Drinking a lot of alcohol is bad for the drinker’s health, both in the short and in the long run. But drinking often affects others adversely, too. This is well recognised for drink driving, and once the size of the problem was established, policies were put in place that successfully drove down rates of drink-driving deaths and injuries.
But there are a range of harms to others from drinking. These include effects on family life and members – sometimes just a bad moment, sometimes very serious. The drinker may spoil a family holiday, or may fail to pick up a child from preschool. Drinking is often implicated in family violence and in child neglect.
There are effects on friends and on work life – friendships broken off, injuries in a drunken fight, work time spent filling in for a drinker or getting help for him or her. And there are adverse effects on people who don’t know the drinker – annoyances like late-night street noise, and more serious impacts, such as injury from trying to break up a drunken fight, or the cost of fixing or replacing broken furniture or torn clothing when someone had a bit too much.
These kinds of effects are immediately recognised when they’re mentioned. But they mostly haven’t been quantified – we don’t have the kind of routine statistics even for serious events that we have for drink-driving. And usually, a social problem needs to be quantified to focus our attention on it.
In 2010, we published a report doing just this for problems from others’ drinking – laying out how many different types of problems there are, and quantifying them. We looked at how common the problems are, and the costs to people other than the drinker.
Commissioned by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, the report looked at the problems through two windows. One window is the case records of the agencies that are the front line of response to problems in our society – the police, the ambulances, the hospitals, the child protection services. This window shows us the more serious problems, the ones that come to official attention.
The other window is what people in the population at large tell an interviewer in a survey about problems they’ve had in the recent past with others’ drinking.
What we found is that, from both perspectives, the problem is large – that there are many serious cases and events, and that the experience of problems from others’ drinking is widespread in the population at large.
At the most serious end, we found that in a given year, 367 Australians die because of another’s drinking, and 13,660 are hospitalised. An estimated 19,443 substantiated child protection cases involve a carer’s drinking and 24,581 assaults on family members reported to the police involve drinking, as do 44,852 assaults on the street and elsewhere.
In terms of the broader picture, most of us – 73% of adults – have experienced some kind of adverse effect in the last year from someone else’s drinking. Of these, 5% were negatively affected in our work by a co-worker’s drinking, 16% by a relative’s or household member’s drinking, 11% by a friend’s and 43% when a stranger’s drinking resulted in abuse, threat, property damage or worse.
But though adverse effects of strangers’ drinking were more widely reported, the adverse effects in the household and family were more likely to be substantial, whether measured in terms of seriousness or of out-of-pocket costs and lost time from work.
Our report attracted a lot of interest internationally. Quoting it, the World Health Organization decided to measure alcohol’s harm to others as a major strand in its Global Strategy the Reduce Harmful Alcohol Consumption. Over a dozen countries, from every inhabited continent, are now conducting studies using the approaches in our report.
And we have continued to do research on the issue, including a forthcoming study of patterns over time – what determines who is repeatedly adversely affected by others’ drinking over a period of years.
But what should we do with this knowledge of substantial adverse harms from others’ drinking? One option is to deny or discount it – maybe they didn’t measure it right. The alcohol industry’s reaction was to pay some economics consultants to do a throw-everything-at-it critique of our report. But we could and did answer the criticisms in detail.
Or, we should find those responsible and punish or treat the problems away – maybe if we can get all the alcoholics into treatment or gaol, the problem will go away. Alcohol-related violence has nothing to do with nightclubs or liquor barns pushing booze, it’s argued, it’s just a problem of the “bad-apple” drinker. But, as police leaders have have repeatedly pointed out, we can’t arrest our way out of these problems.
The alternative is to decide that we need to do what was done with drink-driving – take the problem seriously, and take measures that actually have an effect. Australia has been doing this with second-hand smoking, even though the proportion of the problems borne by others around the user is much smaller for tobacco than it is for alcohol.
Taking the problem seriously has to include rethinking policies of a free market in alcohol, with slabs or casks available around the clock and clubs and pubs open until five in the morning. It will require addressing the constant alcohol ads playing to our children while they watch sports on television. If we find that there are too many costs and sorrows, we need to start a serious policy discussion about how to reduce these harms.
Maybe if it were just the drinker’s health at stake, you could argue that he or she should be left alone to drink to oblivion. But the stakes are higher and the impact broader than that. In decisions about alcohol policy, the effects on others, and not just on the drinker, need to be taken into account.
This is the third part of our series looking at alcohol and the drinking culture in Australia. Click on the links below to read the other articles:
Part One: A brief history of alcohol consumption in Australia
Part Two: Social acceptance of alcohol allows us to ignore its harms
Part Four: Alcohol-fuelled violence on the rise despite falling consumption
Part Five: ‘As a matter of fact, I’ve got it now’: alcohol advertising and sport
Part Six: Advertising’s role in how young people interact with alcohol
Part Seven: Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco – boozem buddies?
Part Eight: Explainer: foetal alcohol spectrum disorders
Part Nine: ‘Valuable label real estate’ and alcohol warning labels
Part Ten: Forbidden fruit: are children tricked into wanting alcohol?
Jack Arnold
Director
Thank you for this well researched series of articles on the greatest social problem in Australia from which the various governments extracts revenue in the form of excise and licence fees that are far less than the cost of the personal injury and property damage caused to the voters.
A possible way to reduce these damaging consequences of deliberate over-indulgence is for judges to change their position on the role of alcohol in an offence. At present, being under the influence of alcohol or…
Read moreTrevor Kerr
ISTP
On last night's 4Corners, the AHA spokesman provided a couple of clues. He said, well, we are a huge industry, just like mining and others, so we exert pressure to sustain our market share.
Another said how some of that pressure is applied - to our MPs.
At that end, then, it seems important to know how the alcohol lobby is doing business. Are there adequate, mandatory, disclosures of where a lobby (any of them) is gifting politicians?
This isn't a problem that's likely to be solved by laws & taxes. We may have to wait until an MP's family is wiped out by a recidivist drunk driver.
A step in the right direction could be to do two things. One, require the local MP to lobby for support for constituent families that have been broken by drunks. Two, require the community of taxpayers to cover *all* the costs incurred by families & individuals who have been harmed by drunks.
Judith Olney
Ms
Trevor, the community of taxpayers already covers all the cost of drunken behaviour and violence. We pay for increased staffing and security at hospitals, increased police numbers, increased rates and insurance premiums for the damage caused by drunks. We also pay for the costs to the victims of drunks, as well as the families of the victims. Our courts are clogged with cases that arise from drunken behaviour and violence.
I think a better approach would be to ban alcohol advertising, raise the drinking age, raise the price of alcohol, and limit the times that alcohol can be consumed in, and limit the outlets for the sale of alcohol. Though, as you say, the alcohol industry is huge and it is extremely unlikely that any government will take them on, particularly when people are fooled by the lies of the industry spokes people.
This approach will not be a problem for those that drink responsibly , but might help to prevent some of the harm caused by those who don't.
Stephen Riden
Research and Information Manager, DSICA
Alcohol taxation was about $6B last year (all to the Commonwealth), while total Commonwealth and State/Territory expenditure in 2010-11 (latest AIHW data available) was $90B.
So alcohol taxation pays roughtly about 1/15th of total governmental health expenditure. It is more than the share of alcohol's contribution to sickness and ill halth - about 3.2% from memory.
Jan Burgess
Retired
I'm not sure if you are defending the alcohol industry (on the basis that they are paying their way), or pointing out why the government doesn't want to act (they are making a profit)
I also don't know if your figures are correct, but even if they are - what about the other costs apart from healthcare, many of which are born by the government. Police and court costs, child protection costs, unemployment costs for those rendered unable to work due alcohol etc etc.
That doesn't even touch on the subject of this article, costs to the rest of the community rather than directly to government.
I am sad the author does not have even a very rough monetary value for directly quantifiable costs. I suspect the total would be well in excess of the $6B you quote as governmental income.
Robin Room
Director, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol & Drug Centre; Professor of Population Health & Chair of Social Research in Alcohol at University of Melbourne
Jan --
Read moreCollins and Lapsley
(http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf) estimated the tangible costs of alcohol, mostly to governments and to the drinker him/herself, at $10.8 billion for 2004/5. That would translate to 12.1 billion in 2008 dollars. Our study of Alcohol's harm to others estimated costs to specific others around the drinker, in out-of-pocket expenses or lost time caring for or filling in for the…
Stephen Riden
Research and Information Manager, DSICA
Jan
Cost of alcohol studies were recently debated in one issue of the journal Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs - it has free access http://versita.metapress.com/content/v5u0g05t8r38/?p=5bb379aa49d546ed8266ae01d47b24fb&pi=0
Reading the articles by Makela and others will explain why cost of alcohol studies - such as those funded by FARE - are too value-laden and subjective to be much use, except as a policy and advocacy tool.
Professor Room has an article in the collection.
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Hi Judith
not a problem to those who drink responsibly.........don't agree.
pensioners don't have a lot of money left once all the bills are paid. Put up the price of a cask of wine by $5 (or more as has been discussed) and it adds just another burden for pensioners.
In the Surf Coast Shire (Vic) where I live, there is a blanket ban on drinking in public spaces.
And again we are penalising the majority of people who act responsibly for the sake of a minority.
Its happened in other areas as well. It just isn't fair in any respects.
But then again having a loved one killed by some drunken idiot isn't fair either.
Why not raise the rego, car insurance for convicted drunk drivers.
Judith Olney
Ms
Why do you have a problem with raising the cost of alcohol Stephen? If pensioners drink less because the cost has gone up, all the better for them. No-one seems to be crying because pensioners may not be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol is no different, just another drug. Its not like alcohol is one of life's necessities.
And again, banning alcohol in public spaces is no different to banning smoking, both are for the good of the public, and good for the environment.
Car insurance premiums are already higher for those convicted of drink driving and other traffic offences. A rise in rego would also impact the owner of the car, who may be different from the drunk driver. I would be pretty pissed off if my rego was raised because a member of my family used my car to drink and drive. The responsibility should lay with the drunk, they are the ones that need to have more serious consequences to their behaviour.
Judith Olney
Ms
Second paragraph should read "banning both are for the good of the public, and good for the environment".
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Hi Judith
may i quote you -
"The responsibility should lay with the drunk, they are the ones that need to have more serious consequences to their behaviour."
My 89 y.o mother has one perhaps two glasses of wine (cask wine I might add) with her evening meal.
Your statement that drinking less might be "good" for pensioners is facile and impertinent.
And now that you mention it, my 89 y.o. mother also smokes. So now you want to see her in penury for her sins. Goodness me Judith , how hard- hearted of you.
What pleasures do you have that are not part of life's necessities - and can afford - for the moment.
Judith Olney
Ms
I am poor Stephen, there are many things I would like to do, and many pleasures I would like to engage in, but I simply cannot afford to. Thats life. I take care of the necessities first, and if I can't afford the non-necessities, I do without.
You may think this hard hearted, but that is the way society is today, we no longer live in a society, we live in an economy, and its not the poor that run it.
Personally, I would like to see necessities like power, water, communications like phone and internet, food, and public transport , health and dental costs, lowered, every time there are hikes in the taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol, or any luxury goods, particularly for people on low incomes. But I'm dreaming.
Bronwyn OBrien
logged in via Twitter
I agree with some of what you say, but banning alcohol advertising will not stop people knowing about alcohol; illegal drugs are not advertised and people know what they are and how to get them; raising the drinking age will not stop 13 year olds from drinking, it will just create more underage drinkers; limiting the times people can drink alcohol will just encourage people to drink more in a smaller amount of time, (people already buy up extra drinks if they know the bar is about to close), and none of these things will stop adults from driving a car or bashing someone while they are under the influence.
Judith Olney
Ms
Hi Bronwyn, its more about harm minimisation than stopping people from drinking, and it is also about stopping the normalisation of drinking as part of everyday life.
The measures I outlined will not stop people from doing what they will, but it will make it more difficult.
Banning advertising for smoking, did not stop people smoking, but it took away the normalisation of smoking in our society. It also prevents children being exposed to constant advertising of a dangerous product, as will…
Read moreBronwyn OBrien
logged in via Twitter
I asked my 17 yr old daughter why kids want to drink underage. She replied, 'because they're not allowed to'. She explained that when you tell a kid not to do something they want to do it more.
When you make something taboo, you make it not normal and therefore it becomes 'cool'.
I worked in a tobacco shop for about 5 years and we were always pretty busy. The government tried all sorts of things to stop people smoking, price rises, horrible pictures on packets but none of these things deterred our customers from smoking. It did make them angrier though.
I just don't think restrictions and banning things are the only answer. They may sometimes add fuel to the fire.
Judith Olney
Ms
Your daughter's response was similar to the response I had from my own daughter, when she was a teenager. However, that didn't mean that I let her do whatever she wanted. I did talk to her about alcohol and smoking, as well as other drugs, sex, and numerous other subjects, and found that telling her the truth, and explaining the consequences to the actions she may take, went a long way to encouraging her not to drink alcohol and smoke and to be a responsible adult.
Teenagers are children, at least…
Read moreRobert Tony Brklje
retired
Here's a question that needs to be put to all Australian governments, Local, State and Federal. Should they lead by example and should all government functions be teetotal, as a lesson to younger generations?
Are all those government failing in their responsibility by setting a very poor example for younger generations, you can not enjoy yourself at a function if you do not consume alcohol ie it is normal to be at least a partial drunk and abnormal to be completely sober.
So should alcohol be banned from government functions paid for by the tax payer so as to promote better choices by younger Australians?
It is the obvious first step and completely reasonable.
Bob Trussler
writer
I agree with Robert Tony Brklje.
In my last government job when invited to Friday Happy Hour, I asked if there would be cups of tea and a choice of bikkies.
I was met with blank stares. It was if I had asked about burning witches at the stake or torturing kittens.
Bob Trussler
writer
OOPS
It was AS if I had asked about burning witches at the stake or torturing kittens
Leigh Burrell
No win, no file.
Is there any activity the loony totalitarian left don't want to ban, regulate, subsidise or mandate? Any activity at all? Dumb question, I guess. They're totalitarians.
Robert Crocker
Lecturer Sustainable Design Theory
Thank you for an excellent piece. I happen to live about a hundred yards from a large hotel and suffer every Friday and Saturday nights from the kind of behaviour you refer to. The problem goes way beyond advertising and the lobbying of the AHA of government, but into the 'payback' they gain from government at all levels, for example the way liquor licensing courts are structured to keep out all but the licensees and their lawyers, with rules that look strict but are regularly circumvented, the way…
Read moreJena Zelezny
PhD student, Humanities and Social Sciences (Performance Studies) at La Trobe University
Does anyone have any figures on alcohol sold on Melbourne Cup day, both at the track and in pubs?
I was at the track on the day doing some photography and it was obvious that drinking to excess and gambling were being wholeheartedly encouraged by those raking in the profits. Only one brand of champagne was on sale and I think only one brand of beer. (I am only referring to the plebs here. I have no idea what the members were drinking.)
I want to emphasise here that on that day when the race 'stopped the nation' a large percentage of those who came out to the track seemed to be deluding themselves into believing that getting drunk was an approved activity and that they had been given a holiday (let off the leash) for precisely that purpose.
Robin Room
Director, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol & Drug Centre; Professor of Population Health & Chair of Social Research in Alcohol at University of Melbourne
There;s a paper 'online early view' in the journal Addiction which found a spike in acute intoxication admissions to Emergency Departments and hospitalisations the evening before Melbourne Cup Day, and a big spike in intoxication-related ambulance calls on Melbourne Cup Day. The paper is Belinda Lloyd, Sharon Matthews, Michael Livingston, Harindra Jayasekara & Karen Smith, Alcohol intoxication in the context of major public holidays, sporting and social events: a time–series analysis in Melbourne…
Read moreJena Zelezny
PhD student, Humanities and Social Sciences (Performance Studies) at La Trobe University
Thank you Robin. I'll follow this up. I'm doing a paper at Stanford for the Performance Studies Conference. I will focus on the Melbourne Cup as an event. I'm interested in the contrasts presented during the day given that the event is framed as one that represents national pride.
Jena Zelezny
PhD student, Humanities and Social Sciences (Performance Studies) at La Trobe University
Thanks again Robin, found it.
Bronwyn OBrien
logged in via Twitter
A great article and it looks like this problem has been studied and researched for a long time.
It seems that people just don't care about how they affect others when they are drunk. I think this needs to be examined. Why don't people care? Why do they drink so much alcohol if they know it will lead to them becoming aggressive or get into a car and potentially hurt someone? It's the attitudes of these kinds of drinkers that needs to be looked at. Sure, the powers that be need to come up with policies and laws, they have been doing it for years. I know from experience, though, that it is not the alcohol by itself that causes the problems, it's the attitude of the drinkers, before they even start to drink, that I think is the biggest problem.
Judith Olney
Ms
Bronwyn, it might be a good idea to have a look at how alcohol affects the brain, and on how alcohol affects a person's inhibitions, this will give you an idea as to why people affected by alcohol become aggressive, violent, or just stupid, when they are drunk, when they would not normally behave this way sober.
Bronwyn OBrien
logged in via Twitter
Absolutely. But not all people become violent when they are drunk. Many become happier. I just wonder if the problem goes beyond simply the drinking. Perhaps one of the reasons there is increased alcohol fueled violence is because more people are unhappy and angry before they start drinking. Also I notice, particularly with younger people (and some adults), there is this not caring attitude. They don't care how much they drink just like some people don't care if they drive way over the speed limit even though they are fully aware of the risks to themselves and others. We all know the effects of alcohol and those who choose to drink irresponsibly know too. I don't disagree with toughening up alcohol consumption policies and laws if need be, but I think this should be balanced with a look into why people are angry in the first place.
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Hi bronwyn
a point i have made previously is that alcohol related problems are often symptomatic of deeper, ingrained social and personal issues.
Not all, some people just don't know when enough is enough and reach the state of inebriation that dulls the senses and common sense along with it.
Judith Olney
Ms
You make a good point Bronwyn, I often look at politics today and the venom and nastiness displayed by the politicians, as well as the people who are rusted on to one ideology or another, and wonder why, as I haven't ever seen it quite this nasty before. I think this also flows through to daily life, through people like the radio shock jocks, the bitchy presenters and judges on reality TV shows etc.
Perhaps this trend towards judgementalism, nastiness, a lack of compassion for others, and non-caring attitudes, by those in power, gives licence to those that share these same traits, to do so publicly and without consequence, in the rest of the community.