The Relationship Between the U.S. State Alcohol Policy Environment and Individuals’ Experience of Secondhand Effects: Alcohol Harms Due to Others’ Drinking

• Published in: Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research Vol. 43; no. 6; pp. 1234 - 1243
• Main Authors: Greenfield, Thomas K., Cook, Won K., Karriker‐Jaffe, Katherine J., Patterson, Deidre, Kerr, William C., Xuan, Ziming, Naimi, Timothy S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.06.2019
• Subjects: Adult; Alcohol Externalities; Alcohol Impairment; Binge Drinking; Binge Drinking - legislation & jurisprudence; Criminal Behavior; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Policy; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; Young Adult; United States; Policy; Surveys; Alcohol Externalities; Alcohol Impairment; Binge Drinking
• ISSN: 0145-6008; 1530-0277
• DOI: 10.1111/acer.14054

Background Although restrictive state alcohol policy environments are protective for individuals’ binge drinking, research is sparse on the effect of alcohol policies on alcohol's harms to others (AHTO). We examined the lagged associations between efficacy of U.S. state alcohol policies and number of harms from others’ drinking 1 year later. Methods Individuals with AHTO data in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (analytic sample n = 26,744) that pooled the 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 National Alcohol Surveys and a 2015 National Alcohol's Harm to Others Survey were linked with prior‐year state policy measures. We used 2 measures from the Alcohol Policy Scale (APS)—effectiveness in reducing (i) binge drinking and (ii) impaired driving, based on experts’ efficacy judgments regarding 29 state alcohol policies. Three 12‐month AHTO measures (due to another drinker) were experiencing: (i) either family/marriage difficulties or financial troubles; (ii) being assaulted or vandalized; and (iii) passenger with drunk driver or traffic accident. Multilevel models accounting for clustering within states and stratified by age‐groups (<40 vs. ≥40) examined associations between the APS and AHTO measures, controlling for individual covariates (gender, race, education, employment and marital status, family problem‐drinking history) of the victim. Results Only for those aged <40, the lagged APS‐Binge drinking and APS‐Impaired driving scores were each inversely associated with aggression‐related harms and, separately, with drunk driving‐related harm from someone else's drinking (ps < 0.05 to < 0.01). Family/financial harms were not associated with APS scores for either age‐group. Composite AHTO measures (any of 3 harm‐types) also were inversely associated with stronger state alcohol policy environments (ps < 0.05 to <0.01). Conclusions State alcohol policies may be effective in reducing, to a meaningful degree, aggression‐related harms and vehicular hazards due to other drinkers, but mainly in those under 40. In the US, adults under age forty living in states with more restrictive alcohol policies experience fewer aggression‐ and drink‐driving‐related harms from someone else's drinking than those in states with weaker policies, a new NIAAA‐supported study from the Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, found. Results showed that for a 10‐point increase in restrictiveness of an alcohol policy scale, including for instance alcohol availability, taxation and drink‐ driving laws, the odds of experiencing such secondhand harms was 16 percent lower.