THE WAR ON DRUGS MAKES HEADLINES, BUT ALCOHOL CAUSES GREATER DEVASTATION

It's time for Victoria to re-order priorities on substance abuse:
Illicit drugs account for only 10 per cent of the $2.3 billion annual
cost while alcohol and tobacco account for the rest

It's no surprise that the rich have different drinking patterns than
the poor. Those who can afford it drink wine or spirits every day
while the poor binge drink and get drunk once or twice a week. The
rich face a higher risk of cancer or cirrhosis and the poor are more
likely to be involved in a violent incident or car accident.

But an analysis by the University of Victoria's Centre for Addictions
and Research of BC, from which this comparison emerged, suggests rich
and poor have one thing in common; they both drink in excess of
Canada's low-risk drinking guidelines.

The study analyzed data gathered by the 2004 Canadian Addiction
Survey and arrived at the startling conclusion that more than 70 per
cent of alcohol is consumed in a way that places the drinker's health
and safety at risk.

About 73 per cent of consumption exceeded the Canadian guidelines of
14 or fewer standard drinks a week with no more than two in a single
day for men, and nine or fewer drinks for women with no more than two
in a day. A standard drink is one bottle of beer, or one medium-sized
glass of wine or one shot of spirits.

More than half of all consumption was in excess of the relatively
generous international standards of 22 drinks a week or five drinks a
day for men and 11 drinks a week or four a day for women, levels at
which acute risk increases markedly, the study says.

Rich or poor, people are drinking more than they should, offsetting
any health benefit moderate consumption offers.

In 2003, more than 1,700 deaths were attributed in whole or in part
to excess alcohol consumption, compared with only 185 deaths caused
by illicit drug use. Government has mobilized considerable resources
to battle drugs while it sells through its own liquor stores a
product that creates far more damage.

Last year, B.C. liquor stores contributed nearly $890 million to
provincial government coffers. But the annual social cost, largely in
health care and lost productivity, approaches $1 billion based on a
1992 study. All Canadian governments reap about $7.5 billion in
alcohol sales a year but the social cost is believed to be at least
$10 billion.

Illicit drugs accounted for only 10 per cent of the $2.3 billion cost
of problem substance use in B.C. Tobacco is responsible for 48 per cent.

Unfortunately, governments become addicted to same vices their
constituents do: Booze, tobacco and gambling. Government is loath to
give up its liquor monopoly and, according to the survey, only about
a third of those asked want it to do so. At the same time, government
has an obligation to safeguard public health. That leaves it in the
unenviable position of urging consumers to buy less of the product
it's selling. It may not make much business sense, but it might be
sensible public policy.

There are obvious ways it could achieve this objective, such as
public information campaigns, diverting a portion of liquor profits
into programs that assist alcoholics, lowering the legal limit of
intoxication to discourage public drunkenness and drunk driving.

It could also encourage development and consumption of lower-alcohol
content beverages by using the tax system to make them less expensive
than the high-octane stuff. In Australia, a tax break for beers with
reduced alcohol content has spawned more than 40 brands that are
unlikely to cause a hangover.

The war on drugs may get more headlines but the devastation wrought
by alcohol deserves far more attention. It's time for government to
re-order its priorities on substance abuse.