privatization of alcohol retailing in Ontario.

Method: Using data from a 1999 provincial survey (n = 1,288), the authors examine the opinions of Ontario adults (male and female over the age of 18) on seven alcohol policyrelated items. In order to identify characteristics of persons tending to express certain opinions, the opinion items are cross-tabulated with sex, age, drinking pattern, marital status, and education. A scale is created to show the level and strength of aggregate support for alcohol controls. A logistic regression confirms associations between demographic characteristics and opinions.

Results: The majority expresses opinions favouring alcohol controls and disagreeing with privatization (73% of total sample against). However, differences of opinion are observed within groups, between groups, and between items. In particular, higher-risk drinkers stand out for their dislike of most control measures.

Discussion: Taken as a whole, the results suggest that privatization of alcohol retailing in Ontario would run contrary to the wishes of the majority. Disapproval would probably be even stronger if more people realized there is often a connection between privatization and increased outlet density, relaxation of other controls, and less consideration for public health.

Résumé

Objectif: Le but de cette étude est de découvrir ce que pense la population des politiques sur l’alcool en ce qui concerne la jeunesse, les procès intentés aux compagnies qui vendent de l’alcool, la densité des points de vente et la réglementation gouvernementale. Les auteurs examinent les implications de l’opinion publique au cas où la privatisation de la vente d’alcool en Ontario serait realisée.

Méthode: Un sondage de 1999 a fourni des données sur l’opinion des adultes de l’Ontario (des hommes et des femmes ayant au moins 18 ans) sur certains aspects de la réglementation de l’alcool. Les auteurs ont analysé les opinions selon le sexe, l’âge, le niveau de consommation, la situation de famille et le niveau d’instruction. On a créé une échelle pour montrer le niveau total d’accord avec la réglementation de la vente d’alcool. Une régression logistique confirme l’association entre les caractéristiques démographiques des répondants et leurs opinions.

Résultats: Les résultats démontrent des différences d’opinion intéressantes, mais l’échantillon total est nettement contre la privatisation et pour les contrôles. Les auteurs mettent l’accent sur la privatisation de la vente d’alcool, compte tenu de l’importance politique de cette question aujourd’hui.

Discussion: Ces résultats montrent que les projets gouvernementaux visant à abandonner la responsabilité de réglementer la vente d’alcool ne traduisent pas la volonté de la majorité des citoyens. Il se peut que l’opposition à la privatisation augmente encore quand les recherches sur le sujet seront mieux connues.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anglin L, Giesbrecht N, Kobus-Matthews M, McAllister J, Ogborne A. Public opinion of Ontario adults on alcohol policy issues: Findings from a 1999 general population survey. CAMH Research Document Series No. 145. Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anglin L, Neves P, Giesbrecht N, Kobus-Matthews M. Alcohol-related air rage: From damage control to primary prevention. J Primary Prevention 2003;23(3):283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goar C. The risky logic of privatization. The Toronto Star. Saturday, January 12, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennan R, Theobald S. Flaherty vows to get out of booze business. The Toronto Star. Saturday, February 23, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stimmell G. LCBO at crossroads. The Toronto Star. Saturday, July 20, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laxer G, Green D, Harrison T, Neu D. Out of control: Paying the price for privatizing Alberta’s liquor control board. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Her M, Giesbrecht N, Room R, Rehm J. Privatizing alcohol sales and alcohol consumption: Evidence and implications. Addiction 1999;94(8):1125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giesbrecht N, Kavanagh L. Public opinion and alcohol policy: Comparisons of two Canadian general population surveys. Drug and Alcohol Review 1999;18:7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giesbrecht N, Greenfield T. Public opinions on alcohol policy issues: A comparison of American and Canadian surveys. Addiction 1999;94(4):521–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smart RG. The impact on consumption of selling wine in grocery stores. Alcohol and Alcoholism 1986;21:233–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alavaikko M. [Liberalization of Finnish alcohol legislation in the reform of 1994]. Nordic Alcohol and Drug Studies 1998;15(3):154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards G, Anderson P, Babor TF, Casswell S, Ferrence R, Giesbrecht N, et al. Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagenaar A, Holder H. Changes in alcohol consumption resulting from the elimination of retail wine monopolies: Results from five U.S. states. J Studies on Alcohol 1995;56(5):566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giesbrecht N, Ialomiteanu A, Room R, Anglin L. Trends in public opinion on alcohol policy measures: Ontario 1989–1998. J Studies on Alcohol 2001;62(2):142–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosher JF. The merchants, not the customers: Resisting the alcohol and tobacco industries’ strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. J Public Health Policy 1995;16(4):412–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen BA. From tobacco to health care and beyond: A critique of lawsuits targeting unpopular industries. Cornell Law Rev 2001;86(6):1334–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cunningham R. Background on tobacco liability lawsuits in Canada. Summary prepared for the Canadian Cancer Society, May 23, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferrence R, Ashley MJ, Cohen J, Stephens T. Tobacco industry litigation and the role of government: A public health perspective. Can J Public Health 2001;92(1):39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solomon R, Payne J. Alcohol Liability in Canada and Australia: Sell, Serve, and Be Sued. A report commissioned by the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse. London, ON, March 6, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Godfrey C. Licensing and the demand for alcohol. Applied Economics 1988;20:1541–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruenewald P. The relationship of outlet densities to alcohol consumption: A time series cross-sectional analysis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1993;17:38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacDonald S. The impact of increased availability of wine in grocery stores on consumption: Four case histories. Br J Addiction 1986;81:381–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    West P. Alcohol policy. In: 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, ARF Internal Document #122, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenfield T, Johnson S, Kaskutas L, Giesbrecht N, Anglin L, Kavanagh L, MacKenzie B. U.S. Federal Alcohol Control Policy Development: A Manual. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Room RR. Why have a retail alcohol monopoly? Paper presented at an International Seminar on Alcohol Retail Monopolies, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, August 19–21, 2001. Website: http://www.bks.no/retail.htmGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casady RJ, Lepkowski M. Telephone sampling. In: Levy PS, Lemeshow S (Eds.), Sampling of Populations. New York, NY: Wiley, 1999;455–79.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis FJ, Paglia A, Ialomiteanu A. Ontario Drug Monitor 1998: Technical Guide. CAMH Research Document Series No. 3. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montonen M. Alcohol and the Media. WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 62, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Anglin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Norman Giesbrecht
    • 1
  • Anca Ialomiteanu
    • 1
  • Janet McAllister
    • 1
  • Alan Ogborne
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations