• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

$36 Billion cost of alcohols harm to the individual and society

madmick19

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
1,292
Location
5 Adelaide Ave Deakin ACT 2600
I went to the launch of this research today which was pretty interesting. It would appear that only now do we have the research eveidence that goes beyond the use of the individual and looks at the broarder social costs of alcohol. Funny ever since the 2008 addiction conference many of the policy makers and researchers are talking about a return to grass roots community action promoting moderation




COST OF ALCOHOL MISUSE GOES BEYOND THE DRINKER
NEW RESEARCH SHOWS HARM CAUSED BY OTHER’S DRINKING
MORE THAN DOUBLES ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALCOHOL MISUSE

• Total cost of alcohol misuse now estimated at $36 billion annually
• This includes tangible costs of $24.7 billion
• New report shows $20 billion in costs caused by someone else’s drinking
• Over 73% of adults are negatively affected by someone else’s drinking
• Almost 70,000 Australians are reported victims of alcohol-related assaults every
year, including 24,000 victims of domestic violence
• Almost 20,000 children across Australia are victims of substantiated alcoholrelated
child abuse [in 2006/07]
24 August 2010: A new report launched today, commissioned by the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AER Foundation), found the hidden cost of harms caused by someone else’s drinking brings the total economic impact of alcohol misuse to $36 billion annually, more than double previous estimates.
This includes tangible costs of $24.7 billion and intangible costs of $11.4 billion¹. The report, ‘The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others’, found the cost of harm to others totalled more than $20 billion annually². This is in addition to the known cost identified by Collins and Lapsley in 2008³, bringing the new total to $36 billion. The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others report, undertaken by the AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research in Melbourne, provides an insight into how individual acts of alcohol misuse ripple through families and communities. It analyses the rarely studied connections between child protection, health, law enforcement and family services.

In compiling this report, researchers drew on and analysed a wide variety of existing⁴ and newly developed data, including a national survey completed in 2008 of more than 2,600 Australians aged 18 years or older. AER Foundation Director Rev. Tim Costello said “When people drink too much, they often
fail to acknowledge the negative impact this can have on their friends, family, colleagues and the broader community. We often hear stories of family breakdowns, domestic violence, child neglect and violence on the streets. This highlights the causal link between alcohol misuse and entirely avoidable personal trauma.”

Other key findings include:
• The tangible and intangible costs caused by someone else’s drinking totals more
than $20 billion
• Tangible costs equate to $14.3 billion which consists of out-of-pocket costs, forgone
wages or productivity, and hospital and child protection costs
• Intangible costs equate to $6.4 billion. These are costs assigned to lost quality of life
due to someone else’s drinking
• 367 deaths and 13,669 hospitalisations because of the drinking of others [in 2005]
• $88.6 million in total morbidity costs, due to the drinking of others (hospital costs,
road crash injury cases and assault)
• 29% of the population reported being negatively affected by the drinking of
someone who was well known to them
• More than 10 million Australians experienced some negative effect of a stranger’s
drinking in one year
• 43% of people reported experiencing alcohol-related harm (physical, verbal or fear)
from the drinking of someone not known to them, and altogether 70% reported
experiencing noise, annoyance or worse
• $1.6 billion a year in cost of repairs to property and personal belongings due to
drinking by a stranger
• Women nominated being negatively affected by the drinking of a relative or
household member more frequently than men (14% vs 8%)
• Men and women nominated being negatively affected by the drinking of friends
almost equally (12% vs 11%)
“Behind each of these statistics lie personal, family and community problems that stem from the harms associated with the drinking of others. Although we don’t know the details of the stories behind these statistics, the majority of Australians will know of times when they themselves, or those close to them, have been affected by other people’s drinking,” Rev. Costello said.
“The results are clear: too many Australians are experiencing the negative impact of other’s drinking. A range of evidence-based measures is needed to shift Australia’s drinking culture. These figures demonstrate the need for population-wide strategies including volumetric taxation, licensing restrictions and mandatory regulation of alcohol advertising.” The report will also be discussed at the AER Foundation workshop at the United Nations Department of Public Information/Non Government Organisation Conference in Melbourne
from 30 August to 1 September 2010.

Citations:
¹Tangible costs consist of out-of-pocket expenses, forgone wages and productivity. Intangible costs
 
I saw this on the 7pm project just before, i never realised just how much stupid drunks cunts are costing us.

Does anyone care to take a stab at how much the government makes off alcohol taxes? I mean other than Australia's 'cultural' dependence on the substance this is the main reason why it is still legal, is it not?

It would be interesting to compare the cost of taxes to the cost of collateral.
 
Last edited:
Top post Mick, glad to see you still popping your head in.

Now lets correlate it with the damages done by MDMA.
Oh wait we can't because it's not legal and really can't have substantial info to draw from.
 

Booze bill doubles in five years
Updated Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:34am AEST

Researchers are challenging the nation's leaders to urgently introduce restrictions on alcohol availability, following new figures which show the cost of alcohol misuse has more than doubled over the last five years.

The report, to be released today by the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, shows heavy drinking is costing Australia $36 billion a year - more than double previous estimates.

The research also indicates more than 10 million Australians experience some negative affect from other peoples' drinking, and almost 70,000 have been victims of alcohol-related assaults.

The Foundation's Professor Ian Webster told ABC TV's Lateline program that alcohol advertising is a key problem.

"The way things are promoted, the very clever advertising, the very clever way of inveigling young people into thinking that by drinking alcohol they'll be successful at sport or in sexual activities ... is extremely wrong and inappropriate and we ought to be controlling that," he said.

Professor Webster says factors such as availability and advertising make people less responsible for themselves.

"It's promoted relentlessly," he said.

"If you create environments where people congregate and drink ... and there's often aggression in those environments, and when you make alcohol widely available all through the day and night, and when its price becomes lower and lower and lower, these are social factors which act against the idea of personal responsibility."

The foundation surveyed more than 2,500 people and assessed police, hospital and child protection records in its study.

Researcher Dr Anne-Marie Laslette says it is the first time the cost to families, relations and the community has been taken into account.

"We need to develop alcohol-related policies that begin to decrease availability of alcohol," she said.

In 2005 the economic cost of alcohol misuse was estimated to be more than $15 billion annually, but the foundation's report says the figure has now more than doubled to $36 billion annually.

Professor Webster says while illicit substances have dominated recent drug and alcohol policy responses, he is challenging Australia's future leadership to address the most common and damaging substance, which he says is alcohol.

He says it is disappointing there is not a government to respond to the findings, but those holding the balance of power will be targeted.

"My colleagues will get to the independents," he said.

Alcohol manufacturers have condemned the findings, claiming that the report is a 234-page bid for further research grants.


ABC News
 
I can't see much happening with respect to limiting the availability of alcohol etc. It could happen but it would be just as good as prohibition. The stuff is located deeply within the foundations of our country anyways and you would effectively have to solve the health problems which are exacerbated by alcohol first. Why are we so stressed, why do we turn to alcohol abuse in the first place?

Ian Webster has got it right though
"If you create environments where people congregate and drink ... and there's often aggression in those environments, and when you make alcohol widely available all through the day and night, and when its price becomes lower and lower and lower, these are social factors which act against the idea of personal responsibility."
If only the law provided consequences for an individuals actions, then I think we would see a certain turnaround. Is it safe to say the majority of the population don't want violent individuals in their cities, if they are going to be under the influence and decide to glass or stab someone then give them some consequences and we will see who reoffends, that'll solve the alcohol problem to some extent...
 
Last edited:
After hewaring ian webster, i get a sence that he wants to encourage social resposibility which is part of personal responsibility. which i mean is a good thing when it comes to drugs- a protective factor against excessive use through a shared value of moderation of all substances. after meeting intergenerational drug dependant persons, i think the notion of social responsibility s a good one in regards to the changes at a genetic level that happen making people more reactive to certain substances, just think what you are doing now affects your future offsping
 
"If you create environments where people congregate and drink ... and there's often aggression in those environments, and when you make alcohol widely available all through the day and night, and when its price becomes lower and lower and lower, these are social factors which act against the idea of personal responsibility."

I've seen plenty of multi-day electronic music festivals with 1000's of people, bring in their own alcohol and you can see people drinking 24/7, yet there is very very little incidents at these events.

Of course there is heaps of factors, including other drugs. But i don't think it just the fact people are congregating to drink cheap alcohol. Seems to be anywhere there is heavy restriction and authority, there is violence and more "social" effect.

*shrug*
 
That's true AcidPrime. We all know though that certain people when they consume a substance or multiple substances assume less personal responsibility than when they are sober. I've been to doofs where not one person isn't incredibly intoxicated but no one ever fights there. It just changes between the scene of people you are in. This personal responsibility needs to be accentuated and make people think before they get trashed that their actions could affect another individuals which could lead to trouble.
 
i think we should remember that there is a continuum of use of substances from
experimental
casual
regular
problematic
dependant

underlying all of the research/arguments to date about drugs tends to lean towards the dependant/problematic end of the spectrum. untill now this is, these guys have taken alot of this into consideration both the problematic and social costs of use. there is no doubt that once people start traversing regular to problematic that there are both costs to the individual and society, wether that be not performing at work as well as having not used or difficulty in relationships at home. the old theory every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

one thing i find interesting about how this report has been promoted is the intense marketing and politising of the issue, yet a the same time it does not ( on reading the summary, have the full and will get to it) actually define clearer ways of sustainable ways in the community to achieve outcomes other than regulatory. one benefit of this is that it refocusses the issue as a societal one rather than just lumping it on the individual and responsibility on the individual- who then blames the drug.

yes when you use substances there is a marked change to insight, judgement and disinhibition. that has been proven enough, but if we promoted the value of moderation accross the community and taught it as a core principle of life that would transcend polical cycles and laws.

just my 00.02 cents
 

My name is Australia and I'm an alcoholic
Joshua Blake
August 26, 2010

Earlier this year, the federal government introduced a series of measures in an attempt to further discourage tobacco smoking — raising taxes and a move to plain packaging. Although almost certainly a positive step towards improving the overall health of the country, it highlights a double standard inherent in Australian society.

As governments try to stamp out smoking, the most dangerous drug prevalent in Australian culture, alcohol, is considered a staple of our national identity. Research released this week shows that alcohol abuse is costing Australians $36 billion a year.

We have created a culture where young people who do not get drunk and party hard on a regular basis are considered abnormal. How do I know this? I'm a 19-year-old who regularly sees my peers getting drunk and viewing it as some sort of rite of passage. I see others my age who consider getting drunk the only means of having fun. I'm up against a social expectation that assumes I regularly partake in binge-drinking events.

Society has largely turned a blind eye to the huge increase in underage drinking, particularly among younger teenagers (16 and under), despite government campaigns to warn of the dangers such as alcohol-fuelled violence and damage to mental development.

While it's true that there have been numerous campaigns targeting drink driving and underage drinking, these have ultimately proved ineffective in changing the way we drink (this is more true for the latter, some progress has been made with the former).

Those of us not keen on this excessive drinking culture are constantly being pressured to drink, and we are labelled boring or immature when we don't partake. Having only started drinking in the past two years, there was a long period where people my age would comment "oh how you're growing up", implying that drinking somehow makes me more mature. And even now that I do drink I am considered strange for doing so in relative moderation, having only been drunk on a small number of occasions.

Many are surprised that I drink not to get drunk, but because I actually enjoy the taste of certain drinks. I'm considered abnormal for not wanting to go out to excessively loud venues, spend hundreds of dollars in one evening, and not even remember the events that took place.

It would be unfair to suggest everyone my age drinks to excess, but at the same time more young people are unaware of the extent to which they drink and the damage it causes.

But I'm not revealing anything new here. What is surprising is the extent to which adults behave in a similar manner. Parents who happily buy alcohol for their children or condone its use. Adults who accept that children drink and that is it simply a part of growing up.

Because we accept drinking as an integral part of our national identity and culture, society has normalised and continues to legitimise binge drinking. Of course, it's unreasonable to suggest prohibition or similar policy as a solution, nor would it realistically solve the problem.

However, significant improvements can be made if Australia changes its drinking culture. A huge chunk of that $36 billion could be saved in health costs as well as out-of-pocket expenses. To make this change, Australians needs to drop this sense that heavy drinking is a part of our identity. Admittedly Australia is not the only country with heavy drinking inherent in its national identity, but by that count, we are not the only country with a problem and one evil does not beget another.

Fixing the problem is not easy. The first step, however, is to admit there is a problem.

Joshua Blake is a Bachelor of Arts student at the University of Queensland.


The Age
 
Top