|
CITY OF VANCOUVER
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
|
|
|
Date:
|
July 6, 2004
|
|
|
Author:
|
Trish French/
Heike Roth
|
|
|
Phone No.:
|
604-873-7041/
604-871-6115
|
|
|
RTS No.:
|
4323
|
|
|
CC File No.:
|
2610
|
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
September 30, 2004
|
TO:
|
Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
|
FROM:
|
Director of City Plans in consultation with the Chief License Inspector, the Director of Development Services and the Director of Social Planning
|
SUBJECT:
|
Liquor Retail Policy and Guidelines
|
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council approve the “Liquor Store Guidelines” generally as in Appendix A. The guidelines describe two categories of liquor stores:
· Type 1 (“boutique”): 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) or less in size, and selling wine, beer, or wine and beer and
· Type 2 (“regular”): more than 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) and/or selling spirits as part of the product mix; maximum size 2300 sq. m. (25,000 sq. ft.)
The proposed Guidelines describe location criteria for the two types. They also include minor adjustments to existing guidelines on spacing from family-oriented uses; and a restatement of current policy regarding new liquor retail outlets in the Downtown Eastside and Gastown.
B. THAT Council approve the “Liquor Store Guidelines” generally as in Appendix A, but with the Type 1 (“boutique”) definition revised to include the sale of spirits (and other aspects as described in Recommendation A above.)
C. THAT Council, through the Mayor, write to the Premier and relevant Ministers urging the Province to follow the recommendations of the B.C. Provincial Health Officer to monitor public health and safety impacts; increase prevention programming; monitor and enforce laws on sales to underage and intoxicated persons; enhance the treatment and rehabilitation system; and evaluate prevention policies and programs.
D. THAT in the annual review of Business Licence fees for 2004 and subsequent years, the Chief Licence Inspector take into consideration any additional City enforcement costs that are associated with liquor retail outlets, such as policing and inspections.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A or B, as well as C and D.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council liquor retail policy is reflected in a number of documents:
· The Zoning and Development By-law defines Liquor Store as “the use of premises for the sale of liquor, beer or wine for consumption off premises.” All existing liquor retail falls within this definition, including government and private liquor stores. The Zoning and Development By-law also prohibits the liquor store use in conjunction with other retail or commercial uses (i.e. no liquor sales in supermarkets, convenience stores, etc.)
· Liquor Licensing Policies and Procedures adopted in 1990 state that no new liquor retail outlets should be permitted in the Downtown Eastside or Gastown areas.
In April 2003, in response to provincial policy changes regarding liquor access, Council approved the following new policies:
· That the Director of Planning favourably consider development applications for Liquor Stores selling beer and wine or hard liquor only on those sites currently approved as Liquor Stores; and
· That new Guidelines be adopted, as the basis for review of all Liquor Stores selling “only” Beer or “only” Wine. The Guidelines include a 150m spacing requirement between beer only/wine only stores, and liquor stores, and a 150m spacing requirement between a new beer only/wine only store and a public or private school, church or park. The Guidelines also provide for neighbourhood notification and for a time limited Development Permit.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend revised policy on the types and locations of liquor stores, as well as other minor revisions to the current Liquor Retail Guidelines. In addition, it recommends Council write to the Province regarding measures recommended by the Provincial Health officer, and that future annual business licence fee reviews take into consideration any additional City-borne enforcement costs associated with additional liquor stores.
The report briefly outlines the recent history of Provincial and City actions on liquor retail policy, culminating in a Planning and Environment Committee meeting in May 2004 at which Council requested additional information. This report and its proposals respond to that request.
“Liquor store” is a conditional use under our zoning, with each application receiving individual assessment, neighbourhood consultation, and Director of Planning decision. Controversial or problematic applications are referred to City Council. Guidelines call for a 150 m (approximately 500 ft) separation from family-oriented uses, and addressing of operational issues like parking, loading, and recycling. Development permits are time-limited (for enhanced enforcement) and specify product ranges and hours. None of these aspects of current liquor policy are proposed to change significantly.
The report focuses on new policy for categorization and location of liquor stores.
Recommendation A proposes:
- 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) or less, and selling wine, beer, or wine and beer
- maximum of one store to be considered in each identified Local Shopping Area, plus one in each of two emerging neighbourhoods, SE False Creek and East Fraserlands
- In Downtown and Central Broadway (where there are no identified Local Shopping Areas) stores to be a minimum 500 m. from any other Type 1 store.
· Type 2 (“regular”) stores:
- over 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.)and/or selling spirits as part of its product mix
- to be located only where Type 2 stores currently exist (but may be relocated close by if necessary)
- two additional locations to replace two recently closed stores (Robson and Denman, and Victoria near 49th)
- two additional locations to serve the two emerging neighbourhoods.
- maximum size of 2300 sq. m. (25,000 sq. ft.)
Recommendation B is the same except that the Type 1 (“boutique”) stores would be allowed to include spirits in their product range.
Examples of existing liquor store signs are:
Name of store
|
Location
|
Size
|
Type of store/ Product Range
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Anthony Wine Store
|
Mall at Oak & King Edward
|
112m²
(1210sq.ft.)
|
Private wine only store
|
Kitsilano Wine Cellar
|
2235 W. 4th Avenue
|
210m²
(2260sq.ft.)
|
Private wine only store
|
Fairview Beer and Wine Store
|
898 W. Broadway
|
283m²
(3050sq.ft.)
|
Private liquor store
|
Government Liquor Store
|
39th and Cambie
|
1956m²
(21,060sq.ft.)
|
Government liquor store
|
There are currently a total of 50 liquor stores in the city. Recommendations A and B would allow 31 and 36 potential new store locations, with 4 of these being Type 2 (“regular”) and the rest Type 1 (“boutique’). Current policy, adopted by Council in April 2003, allows about 160 new locations for beer only or wine only stores.
In terms of industry response to the proposals, there is general support for the idea of a two tier system, and for the size limit for Type 1 stores. The industry would like to see Type 1 stores permitted to sell spirits (i.e. Recommendation B.) Some of the industry response supported the location criteria proposed for Type 1, while others wanted no specified spacing criteria. The industry supported the proposed policy related to the Type 2 stores.
In response to Council’s request for more information about liquor consumption, the Director of Social Planning commissioned a consultant to prepare a Backgrounder on Alcohol Policy (Appendix C). It summarizes a mix of measures regulating physical availability of alcohol that have been found effective in reducing harm. Some are measures that the City already uses (control of hours of sale, prevention of location near schools etc.). Others are proposed in this report: controls on outlet size, outlet density, proximity to other stores, and product mix. While these are positive measures, it should be noted that there are no simple quantitative standards available. In addition, many of the other effective policy measures lie outside the City’s jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
1. City Actions to Date
In April 2003, in response to changes to Provincial regulations that provided for more liquor retail outlets, City Council adopted policy that divided liquor stores essentially into two types: beer only/wine only, and broad range (i.e. mixed product, with or without spirits). The former may be considered anywhere in the city, subject to guidelines requiring a 150 m. separation from other liquor stores (and from family-oriented uses like parks, schools, etc.). The latter, broad range stores may only be permitted where they currently exist.
In May 2004 a staff report to the Planning and Environment Committee presented two options for revising the policy on location of broad range liquor stores. While the report was intended as a minor revision to the April 2003 policy, there was extensive Committee discussion and presentations from delegations. Council decided to postpone any decision, and asked staff for more information on the following issues:
· whether the categorization of beer only/wine only and broad range was appropriate, e.g. what about beer and wine
· whether there should be store size limits
· whether the number of new store locations allowed by the 150 m spacing limit was appropriate
· the relationship between retail access and consumption
Council also indicated a need for consultation with the industry.
Since then, staff have reviewed options for store categorization, size and location; held a workshop with about 40 industry representatives; and collected more information on the relationship between retail access and consumption.
In addition, the Chief Licence Inspector has been in contact with the Provincial authorities, and obtained their agreement to extend the time limit on the approvals they have granted to Licensee Retail Stove (LRS) applicants, in recognition of the ongoing discussion of City land use policy regarding liquor retail.
2. Current Status of Provincial Liquor Retail Policy and Liquor Retail Store Applications
The Province has indicated that it does not intend to privatize existing government liquor stores. With respect to private liquor stores, in 2002 the Province accepted 71 Licensee Retail Store (LRS) applications from operators of Liquor Primary premises (i.e. pubs, cabarets, hotels) in Vancouver. In May of 2004 the Province stated that they do not intend to accept any more LRS applications for at least the next four years.
The current status of the LRS applications from Vancouver Liquor Primary operators is as follows:
Accepted/in process with the Province
|
|
71
|
Applied to City for Development Permits
|
|
24
|
|
|
Approved
|
9
|
|
|
Refused
|
5
|
|
|
Withdrawn
|
1
|
|
|
In process
|
9
|
Yet to apply to City
|
|
47
|
Under a Provincial approval, an LRS may sell a broad range of liquor products and does not have a size limit. The Province has also permitted a geographic “delinking” of LRS from the applicant’s Liquor Primary premises. The LRS may now be within the same municipality, or in an adjacent municipality provided that the distance from the original site (i.e. Liquor Primary license site) is 5 km or less.
DISCUSSION
Liquor Store is defined in the Zoning and Development By-law as: “the use of premises for the sale of liquor, beer or wine for consumption off premises.” It is a permitted use in all commercial zones, as well as in some industrial and heritage districts.
As a “conditional” use, the Director of Planning has discretion on approvals, based on Guidelines. Each liquor store application is assessed individually, with neighbourhood consultation. Controversial or problematic applications are referred to Council for advice. The development permit is time-limited, and specifies the product range to be sold and hours of sale. Current Guidelines require a separation of 150 m. from family-oriented uses (such as parks, schools etc.), and consideration of operational issues like parking, loading, recycling etc. None of these aspects of liquor retail guidelines is proposed to change significantly, although the recommended revised Guidelines contain some minor changes.
What is under discussion, and is the focus of the rest of this report, are the types and sizes of stores, and their general number and location.
1. Current Categorization and Location Policy
As mentioned above, in April 2003 Council defined policy for two types of liquor stores:
· beer only or wine only, which can be considered anywhere provided they are 150 m. from any other liquor store.
· “broad range”, i.e. beer and wine, or any combination with spirits, which can only be replaced in existing locations.
There are no size limits in the current policy.
Table 1 shows the resulting numbers of locations when these policies are applied.
Table 1. Current Policy Results
|
|
Existing
|
Added Possible Locations
|
Total Possible Locations
|
Beer only or Wine only
|
18*
|
160 (approx.)
|
178
|
Broad Range
|
32**
|
0
|
32
|
TOTAL
|
50
|
160
|
210
|
*14 private wine, 4
private beer
** 22
government with spirits, 10 private with spirits
2. Proposed Policies
a. Recommendation A Option
Recommendation A proposes that liquor stores be considered in two categories.
- 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) or less, and selling wine, beer, or wine and beer
- maximum of one store to be considered in each identified Local Shopping Area, plus one in each of two emerging neighbourhoods; SE False Creek and East Fraserlands
- in Downtown and Central Broadway (where there are no identified LSAs) stores to be a minimum 500 m. from any other Type 1 store.
· Type 2 (“regular”) stores:
- over 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.)and/or selling spirits as part of its product mix
- only where Type 2 stores currently exist, but may be relocated close by
- two additional locations to replace two recently closed stores (Robson and Denman, and Victoria near 49th)
- two additional locations to serve the two emerging neighbourhoods.
- maximum size of 2300 sq. m. (25,000 sq. ft.)
Table 2 shows the approximate outcomes of this proposal. No Local Shopping Area would have more than two liquor stores. In some cases, a Local Shopping Area would have only a boutique store.
Table 2. Recommendation A Results
|
|
Existing
|
Possible Added Locations
|
Total Possible Locations
|
Type 1
“Boutique” Store
|
17*
|
32
|
49
|
Class 2
“Regular” Store
|
33**
|
4
|
37
|
TOTALS
|
50
|
36
|
86
|
*13 private wine, 4 private beer
**22 government with spirits, 10 private with spirits, 1 private large wine
b. Recommendation B Option
Recommendation B is the option of including spirits in the range of products sold by the Type 1 “boutique” stores. The industry requests this to better meet customer needs and provide better economic viability for the store. Some have estimated that spirits would account for 10% to 20% of sales. They feel that if, during consultation, a neighbourhood objects to the inclusion of spirits, then that restriction could be included on the permit of the particular store.
Table 3 shows the results of this proposal. Under this option, the ten existing private stores that sell spirits would be classed as “boutique” rather than “regular”.
Table 3. Recommendation B Results
|
|
Existing
|
Possible Added Locations
|
Total Possible Locations
|
Type 1
“Boutique” Store
|
29*
|
27
|
56
|
Class 2
“Regular” Store
|
21**
|
4
|
25
|
TOTALS
|
50
|
31
|
81
|
*2 government with spirits, 10 private with spirits, 13 private wine, 4 private beer
** 20 government with spirits, 1 large private wine
Staff do not have a preference between Recommendations A and B. Recommendation A provides access to spirits in fewer locations than B. On the other hand, B results in fewer overall locations, and moving a number of existing stores into “boutique” category makes them subject to the 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) limit. It is difficult to say which would result in less overall access to spirits in future. Because all stores would offer a range of products, B might result in less travel. However, it is hard to say whether this would be significant because it depends a great deal on the geographic distribution of demand for spirits vs. wine or beer, and there is no data on this.
3. Consultation
Staff held a workshop attended by about 40 industry people on June 24, to review the draft proposal. Based on this, and a subsequent letter from Alliance of Beverage Licensees (ABLE BC), staff summarize the industry comments as follows.
The industry agrees with the idea of two categories of liquor store. With respect to the Type 1 (“boutique”) proposal, they concur with the 280 sq. m. (3000 sq. ft.) size limit, but wish to have sale of spirits permitted for the reasons noted above. They note that a number of existing private stores were permitted to sell spirits some time ago, and there have been no problems.
With respect to locations, some workshop attendees supported one per Local Shopping Area, noting that a few are perhaps big enough for two (e.g. Commercial Drive between Venables and Grandview Highway). On the other hand, some industry representatives (and ABLE BC) feel that there should be no predetermined spacing or location criteria: that each application should be assessed separately, taking into account community need and population densities. Staff do not support this approach, because it does not provide enough predictability for either the industry or neighbourhoods as to how many stores might occur; and it opens the door to an unknown and potentially very large number of locations.
With respect to Type 2 (“regular”) stores, the industry representatives were in agreement with the proposed definition and location criteria.
With respect to the overall maximum size limit, this was not part of the proposal at the time of the workshop. Given that the industry representatives are interested in small stores, staff expect that the upper limit would not be a concern to them.
The Director of Social Planning notes that stakeholders from the alcohol prevention and treatment community, have not been consulted.
4. Relationship between Liquor Retail and Consumption
a. Research Summary
The Director of Social Planning commissioned a consultant, Art Steinmann, to research
and write a Backgrounder on Alcohol Policy Issues (Appendix C). This document takes a broad perspective on alcohol policy. The key points relevant to this report on liquor retail are:
· Alcohol is an accepted part of our culture but is also the most undervalued risk factor in the current public discussion in Canada. Alcohol is the third most important risk factor for disease after tobacco and high blood pressure. Negative impacts also include drinking and driving, assaults and violent behaviour.
· Heavy drinking and drinking by youth is of particular concern.
· Canadian consumption levels declined from 134 litres/capita in 1978/79 to 99.5 litres/capital in 1996/96, and rose to 104.2 litres/capita in 2001/02. The level in British Columbia is 98.2 litres/capita, and B.C. ranks 6th highest of the 12 provinces and territories.
· With respect to density of outlets, studies in US cities (e.g., New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles) have found a higher incidence of alcohol-related violence, car crashes, nuisance behaviour and health effects in areas with higher densities of outlets. While some of the studies do quantify the relationship between outlet number and harms, overall they do not provide a simple measure of appropriate outlet density.
· However, it has been found that a mix of alcohol policy measures can be effective in reducing harm, and these can be grouped into three areas:
-regulating physical availability
-awareness, education and persuasion
-treatment policies
A number of measures related to the first category, the one within the City’s sphere of regulatory action, are listed. (Discussed further below.) Other measures fall within Provincial jurisdiction.
· In 2002, the B. C. Provincial Health Officer recommended that changes to liberalize alcohol sales be accompanied by:
-monitoring of public health and safety impacts of policy changes
-increased prevention programming
-rigourous monitoring and enforcement of laws related to sales to underage and intoxicated consumers
-enhanced treatment and rehabilitation
-evaluation of prevention policies and programs
-involvement of public health experts in planning of future changes to alcohol policy
b. City Policy Measures
The City already has in place some of the measures supported by the Backgrounder: control of hours of sale, and prevention of location near schools, etc. This report proposes the other measures that are available to the City: controls on size of store, density of outlets, proximity to other liquor stores, and product mix (in Recommendation A.)
The proposals in Recommendations A and B significantly reduce the potential number of outlets, compared to the current policies (31 or 36 possible new locations versus 160 possible new locations). The proposals also distributes the retail outlets geographically.
If, because of concerns about added liquor availability, Council wishes to allow even fewer locations than either Recommendation A or B, they could endorse a policy to
· allow Type 1 “boutique” stores to sell spirits, but
· consider new Type 1 “boutique” stores only in LSAs that currently have no liquor store at all, and
· allow the two emerging neighbourhoods and two recently closed locations to have either a Type 1 or a Type 2, but not both.
This would permit about 12 added locations (i.e. that do not currently have any liquor stores, or have an application in process). However, staff note that there are 47 outstanding Provincially accepted LRS applications which would be seeking these locations. Council would be put in a position of adjudicating among multiple applications for each location.
c. Additional Measures
Many of the policy measures cited by the Backgrounder relate to Provincial or Federal jurisdictions (e.g. advertising restrictions, government monopoly, promotion policies, minimum legal purchase age, sales staff training.) The recommendations of the B.C. Provincial Health Officer are mainly in the Provincial area.
Staff note that there may be scope to lobby the Province regarding more prevention and treatment, as well as more vigorous enforcement of their regulations (in relation to liquor service as well retail.) Recommendation C is put forward for this reason. Staff will also investigate what training programs are required and/or available for sales and service staff, whether by Provincial mandate or through the industry.
5. Other Guidelines Revisions
The main revisions to the Guidelines are to implement the liquor store categories and location policy described above. Several other minor revisions are also included:
· clarifying and expanding the list of family-oriented uses from which liquor stores should be separated by 150 m. The list would include community centres and neighbourhood houses as well as parks, churches, and elementary and secondary schools.
· reiterating the 1990 DTES/Gastown liquor retail policy in these Guidelines, for applicants convenience. This policy states that no new liquor stores should be considered in these areas, to prevent increased access to vulnerable populations.
· clarifying that management of impacts of hours of operation, traffic, parking, loading, and bottle returns will be important factors in assessing proposals.
6. Recommendation D: Recovering Costs
According to Vancouver police, current liquor retail outlets do not generate a significant number of call-outs. It is not possible to predict whether this might change if additional stores occur. Recommendation D instructs the Chief Licence Inspector to include consideration of any increased enforcement costs to the City in the annual business licence fees reviews.
CONCLUSION
The proposals in this report seek to balance the positive and negative aspects of additional liquor retail in the City, and to provide clear guidance to potential applicants and to neighbourhoods. Staff request that Council endorse either Recommendation A or B, and Recommendation C and D.
* * * * *
Liquor Store Guidelines
1. Application and Intent
These Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with a District Schedule of the Zoning and Development By-law or with an Official Development Plan to assess development permit applications for a liquor store, including redevelopment of existing liquor store premises. Assessment of suitability will be based on the characteristics of the site and surrounding area and the details of the development proposal. The permitted product range of a liquor store is defined in the Development Permit.
The intent of these Guidelines is to provide reasonable access to liquor stores while minimizing impacts on neighbourhoods.
2. Categorization
Liquor stores are categorized as follows:
Type 1 - a store 280m² (3000 sq.ft.) gross or less that sells beer only, wine only, or beer and wine, including cider and coolers
Type 2 – a store of any size that sells spirits, alone or in combination with other alcohol products; and
Should Council adopt Recommendation B (where Type 1 (boutique) liquor stores sell spirits as well as beer and/or wine), the categories would be revised as follows:
Type 1 – a store 280m² (3000 sq.ft.) gross or less that sells any combination of beer,wine and spirits
Type 2 – a store over 280m² (3000 sq.ft.) gross that sells any combination of beer, wine and spirits
3. Location and Number of Stores
3.1 Type 1 Stores
a) There may be a maximum of one Type 1 store per identified Local Shopping Area.
b) In the Downtown and Central Broadway areas, (where there are no identified Local Shopping Areas), a Type 1 store may locate, provided it is 500m or more from any existing Type 1 store.
c) Existing Type 1 stores may expand up to the 280m²(3000 sq.ft.) gross size limit.
d) Existing Type 1 stores in an Local Shopping Area may relocate within the Local Shopping Area or to another Local Shopping Area that has an available location. Existing Type 1 stores that are not located in an Local Shopping Area may relocate within their general commercial area, or to an Local Shopping Area that has an available location.
The Local Shopping Areas are depicted on the attached map #1, and their boundaries are described in the attached table. Local Shopping Areas have been identified in adopted Community Visions, local area plans, or in Council Policy, and are intended to serve the daily needs of residents.
General commercial areas are commercially zoned areas that contain significant retail, but
are not Local Shopping Areas because their focus is more on serving employees, tourists, or
citywide/regional customers rather than nearby residents.
3.2 Type 2 Stores
a)Existing Type 2 liquor stores may remain in their current locations, or may relocate within the same Local Shopping Area or general commercial area, provided that the new location meets the Guidelines as well as or better than the previous location.
b) Two recently closed liquor stores (1716 Robson and 6399 Victoria Drive) may be replaced within the same Local Shopping Area or general commercial area.
c) In cases where City-initiated planning will result in new residential neighbourhoods with a new Local Shopping Area, additional liquor store locations may be considered in the new Local Shopping Area.
d) Type 2 stores may be a maximum of 2300m² (25,000 sq.ft.) gross in size.
3.3 General
a) No Type 1 or Type 2 stores should be located in the Downtown Eastside or Gastown areas where existing Council policy does not permit new liquor retail outlets. (see attached map#2).
b) There should not be more than a total of 2 liquor stores per Local Shopping Area, i.e. where two Type 2 liquor stores exist in an Local Shopping Area, there are no locational opportunities in that Local Shopping Area for a Type 1 store.
4. Separation from Family oriented uses
5. Liquor Store Operations
With regard for the primary focus of the business (range of liquor products sold), the following factors will be taken into consideration:
a) Hours of operation
b) The manageability of the impacts related to:
- traffic
- parking, with particular concern for short term parking
- loading, with an applicant provided loading operations plan detailing how and when loading will take place and how large delivery vehicles will be accommodated
c) Handling of bottle returns (design and operation)
6. Process and Administrative Considerations
Description of Selected Local Shopping Area Boundaries
Local Shopping Area #
|
Description
|
1
|
W. 10th: Tolmie to Discovery
|
2
|
W. 4th: Highbury to Collingwood
|
3
|
W. 16th N side, Alma to Dunbar and south side opposite, Dunbar 17 - 19th
|
4
|
Dunbar: lane S of King Edward to W 30th
|
5
|
Dunbar: W 39th to lane S of W 41st; W 41st: Dunbar to Collingwood
|
6
|
W 4th: W of Bayswater to Trafalgar
|
7
|
Broadway: Collingwood to Larch
|
8
|
4th Avenue: Burrard to Balsam
|
9
|
Broadway: Vine to Arbutus; Arbutus: Broadway to 12th
|
10
|
Arbutus Village Shopping Mall
|
11
|
W. Blvd: 37th to 49th; E. Blvd: lane N of 41st to 49th; W. 41st: Larch to Maple
|
12
|
Granville: 10th to 16th
|
13
|
Granville: W 64th to S of 71st
|
14
|
Oak: W 21st to S of King Edward, King Edward Mall
|
15
|
Cambie: 12th to 16th, east side; w 16th to W 19th
|
16
|
Cambie: W 29th to W 43rd, Oakridge Centre
|
17
|
Main to Gore; Pender, Keefer
|
18
|
Main Street: 12th to 16th
|
19
|
Main Street: 16th to 33rd
|
20
|
Main Street: 48th to 51st
|
21
|
Fraser: 23rd to 28th
|
22
|
Fraser: 41st to 51st
|
23
|
Kingsway: Inverness to Perry, Knight: lane N of Kingsway to King Edward
|
24
|
Commercial: Charles to 3rd
|
25
|
Commercial: Grandview Hwy. S to 16th, Broadway: E and W of Commercial
|
26
|
Victoria: 37th to 44th, 47th to 50th
|
27
|
Hastings: Semlin to Renfrew
|
28
|
Kingsway: Earles to Nanaimo
|
29
|
Renfrew: Graveley to 3rd, 1st: S side, Kaslo to Renfrew
|
30
|
Kingsway: Rupert to Boundary
|
31
|
Champlain Mall, 54th and Kerr
|
32
|
East Fraserlands
|
|
|
|
A
|
Denman: Nelson to Robson, Robson: Denman to Cardero
|
B
|
Denman: Nelson to Davie, Davie: Denman to Cardero
|
C
|
Davie: Jervis to Burrard
|
D
|
Robson: Bute - Burrard, Alberni: Bute - Burrard, Burrard: Smithe - Georgia
|
E
|
Bute: Robson to Coal Harbour
|
F
|
Davie: Burrard to Homer
|
G
|
Davie: Homer to False Creek & Marinaside Cres.
|
H
|
Abbott - Keefer - Pender
|
I
|
Granville Island
|
J
|
1st/2nd Avenues, Main/Quebec south of Terminal
|
K
|
Broadway/Main/Kingsway
|
Map of Downtown Eastside/Gastown Liquor Retail Restricted Area
Existing Type 1 (Boutique) Liquor Stores are located at:
Existing Type 2 (Regular) Liquor Stores are located at:
LRS Applications Approved by Province but have not sought City Approval
Backgrounder on
ALCOHOL POLICY
Issues
Researched and Written by:
Art Steinmann, Addiction Prevention Specialist
Principle, Art Steinmann and Associates
Commissioned by:
Social Planning Department
City of Vancouver
June 2004
** Information in this report reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the city of Vancouver Social Planning Department or other government bodies.
1. INTRODUCTION
Municipal councillors in BC today confront the dilemma of providing reasonable consumer access to beverage alcohol and, at the same time, reducing the costly harms that arise from the use of this product.
This backgrounder attempts to outline key health and social considerations of expanding the availability and ease of access to alcohol. It also presents current research findings concerning alcohol policy.
2. BACKGROUND
While many diverse views of alcohol exist today, most consumers, social scientists and health experts take a balanced perspective. That is, alcohol is not seen as inherently bad (as opposed say to tobacco which is harmful when used in any amount), rather benefits to the heart (for certain consumers) are known, and many point out that the majority of drinkers do not incur problems related to their use of alcohol.
Yet awareness also exists of the damages and costs alcohol causes, on the highways, in the home, at the workplace and elsewhere.
Conflicting messages from health experts, the media, the liquor industry, and at times government, have lead to confusion among consumers. Many members of the public are unclear about certain areas relating to alcohol, for instance, what constitutes “drinking in moderation.” Drinkers at all levels of consumption tend to believe that they drink in moderation. “Many people define ‘moderation’ as what they do.”1 reports clinical psychologist Nancy Piotrowski of the Alcohol Research Group.
Even healthcare providers may be unclear: in one study three-quarters of US healthcare providers did not define moderation in accordance with national drinking guidelines.2 (Drinking guidelines are: no more than two standard drinks on any one day; women – up to 9 standard drinks a week; Men – up to 14 standard drinks a week – Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2004)
Regarding alcohol and heart health, “…moderate alcohol consumption is associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with that associated with either abstinence or heavy drinking.”3 This researcher goes on to say:
“Alcohol should never be recommended to patients to reduce cardiovascular risk as a substitute for the well-proven alternatives of appropriate diet, exercise, and drugs. Alcohol remains the number three cause of preventable premature death in this country, and the risk of alcohol habituation, abuse, and adverse effects must be considered in any patient counseling.”4
As well the message that moderate drinking may enhance heart health can encourage some to drink to dangerous levels of consumption. “Plenty of people use this message as an excuse to drink more alcohol” states Ira Goldberg, professor of preventive medicine at Columbia University, New York.5
The general public also may overlook that alcohol consumers are not inert - risky drinking can unexpectedly develop in the life of a previously unaffected consumer, especially at times of major life transitions. Remaining alert to patterns or variations of one’s drinking is a recommended life-long health practice for consumers.
Despite the confusion and lack of information, there is general agreement that all will benefit if we can minimize the harms associated with drinking. A challenge for government is to keep a perspective on all facets of the issue, and to develop policies that minimize harms. Data illustrates that various alcohol policies are able to reduce harms, but that they require political will, “sustained attention to detail, and above all perseverance.” 6
3. CONSUMPTION LEVELS AND THE FALLOUT FROM ALCOHOL USE.
3.1 Alcohol Use
Statistics Canada reports that from a high of 134 litres per capita in 1978/79, alcohol consumption for the population age 15 and over declined to a low of 99.5 litres in 1996/97. Since then it has risen each year to 104.2 litres in 2001/02, the most recent year for which data are available. 7
Table 1
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages - litres per capita; age 15 and over. March 31, 2002 Source: Statistics Canada
|
|
Spirits
|
Wine
|
Beer
|
Total
|
Newfoundland & Labrador
|
7.1
|
5.6
|
95.2
|
107.9
|
Prince Edward Island
|
8.3
|
5.1
|
82.6
|
96.0
|
Nova Scotia
|
8.8
|
7.7
|
79.0
|
95.5
|
New Brunswick
|
6.4
|
7.7
|
81.3
|
95.4
|
Quebec
|
3.6
|
16.7
|
94.0
|
114.2
|
Ontario
|
8.2
|
10.9
|
81.9
|
101.0
|
Manitoba
|
9.1
|
7.9
|
77.9
|
95.0
|
Saskatchewan
|
9.0
|
5.0
|
76.8
|
90.8
|
Alberta
|
8.0
|
13.6
|
90.0
|
111.6
|
British Columbia
|
8.4
|
14.0
|
75.9
|
98.2
|
Yukon
|
13.8
|
17.6
|
144.2
|
175.6
|
Northwest Territories and Nunavuta
|
8.9
|
7.7
|
84.3
|
100.9
|
a. The volume per capita of Northwest Territories and Nunavut are combined since the distribution centre in Nunavut is not representative of all sales.
In Canada generally and notably in a few specific provinces there has been a steady relaxing of alcohol controls over the last decade. And, as noted above, per capita consumption has been on a gradual steady rise since 1996.
In the US per capita consumption declined steadily from 1990 to 2000,8 however it is argued by various researchers that this is due to changing demographics i.e. the increasing age of the general population and a decline in the age group 18-29, a heavy drinking age group.9 According to the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, in 1999, US per capita consumption was 2.21 gallons (US) per person age 14 and over.
3.2 Health and Social Effects
Alcohol consumption is related to a variety of social and health problems. Globally alcohol is responsible for 3.5 percent of death and disability. Tobacco-related illness accounts for only 2.7 percent, while illegal drugs cause only 0.6 percent10
Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity - Research and Public Policy (Thomas Babor et al. 2003) documents that, especially in developed countries, alcohol is a major contributor to disease, disability, and premature mortality and it has an adverse impact on many aspects of social life.11
Jurgen Rehm, in Preventing Alcohol Problems: International Best Practices states, “Alcohol is the most undervalued risk factor in the current public discussion in Canada.”12
· Alcohol is the third most important risk factor for burden of disease in Canada (tobacco accounts for 12.2%, blood pressure 10.9%, alcohol 9.2%)13
· Alcohol is the most important avoidable risk for burden of disease in adolescents and young adults14
· Approximately 120,000 British Columbians have a high probability of alcohol dependence and another 224,000 have some indications of dependence15 with approximately 173,000 to 200,000 of these experiencing problems in some areas of their life as a result of their consumption of alcohol16
· Even small amounts of alcohol increase the risk of injury and boost
the chances of developing about 60 diseases, including several cancers,
liver cirrhosis and neurorpsychological disorders. When
these are fed into the epidemiological equation, only men over the age
of 45 and women over 55 seem to lower their overall health risks by
moderate drinking.17
· Alcohol use is related to mental illness,18 crime,19 20 child abuse,21 lowered workplace, productivity, unintentional injuries, aggression and violence, family harm.22
· Alcohol and other drug use are a leading cause of impairment on the job. E.g. one Alberta study found that among fatal occupational accident victims, 10.7% had alcohol in their blood.23
· In Canada, in 1995, 6507 deaths and 82 014 admissions to hospital were attributed to alcohol.24
In British Columbia:
· 49% of spousal assault incidents – 4,944 incidents in 2000 - are alcohol-related
· About 5% of parents (of children age 0 to 11) say drinking is a source of tension or disagreement in the home. These children are at increased risk of alcohol misuse.
· Drinking and driving deaths have declined but are still at high levels. In 1999 3,407 crash victims were injured and 96 victims died in alcohol-related crashes.
· In 1999 24 alcohol overdose deaths were recorded in BC
· Estimated number of babies born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: 120 per year. Estimated number born with partial FAS: 180 per year
· Alcohol-related deaths in BC are 3.7 per 10,00025
Finally one does not need to use alcohol to be negatively affected by it. A Health Canada survey conducted in 1994 found that:
3.3 A Word about Heavy Drinking
High-risk drinking practices are strong predictors of alcohol-related problems.27 What exactly typifies heavy drinking?
· long term regular consumption of large quantities of alcohol
· consumption of large quantities at one setting
· rapid drinking
· combining alcohol with activities that require alertness, judgment and physical skill
· use of alcohol in combination with other drugs/medications
· consumption by at risk individuals
4. COSTS OF PROBLEMATIC ALCOHOL USE
The 1999 Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse study estimated the following costs of alcohol related damages in BC:
Morbidity, premature mortality, and crime, result in another $529 million in lost productivity
Total yearly avoidable cost in BC: approximately $944 million or $272 per capita
Only Alberta and Prince Edward Island exceeded this per capita cost at $285 at $283, respectively.28
The Ontario Public Health Association, “Cornerstones of Healthy Alcohol Policy” state:
“Countless men, women, and children are needlessly put at risk, injured or killed as a result of others’ misuse. And society spends billions of dollars annually in extra health care, policing, and other services to deal with the problem – resources that, in an age of shrinking budgets, could be better allocated elsewhere.”29
5. ALCOHOL POLICY
5.1 What is Alcohol Policy?
Alcohol policy has been defined as:
The literature shows that alcohol policy serves two purposes: to enhance benefits resulting from the use of beverage alcohol, and to contain and reduce alcohol-related harms.
Alcohol policies may include the implementation of focused strategies (e.g. raising alcohol taxes, limiting density and number of outlets, etc.), and/or the allocation of resources that reflect prevention or treatment priorities.
5.2 Why Alcohol Policy?
Numerous studies confirm the effectiveness of alcohol policies.31
“Reductions in the hours and days of sale, numbers of alcohol outlets, and restrictions on access to alcohol, are associated with reductions in both alcohol use and alcohol-related problems.”32
Alcohol policies offer powerful opportunities. Alcohol policies, based on strong research, allow policy makers to make rational choices, combine selected strategies into an integrated overall policy, implement policies at multiple levels, strengthen public awareness and support, and enhance international collaboration in the response to alcohol.33
Alcohol policy is also an effective way to reduce economic downturn and strengthen business competitiveness by reducing or preventing alcohol-related injuries, absenteeism, accidents and lost productivity in the workplace.
Finally, levels of public support for alcohol controls have been investigated. Some polices receive strong support, while others do not (e.g. a 1994 survey found that 69% of British Columbians support more treatment being available, but only 31% favoured increasing taxes on alcohol).34
5.3 Policy Principles
A team of international experts recommends the following evidence-based guidance for people developing alcohol policy:
1. There is no one policy panacea. The needed policies will be a mix.
2. Some policy measures are more effective than others. The basic, evidence-based policy mix includes taxation, control of physical access, drinking-driving countermeasures, and treatment – particularly primary care. Educational strategies, restrictions on advertising and community action programs are additional measures with the potential for long-term pay-off.
3. Political feasibility and public acceptance are important in selecting alcohol policies.
4. Policy choices have national and international dimensions.
5. Policy choices have to be determined not only by what is effective, but by what gives value for money.35
5.4 What are the Main Policies Available?
There is an extensive body of research on the efficacy of various alcohol policies.
The regulatory policies that have been used with success include:
1. Regulating physical availability (addresses the accessibility or convenience of the product at both on-premise outlets *and off-premise outlets**).
As noted by many investigators, as availability increases, convenience to the customer increases, potentially influencing the consumer’s demand for alcohol. Heightened demand can lead to increased consumption, leading to increased alcohol-related problems.36
Availability policy measures include:
· hours of sale and days of sale restrictions
· size of outlet
· density of outlets
· location and placement of outlets (e.g. distance from schools, other outlets, etc.)
· advertising bans or restrictions
· privately owned or government monopoly
· promotion policies
· minimum legal purchase age
· sales staff training
On-premise control policies can also include additional measures such as:
· regulations regarding discounted drinks (e.g. shooter specials, “happy hour” etc.)
· drink sizes
· server training
· design and furnishings of the premises
· specified food, entertainment
· policy to not serve intoxicated patrons
· enforcement of on-premise regulations and legal requirements
· community mobilization
Other regulatory approaches:
· altering availability based on the alcohol content of the product
· promotion of alcohol free events
· drinking driving countermeasures (e.g. graduated licenses for novice drivers, lowering BAC limits, sobriety check points, random breath testing etc.)
2. Awareness, education and persuasion strategies are strongly supported in the research and have been tested across cultures.37 Education has been shown to effectively alter attitudes, knowledge and intensions, but has little documented effect in impacting levels of use in isolation. The body of literature indicates that regulations directed towards those who sell alcohol, supported by enforcement, are more effective than depending solely on education or persuasion programs targeting the individual drinker.38
The recent (May 2004) document, Every Door is the Right Door: A British Columbia Framework to Address Problematic Substance Use and Addiction, identifies the following best evidence regarding prevention:
· “Identify protective factors, as well as risk factors, in primary prevention strategies to promote resilience and better support individuals and families in preventing and reducing problematic substance use.
· Focus on factors that most directly promote health or that contribute to substance use problems in the population of interest.
· Programs for youth must be realistic and acknowledge that a desire to experiment and take risks is a normal aspect of human development.
· School-based drug education efforts need to be embedded within broader community initiatives.
· Routine screening of pregnant women for alcohol and other substance use.”39
3. Treatment policies are another critical piece of a comprehensive approach. A detailed discussion of the current need for all forms of treatment is beyond the scope of this paper, other than to say that polices work best when the array of treatment services are in place and readily accessible.
The literature emphasizes that enforcement efforts are needed in order for the above policies to have the desired effects. (Note that the four policy areas - physical availability, prevention, treatment and enforcement – parallel the four pillars of the city’s Drug Policy – prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction)
6. WHICH POLICIES WORK BEST?
A group of international experts recently rated 31 policy-relevant strategies and interventions for:
a) evidence of effectiveness (the quality of the scientific information)
b) breadth of research support (the quantity and consistency of the evidence
c) tested across cultures e.g. countries, regions subgroups, and
d) cost to implement and sustain (monetary and other costs).40
Items a, b, and c above were rated using scales of 0, +, ++, +++, and (?).
Item d was rated Low, Moderate or High.
The ratings are summarized in the tables below. For a more complete understanding of the findings the reader is encouraged to consult the book.
Ratings of policy-relevant strategies and interventions from Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, Babor et al. (2003):
Table two
Taxation and Regulating Physical Availability (Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
Strategy or intervention
|
Effectiveness
|
Research Support
|
X-Cultural Testing
|
Cost
|
Target Group
|
Alcohol taxes
|
+++
|
+++
|
+++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Total ban on sales
|
+++
|
+++
|
++
|
High
|
General Population
|
Minimum legal purchase age
|
+++
|
+++
|
++
|
Low
|
High Risk
Group
|
Rationing
|
++
|
++
|
++
|
High
|
General Population
|
Government monopoly of retail sales
|
+++
|
+++
|
++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Hours and days of sale restrictions
|
++
|
++
|
++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Restrictions on density of outlets
|
++
|
+++
|
++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Server liability
|
+++
|
+
|
+
|
Low
|
High Risk Group
|
Different availability by alcohol strength
|
++
|
++
|
+
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Regarding regulating the availability of alcohol the researchers concluded:
“Research on limiting alcohol availability demonstrates that:
· Reductions in the hours and days of sale, numbers of alcohol outlets, and restrictions on access to alcohol are associated with reductions in both alcohol use and alcohol-related problems.
· Laws that raise the minimum legal purchasing age reduce alcohol sales and problems among young drinkers.
· Regulations directed at commercial vendors who sell to minors and ignore other restrictions can be effective, if the system can suspend or revoke a license
· Making available and promoting beverages of low alcohol content has the potential to reduce the level of absolute alcohol consumed and associated intoxication and impairment.
· Government-owned alcohol outlets (i.e. off-premise monopoly systems) can limit alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems.
· Extreme restrictions (e.g. total prohibition) can lower drinking and reduce alcohol problems, but often have adverse side effects, such as the criminality associated with illicit markets.”41
Table three
Modifying the Drinking Context (Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
Strategy or intervention
|
Effectiveness
|
Research Support
|
X-Cultural Testing
|
Cost
|
Target Group
|
Outlet policy to not serve intoxicated persons
|
+
|
+++
|
++
|
Moderate
|
High Risk
Group
|
Training bar staff & mgrs. to prevent and better handle aggression
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
Moderate
|
High Risk
Group
|
Voluntary codes of bas practice
|
0
|
+
|
+
|
Low
|
High Risk
Group
|
Enforcement of on-premise regulations and legal requirements
|
++
|
+
|
++
|
High
|
High Risk
Group
|
Community mobilization
|
++
|
++
|
+
|
High
|
General Population
|
Table Four
Drinking-Driving Countermeasures (Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
Strategy or intervention
|
Effectiveness
|
Research Support
|
X-Cultural Testing
|
Cost
|
Target Group
|
Sobriety check points
|
++
|
+++
|
+++
|
Moderate
|
General Population
|
Random breath testing
|
+++
|
++
|
+
|
Moderate
|
General Population
|
Lowered BAC limits
|
+++
|
+++
|
++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Administrative license suspension
|
++
|
++
|
++
|
Moderate
|
Harmful drinkers
|
Low (“0 tolerance”) BAC for young drivers
|
+++
|
++
|
+
|
Low
|
High Risk
Group
|
Graduated licensing for novice drivers
|
++
|
++
|
++
|
Low
|
High Risk
Group
|
Table Five
Education and Persuasion (Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
Strategy or intervention
|
Effectiveness
|
Research Support
|
X-Cultural Testing
|
Cost
|
Target Group
|
Alcohol education in schools
|
0**
|
+++
|
++
|
High
|
High Risk
Group
|
College student education
|
0
|
+
|
+
|
High
|
High Risk
Group
|
Public service messages
|
0
|
+++
|
++
|
Moderate
|
General Population
|
Warning labels
|
0
|
+
|
+
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Table Six
Regulating Alcohol Promotion (Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
Strategy or intervention
|
Effectiveness
|
Research Support
|
X-Cultural Testing
|
Cost
|
Target Group
|
Advertising bans
|
+
|
+
|
++
|
Low
|
General Population
|
Content controls on advertising
|
?
|
0
|
0
|
Moderate
|
General Population
|
It is important to note that in assessing the overall merits of any one policy all factors need to be considered. For instance a policy may have high effectiveness and research support ratings but the costs to implement may be prohibitive.
Based on this extensive review, of the 31 measures assessed, the authors list the following, not in order, as the “Best Practices”:42
Best Practices
· Minimum legal purchase age
· Government monopoly of retail sales
· Restrictions on hours or days of sale
· Outlet density restrictions
· Alcohol taxes
· Random breath testing
· Lowered BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) limits
· Administrative license suspension
· Graduated licensing for novice drivers
· Brief interventions for hazardous drinkers
(Source: Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity, 2003)
|
The evidence is clear, a mix of the above alcohol policies supported by enforcement and enveloped within best practices prevention and treatment can significantly reduce alcohol related problems - saving money and saving lives.
7. MORE ON OUTLET DENSITY
Given that the city council is being asked to review specifically the number and location of new outlets, listed below are a number of studies, each examining one or more aspects of the issue. Strategies conducted in other jurisdictions may or may not be directly applicable to Vancouver; however examining the data is central (e.g. it helps avoid “re-inventing the wheel”, repeating costly mistakes, etc.) to considering which policies to implement locally.
The distribution of off-sale alcohol outlets in New Orleans is geographically related to homicides. The study, conducted in 1994-95, showed that neighborhoods with high densities of off-sale alcohol outlets also have high rates of homicide even after controlling for race, unemployment, age structure and social disintegration. A typical New Orleans census tract with two off-sale outlets has a homicide rate that is 24% higher than a census tract with one outlet.43
· Studies have found that the complaints about alcohol outlets most often reported to city planners had to do with noise, traffic or loitering.44
· Over-concentration of alcohol outlets is part of neighborhood economic and social disintegration. The area's economic base loses its diversity and becomes less attractive to both residents and potential retail customers. The proliferation of alcohol outlets is thus both a symptom of economic decline and a factor that worsens the decline.45
· Where alcohol is more readily available, such as areas with greater outlet density, more drinking usually occurs and there is a greater likelihood that situations of negative behavior will arise.46
· Alcohol outlet density in Newark, N.J. was the single most important environmental factor explaining why violent crime rates are higher in certain areas of the city than in others. 47
· According to a study done in Los Angeles County, there is a greater number of alcohol-related injury crashes in cities with higher outlet densities. A 1% increase in outlet density means a .54% increase in alcohol-related crashes. Thus, a city of 50,000 residents with 100 alcohol outlets would experience an additional 2.7 crashes for each new outlet opened. The same study also found each additional alcohol outlet was associated with 3.4 additional assaults per year.48
· “Wetter” neighborhoods have higher levels of drinking, accidents and violence.49
· There is a 15-16% difference in individuals’ drinking attitudes and 11% difference in individuals’ alcohol consumption attributable to density of alcohol outlets in their neighborhoods.50
· The number of alcohol outlets is related to violent assaults. A study done in 1995 in Los Angeles showed that each additional alcohol outlet was associated with 3.4 additional assaults per year.51
· A number of studies have clearly established an association between greater outlet density and alcohol-related outcomes such as assaults, homicides52 motor vehicle crashes53 youth violence54, and alcoholism rates.55 The research thus indicates that outlet density is a major predictor of violence, injury, and other adverse health outcomes.
8. KEY NEW DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE POLICY LITERATURE
Alcohol policies and the research of them are not new. However some of the most recent research discussions suggest three emerging, and potentially very significant, findings.
In addition to historic per capita consumption relationship to harms, current research shows that the number of drinks on a given occasion is also critical.
Considerable evidence from many sources indicates that as per capita consumption of alcohol increases so too do the attendant health and social problems. This remains true. Current data also stress that the critical element in this is the number of drinks consumed on an occasion. Thus a major policy goal should be to reduce heavy drinking at single drinking occasions since this is likely the most efficient way of reducing per capita consumption and alcohol-related problems.
There are “immense” opportunities for improving alcohol policy to better reduce or prevent problematic alcohol use among the young.
“Policies which modify the price and availability of legal drugs, especially to young people, have a particularly strong evidence base.”56
Youth are a critical population due to:
· Developmental vulnerability – young people’s physiological (especially the brain), social, and emotional development are at a critical stage. Alcohol use can arrest normal development leading to lifelong compromises.
· Hazardous drinking - hazardous drinking among youth is common, therefore, as BC’s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall notes, any increase in alcohol consumption either by volume or frequency in this cohort should be viewed with concern.57
· Youth at special risk of increased availability - recent changes in BC policies are increasing alcohol availability. “There is, from the evidence, a risk that increased consumption will occur predominately in less mature drinkers and will exacerbate the trends of increased risky drinking” which could lead to increased harms, the costs of which could exceed the economic benefits realized through increased sales.58
· Youth alcohol use predicts later drug use – “Early use of legal drugs is a strong predictor of later substance use. There is now a large literature indicating that early use of legal drugs is a predictor both of later problems with these drugs but also with illicit drugs.”59 While it is evident that not all youth who drink progress to others drugs, “Drug use is found to generally follow a sequential pattern, with the majority of adolescents first using alcohol and/or tobacco before progressing to the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs.”60
Increased availability mixed with weakened controls concern researchers.
Proliferation of new outlets, extended hours of sale, privatization of stores and other measures are increasing ease of access to alcohol in many developed countries. Policy makers in these countries appear to be choosing education as the main way to reduce harms. However the body of research indicates that the best way to curb damages is through a mix of alcohol control polices (Russia is a example of what happens when alcohol control policies are non-existent and/or weak, and alcohol is easy to obtain, namely, high incidence of hazardous drinking and widespread, costly alcohol problems that would be indefensible in most countries.).
Presently there is a significant increase in expressions of concern from many researchers that western countries are setting aside vital policies such that increased harms will be unavoidable.
9. WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR VANCOUVER?
For the majority, alcohol is a valued part of cultural identity, religious ceremony and social ways of being. It is here to stay. This necessitates a rigorous pursuit of a mix of strategies that best enhance the benefits and at the same time, cut back the damages of alcohol use.
Being the largest city in the province and given the City’s headship of a balanced approach to problem drug use, the City of Vancouver is uniquely positioned to provide leadership in the important arena of alcohol policy.
The best efforts are a strategic mix of policies that modify the availability and convenience of alcohol, are backed by enforcement, and are underpinned by evidence-based prevention and treatment that is available, sustained and intense.
|
Research indicates that implementing policies designed to minimize episodic heavy drinking, and address critical youth issues, are two directions that hold far-reaching promise.
One way to help prevent problems is to require training for storeowners and their sales clerks regarding liability issues, refusing service to underage or intoxicated persons, and topics that address the unique nature of alcohol (e.g. health and social impacts of problem use, the addictive process, trends in drinking patterns, vulnerable populations, etc.)
If increased availability is to proceed it is recommended that the City find ways to make mandatory training for storeowners and sales clerks.
It is also recommended that actions designed to monitor the impacts and to mitigate possible damages of greater availability also be put in place. These have been well outlined by Dr. Perry Kendall, BC Provincial Health Officer in: Public Health Approach to Alcohol Policy: A Report of the Provincial Health Office (released May 2002). This report was,
“prompted by recent changes to British Columbia’s liquor laws that will increase the availability of alcohol products in B.C.”.
Kendall concludes with the following comments and recommendations:
Recommendations:
1. Monitoring of public health and safety impacts of policy changes,
e.g., rates of traffic crashes, crime, and chronic health problems.
2. Increased prevention programming with a focus on children and
youth and on modifying risky drinking behaviours.
3. Rigorous monitoring and enforcement of laws relating to sales to
underage and intoxicated consumers.
4. An enhancement of the addictions treatment and rehabilitation
system.
5. Evaluation of prevention policies and programs, with reduction of
drinking-related harms as the main criterion of effectiveness.
6. Involvement of public health experts in the planning of future
changes to alcohol policy.
The above recommendations will require a dedicated and secure
Many of these recommendations pertain to areas that are provincial responsibilities. Nonetheless, the City can attach certain requirements to business licenses that they issue and they can vigorously advocate for urgent action from the provincial government, such as the Kendall recommendations. Moreover data indicates that doing so could reduce, not only provincial costs but also city expenses, such as policing costs.
If alcohol is to become more available, and the private sector becomes more invested (and presumably lobbying for even greater availability), then we need to adopt measures that have been shown to prevent or minimize the harms. The earlier-mentioned best practice policies and the above recommendations are evidenced-based ways to achieve this goal.
The City of Vancouver faces a challenging task. It is hoped that this document on best practices in alcohol policies will assist in the development new policies for the City of Vancouver.
REFERENCES
