漲價能真能遏止飲酒過量？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/12/27
2013-12-25 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：天下雜誌 |
超過12,000年來，酒精為人類帶來了快樂，也帶來了麻煩：酒精會讓人快樂，也會讓人憤怒和悲傷。對於自由派來說，其缺點是個人問題──我們應該擁有飲酒作樂的自由。
但自由亦有其限制；一旦傷害擴及他人，就有必要介人。全球酒精消費處於穩定，但部分人喝的酒變多，進而傷害了自己和他人。自1990年至今，與酒精相關的死亡人數增為3倍，酒精也從全球第六大致死致殘原因升至第三大。若將損失的產出計算在內，酒精讓歐洲和美國減少約1.5％國家收入。
而且情況正在惡化；許多年輕人增加了飲酒量，大量飲酒者亦有增加。每個國家都有酒類銷售規範，許多國家也試圖教育民眾飲酒過量的壞處；不過，飲酒習慣改變的一大因素，就是自1990年代中期開始，富有世界的民眾越來越有能力買酒。
處理飲酒過量的最佳方式，就是依照酒精濃度課稅以抬升價格；此舉應該可以減少年輕人和缺錢豪飲者的消費量，因為他們只買得起廉價的酒。酒商和它們的政府盟友指出，這種介入會傷害低價酒飲等部分商品，而且抬升價格對窮人造成的傷害高於富人。但此舉對財富不均不致產生過大影響，因為罹患酒精相關疾病的窮人，比富人多出許多。此外，增稅造成的財富不均效應，可以靠增加其他領域的福利來彌補。
提升酒價的益處擁有強而有力的證據。部分加拿大省份已透過課稅和價格下限成功推行此政策；不列顛哥倫比亞將最低均價抬升10％之後，在2002至2009年間，酒精相關的死亡人數下滑了32％。
公共衛生法令在起步之時，通常得作出不受歡迎的決定，但新習慣和新態度也有機會以超乎想像的速度生根。禁止在餐廳和酒吧吸菸似乎太過怪異，但在紐約於2003年帶頭之後，世界其他地區很快就跟進。
酒類的價格遠遠比不上酗酒者為他人帶來的傷害，在這類情況之中，自由選擇和自由市場的捍衛者自然不該反對提升酒價；讓酒後不良行為的成本上升，可以為這個世界帶來更多歡樂。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
The Economist
Alcohol pricing
We wish you a
merry(ish) Christmas
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 25, 2013
Dec 21st 2013 | From the print edition
Raising the price of booze saves lives and money. Scotland is right to
try it.
AMONG man's earliest artefacts are vessels to store and carry booze.
Drunk from Stone Age jugs or Etruscan amphoras, fermented sugars have brought
cheer for more than 12,000 years. And headaches too: alcohol stokes rage and
gloom as well as jollity and dancing. For liberal-minded types, the downsides
are a personal matter—we should be free to frolic.
Within limits. Where the harm extends beyond the individual, there is a
case for intervention. Global alcohol consumption is stable. But some people
are tippling more, in ways that hurt themselves and others.
At stake are not just vomit-drenched streets. Deaths linked to drinking
have tripled since 1990; in that time alcohol has gone from the sixth to the
third leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The bill lands on
everyone, as does booze-fuelled violence. Including lost output, the harm from
alcohol costs Europe and America around 1.5% of national income.
The problem is worsening. Across the rich world, a small share of the
population consumes a large share of the liquor. One reason is that many young
people have upped their intake. More drinkers are also bingeing—even in
southern Europe, where alcohol used to be taken mainly with food.
All countries have some rules (regarding age, opening hours or place)
on drink sales. Many also try to educate the population about the health risks
of overdoing it. A big reason for the shifts in drinking habits, though, is
that since the mid-1990s booze has become much more affordable in most of the
rich world. An Irishman can buy his recommended weekly limit of 21 units of
alcohol for little more than an hour's work at the minimum wage.
The best way to tackle excessive drinking is to raise prices through
taxes levied on a drink's strength, so that the most harmful drinks are more
expensive. The resulting price-rise should cut the consumption of hard-up heavy
topers (who are particularly partial to dirt-cheap supermarket booze) and young
drinkers, who can afford only what's cheap.
The alcohol industry and its government allies note that intervention
would hurt some products such as cheap wine. And pushing up prices is fiscally
regressive: it makes more difference to thin wallets than fat ones. But the
effect on equality may be small, because poor people also suffer
disproportionately from alcohol-induced ailments. Moreover, any regressive
effect of the tax rise on drink can be offset with more generous benefits in
some other area.
Deck the halls, not each other
The evidence backing higher prices on booze is strong. Several Canadian
provinces have already successfully introduced them through taxation and a
price floor for a unit of alcohol. Local governments reap much of that revenue
through provincial liquor monopolies. After a 10% rise in the average minimum
price from 2002 to 2009 in British Columbia, alcohol-related deaths fell by
32%.
Other governments are uncorking similar schemes. Unfortunately, within
the European Union the rules do not allow all drinks to be taxed by strength
alone. That system should be reformed. In the meantime, Scotland's devolved
government is trying to circumvent the problem. It passed legislation in 2012
to set a minimum price of 50p ($0.80) for a unit of alcohol, which would affect
more than half the liquor on sale. That is a less appealing way to raise
prices, however, since it would give producers and retailers a windfall, rather
than helping pay for the cost that drink imposes on the public. A legal
challenge will be heard in February. But if the law is enacted, others may follow—Ireland
is keen. The British government rejected the policy in 2013, but has vowed to
think again.
Public-health laws often require an unpopular move at the start, but
new habits and attitudes can take root surprisingly quickly. A ban on smoking in
restaurants and pubs seemed outlandish—until New York City introduced one in
2003. Much of the world quickly followed suit. Even diehard liberals like this
newspaper, queasy at first about smoking bans, or mandatory crash helmets and
seat belts, would hesitate to scrap those regulations now.
The price of drink falls far short of the toll it takes on those who
have to cope with drinkers. In such cases, defenders of free choice and free
markets should not be intoxicated by them. Raising the cost of booze-fuelled
bad behaviour would bring more joy to the world. Here's to that.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
沒有留言:
張貼留言