Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Int J Drug Policy. 2013 Nov;24(6):517-23. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.05.002. Epub 2013 Jun 15.
A burgeoning body of empirical evidence demonstrates that increases in the price of alcohol can reduce per capita alcohol consumption and harmful drinking. Taxes on alcohol can be raised to increase prices, but this strategy can be undermined if the industry absorbs the tax increase and cross-subsidises the price of one alcoholic beverage with other products. Such loss-leading strategies are not possible with minimum pricing. We argue that a minimum (or floor) price for alcohol should be used as a complement to alcohol taxation. Several jurisdictions have already introduced minimum pricing (e.g., Canada, Ukraine) and others are currently investigating pathways to introduce a floor price (e.g., Scotland). Tasked by the Australian government to examine the public interest case for a minimum price, Australia's peak preventative health agency recommended against setting one at the present time. The agency was concerned that there was insufficient Australian specific modelling evidence to make robust estimates of the net benefits. Nonetheless, its initial judgement was that it would be difficult for a minimum price to produce benefits for Australia at the national level. Whilst modelling evidence is certainly warranted to support the introduction of the policy, the development and uptake of policy is influenced by more than just empirical evidence. This article considers three potential impediments to minimum pricing: public opinion and misunderstandings or misgivings about the operation of a minimum price; the strength of alcohol industry objections and measures to undercut the minimum price through discounts and promotions; and legal obstacles including competition and trade law. The analysis of these factors is situated in an Australian context, but has salience internationally.
越来越多的经验证据表明，提高酒精价格可以降低人均酒精消费量和有害饮酒量。可以通过提高酒类税收来提高价格，但如果行业吸收了增税并通过其他产品交叉补贴一种含酒精饮料的价格，那么这种策略就会受到破坏。这种亏本销售策略在最低定价中是不可能实现的。我们认为，应该将最低（或底价）酒精价格作为酒类税收的补充。一些司法管辖区已经实施了最低定价（例如加拿大、乌克兰），其他司法管辖区目前正在研究引入最低价格的途径（例如苏格兰）。应澳大利亚政府的要求，审查实施最低价格的公共利益案例，澳大利亚最高的预防性健康机构目前建议不要设定最低价格。该机构担心，澳大利亚缺乏足够的具体模型证据来对净收益进行可靠估计。尽管如此，其初步判断是，最低价格在国家层面上为澳大利亚带来好处的可能性很小。虽然确实需要建立模型证据来支持该政策的引入，但政策的制定和采用不仅仅取决于经验证据。本文考虑了最低定价的三个潜在障碍：公众意见以及对最低价格运作的误解或疑虑；酒精行业反对的力度以及通过折扣和促销来削弱最低价格的措施；以及包括竞争和贸易法在内的法律障碍。对这些因素的分析是在澳大利亚背景下进行的，但在国际上也具有重要意义。
