Click for next page ( 389


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcoho! Agencies in Federal Regulation of Drinking Behavior and Consequences JAMES F. MOSHER and JOSEPH R. MOTTE INTRODUCTION This paper outlines and discusses an important findingthat significant aspects of the federal response to alcohol problems are formulated by federal agencies not usually associated with alcohol policy. We provide a survey of federal agencies with various types of jurisdiction over al- cohol distribution and alcohol-related problems and examine their po- tential role in the federal effort to address these issues effectively. In addition to identifying potential new actors, the paper also suggests potential new prevention strategies. We hope that we have provided a constructive, preliminary analysis of possible policy initiatives. Research for this report was completed March 1980, and any changes in regulations or policies since that time are not included. Preparation entailed contacting numerous federal employees who, in virtually every instance, were both extremely courteous and helpful, often in the face of many competing demands. Their assistance was invaluable. FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE ALCOHOL MARKET Since the end of Prohibition, federal responsibility for regulating the distribution of alcoholic beverages and the prevention of alcohol-related James F. Mosher and Joseph R. Mottl are at the Social Research Group, School of Public Health' University of California, Berkeley. Preparation of this report was partly supported by a National Research Center grant to the Social Research Group, AA-03524. 388

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 389 problems has been generally viewed as limited a secondary, advisory responsibility that gives deference to the various states' primary role. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) and the Na- tional Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) are the primary federal agencies affecting the national alcohol policy. Both of these agencies defer to state authority in important ways. Although many BATF regulations are mandatory, they may not contradict any of the more restrictive state policies. In fact, many BATF provisions take effect only if particular states have similar or identical provisions. NIAAA has emphasized treatment and rehabilitation programs that, although based on a perceived need for national action, are usually voluntary and require state or private cooperation. The basis for this limited view of federal jurisdiction rests in large part on the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933. That amendment gave alcohol a unique position in interstate commerce by limiting federal preemptory and interstate commerce powers.) It pro- vides that alcohol may not be imported into any state contrary to the laws of that state. Thus? unlike any other legal commodity, the federal government in most instances cannot regulate alcohol in a state unless federal regulations are at least as strict as the state's provisions. However, despite this grant of special power to the states to restrict the importation of alcohol and its production and distribution within its boundariesfederal power remains substantial in four ways. First, the federal government may enforce stricter regulations than those found in the states. For example, BATF regulations prohibiting moonshining would stand and federal agents would still have authority to enforce them, even if particular states chose to legalize moonshine. In effect, states and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over the alcohol market, with federal regulations at least as strict as comparable state provisions. Second, the states, as a practical matter, have chosen for the most part not to regulate the alcohol industry other than at the retail level, a decision that the federal government has encouraged (Mosher 1978c). ~ The 21st Amendment makes alcohol a unique commodity vis-a-vis federal powers over interstate commerce. See State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market, 299 U.S. 59 (1936~. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in more recent cases, has made clear that the state powers under the 21st Amendment are not absolute. See, e.g., Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324 (1964) (in which the Court held that the state could not regulate sales by a retailer who sold exclusively to persons as they entered an airplane to leave the state and travel overseas). For a review of Supreme Court action regarding the 21st Amendment, see the majority opinion in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972~. For a discussion of state and federal powers over the alcohol market, see Mosher (1979b).

OCR for page 388
390 MOSHER and MOTTL Only those states with a significant local alcohol industry have taken an active role with respect to regulating production, usually in a manner that fosters development of the industry (Bunce 1979~. Third, a significant portion of the alcohol regulations and alcohol- related problems are tangential to the constitutional provision. For ex- ample, the 21st Amendment does not prohibit federal taxation or na- tional import-export jurisdiction, yet these powers may have a powerful influence on the structure of the alcohol market. Safety regulations relating to auto travel or house construction may affect the extent of alcohol-related problems, despite their being unrelated to state alcohol jurisdiction. Finally, there are significant exceptions to the 21st Amendment. Fed- eral reserves and lands, including Indian reservations, are not necessarily considered to be within a state's boundary for the purpose of the con- stitutional amendment.2 A state may not block access to and may not tax alcohol or regulate alcohol use or distribution on federal property unless agreed to by the federal government. SCOPE OF THE PAPER Much of this federal authority, which rests largely outside BATE and NIAAA, has been ignored in the formation of federal alcohol policy and in most alcohol literature. Two areas in particular appear to have been neglected the regulation of alcohol availability and the regulation of drinking contexts. As to availability, there has been a recent emphasis in the literature on studying alcohol beverage control laws and pricing policies as a means to deter alcohol problems (Bruun et al. 1975, Doug- lass and Freedman 1977, Medicine in the Public Interest 1976, Mosher 1979a, Room and Mosher, 1979~. This strategy has been viewed as problematic because of the reluctance of state legislatures, alcohol bev- erage control (ABC), and the BATE to accept a preventive role (Med- icine in the Public Interest 1976, Mosher 1978~. Federal agencies and departments that have broad taxing and availability powers (many of which are acting at cross purposes to NIAAA priorities) have been ignored. Regulation of drinking contexts has been more generally ignored. The advent of prevention of alcohol problems as a specialized field of study has created a broad range of literature linking alcohol to a host of social 2 See Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938); Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Johnson, 48 F. Supp. 594. affirmed. 137 F. 2d 274. affirmed 321 U.S. 383 (1942). For discussion of federal authority on native American reservations. see Mosher (1975).

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 391 problems- accidents, crimes, and diseases (Aarens et al. 1977~. Alcohol has been demonstrated to be a causal factor in these problems, and prevention strategies have emphasized deterring the drinking behavior rather than addressing other causal factors surrounding the drinking context. For example, strategies to deter drunk driving stress the ab- stinence from drinking before and during driving rather than other causal factors of accidents e.g., unsafe cars and highways. As Gusfield (1976) points out, such an emphasis unnecessarily narrows the range of poten- tial prevention strategies. Gusfield's observation is relevant to other areas of alcohol casualties. Numerous federal agencies that do not deal with alcohol per se exercise broad jurisdiction over casualties associated with alcohol abuse. Natural alliances among these agencies and alcohol prevention strategists are not being exploited. This study explores these two areas in detail. For convenience, the agencies studied are divided into four categories of jurisdiction: land- based, transportation-based, safety-based' and economic-based agen- cies. Land-based agencies determine the availability of alcohol within their boundaries; safety agencies may reduce the risk of casualty in contexts in which alcohol may be a factor; and economic-based agencies have power to regulate the economic structure of the alcohol market. Transportation agencies have characteristics of both land-based and safety-based agencies; however, they are distinctive because of the unique nature of their powers. The general characteristics of each category are first outlined and then followed by a description of the major agencies involved. The agencies' jurisdiction and powers are discussed in general, as is their authority over alcohol distribution and alcohol-related problems. Current alcohol- related procedures and regulations are also outlined.3 For each category (except that of economic-based agencies, which is only briefly described) at least one agency has been chosen for an in- depth analysis of its potential role in federal alcohol policy. An assess- ment of the likelihood of the agencies' responding favorably and chang- ing their current policies is presented. Assuming that reform is judged possible, specific reforms are suggested' followed by the effects that can be expected. Judging the advisability of any particular change in policy requires an assessment of the possible benefits and costs (which includes, in addition to financial expenditures' possible detriments to other positive goals). Resistance to change may be caused because of potential conflict with 3A list of the regulations covered in the discussion in each section is provided in the appendix. Exact citations are available on request to the authors.

OCR for page 388
392 MOSHER and MOTTE other important societal values. However, agencies often resist public- health-oriented change, even when there are no costs or conflicting values, merely because it appears to fall outside their immediate mission. In such cases, reform may be both reasonable and important. For the prevention strategist, the more persuasive the evidence that a particular reform will reduce alcohol problems? the more likely that possible costs of the reform can be outweighed. However, other types of reforms may provide benefits, short of proven problem reduction, that may be pursued because of the minimal costs involved. Symbolic reform includes policy initiatives that provide a uniform federal ap- proach to alcohol, even though the reform will have little actual impact. These can have an important though unmeasurable significance in terms of heightening awareness of particular problems and legitimating other policy initiatives. Experimental programs to determine the advisability of a particular reform may be justified even if results are uncertain and provided costs can be accurately judged and are acceptable. Statistical analyses and compilations of the role of alcohol in various casualties, which usually involve only minimal costs, are also important as a means to further understanding the scope and role of alcohol in societal problems. As a recent, extensive study has documented (Aarens et al. 1977), there is a vital need to compile accurate data in this area. Most agencies that are attempting to cope with alcohol-related societal problems currently do not consider alcohol as part of their jurisdiction or concern. Encouraging statistical compilations, then, could provide valuable information and contacts. Finally, in some cases, advocating policy changes or addressing particular issues in agencies not specifically involved with alcohol may be necessary, even when the evidence indi- cates that no policy change in the near future is likely. They may highlight previously ignored issues and problems and create debate and further study. As this discussion indicates, determining what reforms are appropriate depends on a given agency's view of its own mission as well as its receptiveness to new directions. Key factors are the agency's statutory mandate and responsibility. For example, if an agency is mandated to collect statistics to determine the causal factors of particular accidents, there may be a strong basis for urging the agency to include alcohol as a potential variable. We have outlined the scope of statutory respon- sibility (and have also talked with staff to determine each agency's own view of this responsibility) in an attempt to determine the importance of a given set of alcohol-related problems to agency goals and respon- sibilities. This provides a sound basis for determining what potential strategies would be most appropriate.

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 393 As with any proposal for governmental change, the actual imple- mentation of a given reform may involve complex negotiations and unforeseen obstacles. Practical guides may prove to be useful, in par- ticular suggesting whom to approach inside and outside the agency to promote new directions in alcohol policy. We outline the realistic bound- aries of potential new prevention strategies among these agencies. Pro- viding tactical guides for implementation falls beyond the scope of this paper. It must be stressed that the areas covered in this paper are at an experimental stage generally. The relationship of the structure of the alcohol market and alcohol-related problems is a recent subject of in- quiry. Very few studies have been conducted, primarily because of a lack of interest on the part of the industry and the state regulators. Even less is known about the role of safety agencies in reducing alcohol- related problems. Our effort here is to describe the various agencies' potential role, providing both potential new strategies and potential new allies in the government's effort to reduce alcohol's role in societal problems. FEDERAL LAND-BASED JURISDICTION OF ALCOHOL DISTRIBUTION INTRODUCTION Although state regulations dominate the retail market of alcoholic bev- erages, there is a vast expanse of land controlled by the federal gov- ernment. Alcoholic beverage control within the boundaries of federal lands is placed with the federal agency in charge, and those agencies may choose to exercise their authority either exclusively or concurrently with the states (unless the federal legislation provides otherwise). Court decisions have explicitly held that the 21st Amendment does not nec- essarily give states jurisdiction over the distribution of alcoholic bev- erages on federal land.4 The major federal agencies with authority to regulate alcohol distri- bution are: the Department of Defense; the National Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service; the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Taken together these agencies control an alcohol distribution network that exceeds, both in land area and in population affected, the jurisdiction of any single state ABC. Problems associated with alcohol constitute at least See note 2 above.

OCR for page 388
394 MOSHER and MOTTU a minor concern of the agencies and all have adopted at least some regulatory provisions in an attempt to cope with them. By far the most important of these agencies and departments is the Department of De- fense, which has, through the various armed services, adopted extensive regulations and experimental programs. These agencies may have concerns with alcohol problems ancillary to their distribution jurisdiction, such as treatment or rehabilitation pro- grams for employees or safety regulations to protect citizens, some of whom may be in danger because of drinking (e.g., regulatory access to fire danger areas to limit the danger of accidental forest fires). However, one of their primary duties is to administer jurisdiction over the everyday activities of a particular area, and this study examines their decisions concerning alcohol use and distribution as one aspect of this primary duty. As discussed in the introduction to this section, the alcohol distribution network has been put under scrutiny as a possible tool for preventing alcohol-related problems. Federal policy has not previously been ex- amined in a systematic way. The activities of the Defense Department, because of its scope and importance, are discussed last and in some detail. Following an analysis of the scope and exercise of each agency's authority is a discussion that focuses on the Navy and potential areas of reform that could benefit from a uniform federal policy to prevent alcohol-related problems. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Jurisdiction over most National Park Service areas (as is jurisdiction over all areas managed by the Forest Service, the Army Corps of En- gineers, and the Bureau of Land Management) is shared by the federal and state governments. Older, larger parks are under exclusive federal jurisdiction, although state law may apply in specific circumstances. Because of its flexibility, concurrent jurisdiction is generally favored by National Park Service officials. The National Park Service maintains 320 areas, and in 1978 283 million people visited park lands. There are 400 park concessions, of which 151 sell alcoholic beverages, and sales from these reached $5.8 million in 1978, which was 3 percent of total concession sales. These figures do not include alcohol carried in by visitors the National Park Service has no estimates concerning the extent of this practice. The National Park Service regulates the sale and use of alcohol in all of its park areas through several regulations: (1) a prohibition on op-

OCR for page 388
The Role-of Nonalcohol Agencies 395 crating a vehicle or vessel while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol; (2) a prohibition on being so intoxicated as to endanger oneself, others, property, or others' enjoyment of the park; (3) a prohibition on the sale of alcohol to or possession of alcohol by a person under 21 years of age, unless state law permits otherwise; (4) a requirement that a permit from the regional director be obtained before the sale of alcohol can be made from privately owned land within large parks; (5) a re- quirement that licensees conform to local and state law as if the land on which they operate were located outside the park area. The pricing of alcohol is subject to National Park Service approval and is judged primarily by comparison with similar facilities under similar conditions (e.g., length of season, accessibility, cost of labor, and type of pa- tronage). BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT The Bureau of Land Management manages nearly 600 million acres of federal land, which includes much desert and Alaskan wilderness as well as forest and water areas. Concessions operate in some areas and a fair percentage of these sell malt liquor. Exact figures are unavailable. The bureau exercises no control over these beverage sales. It issues no li- censes and levies no franchise fees. The bureau relies heavily on local law and law enforcement, and there are no provisions relating to alcoholic beverages in its regulations. How- ever, it does regulate numerous other activities on bureau lands. These include prohibitions against the use of audio devices (any machine that makes noise), restrictions on vehicle operation, prohibitions against pets in certain areas, and other prohibitions deemed necessary to protect the interest of public health, safety, and comfort. Thus, it clearly has juris- diction to regulate alcohol-related problems on these lands if it chooses to do so. However, its enforcement staff is very small in relation to its area of jurisdiction. Few data are collected; thus, the level of alcoholic beverage con- sumption within its lands, the volume sold from its concessions, and the connection of alcohol use to accidents or vandalism are unknown. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS The Army Corps of Engineers maintains concurrent jurisdiction over 457 water projects and 4,200 recreational areas. It leases about one-half of the recreational areas to state and local governments.

OCR for page 388
396 MOSHER and MOTTE Prior to 1971, by departmental directive, the corps prohibited the sale and storage of all alcoholic beverages within its areas. Changes were made, however, in response to local, state, and congressional pressure. The corps now has a more flexible policy regarding alcoholic beverages. The present directives, which are in the process of revision, prohibit the sale or storage of alcoholic beverages except in areas where it is a custom and where it is permitted by state law. The express purpose of this restriction is to preserve a family atmosphere on recreational lands. Where sales are permitted, concessions may sell beer and wine for off- premise consumption. On-premise sale of distilled liquor is permitted when it accompanies dinner at lodges and hotels. Corps officials stated that information concerning the number of areas that have chosen this option was not readily available. The corps maintains statistics on fatalities and accidents in their areas, but irregularities in reporting methods and recordkeeping among the states and counties make the accurate maintenance of alcoholic beverage variables impossible. Federal law provides funding for enforcement in these localities, without which many areas would be unable to carry out such activities independently. However, cooperation in enforcement between the corps and local officals is strictly informal and loosely co- ordinated. NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE In 1978, 218 million "visitor days" were spent in the 104 national forests, where alcoholic beverages are served in approximately two-thirds of the 625 resort areas. No official figures are available on the number of outlets or on sales volume. The National Forest Service exercises some control over alcoholic beverages by issuing lease-permits to concession operators, which are subject to special conditions. Forest service policies prohibit the off-premise sale of distilled liquor. On-premise sale of all liquor is permitted in facilities, provided they are part of a legitimate resort activity or service. Sale of malt beverages is left to prevailing local laws and customs. According to one official, the arrangements are intended to be as flexible as possible' and local and state governments carry out most law enforcement under the concurrent . . .. . JunsUlctlon. Despite the numerous research projects the National Forest Service maintains, we found no research being conducted to determine the level of alcohol use in forest areas and its connection with forest fires, unex- tinguished camp fires, or damage within forest areas.

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 397 The federal government, by constitutional provision, has exclusive ju- risdiction over all native American reservations. This authority may be delegated to tribal councils, and often is. Because of the federal trust obligation to the tribes, the government may not delegate any of its powers to the states without tribal consent. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a part of the Department of the Interior, was established to administer federal responsibilities to the tribes. The federal government and the BIA, pursuant to this general grant of power, established exclusive jurisdiction over the sale and possession of alcohol on reservations as early as 1802.5 In that year, the president was given the authority to ban sales of alcohol on reservations. From 1802 to 1953, alcohol regulations became increasingly restrictive, ban- ning all possession and distribution and making violations of alcohol laws grounds for extended prison terms and denials of treaty annuities. As has been documented elswhere (Mosher 1975), the history of increasingly stringent BIA alcohol control laws has been a history of symbolic measures that had little relationship to genuine concern with native American alcohol-related problems. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, violations of alcohol laws were extensive, fueling a vigorous bootlegging trade. The BIA did little to deter this illegal but profitable trafficking, although selective enforcement against tribal members who purchased from bootleggers could lead to serious con- sequences for the tribe and the individual. In 1953, the BIA voluntarily lifted its ban on possession and distri- bution on those reservations on which tribal councils decided to assert their own authority. In effect, the new regulation turned over authority to regulate alcohol to the tribes. This move was not a signal of increased tribal autonomy, however. Rather, it was part of a move to detribalize the reservations, to promote integration of native Americans into the American mainstream, and to delegate authority to the states. Detri- balization did in fact occur in several states, and the BIA's change of alcohol policy there signaled the beginning of state authority. Detri- balization was fiercely opposed, however, and was eventually largely abandoned, although authority to control alcohol distribution has re- mained with the tribes. 5 The statute provided (act of March 30, 1902, ch. 13 ~ 21, 2 Stat. 139~: The President of the United States (is) authorized to take such measures from time to time. as to him may appear expedient to prevent or restrain the vending or distributing of spirituous liquors among all or any of the . . . Indian tribes.

OCR for page 388
398 MOSHER and MOTTE Tribal regulation of alcohol is extremely varied, depending on tribal norms concerning alcohol (May 1977~. The variations are too extensive to be summarized here. It can be assumed that any attempt by the BIA to reassert its authority in this area will be violently opposed by the tribes as signaling unwarranted federal intervention into tribal affairs. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The armed forces have an extensive network of alcohol beverage sales; it is sufficiently large to make them one of the most important retailers in the country. They also act as regulators and, because of the size of the sales network, can be compared to ABC boards in the various states. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over all alcohol sales within military reservations. Thus, state law does not apply. All three service branches have regulations to encourage local commanders to cooperate with local officials in matters pertaining to alcohol beverage sales, but the regulations state specifically that the armed services are not subject to local control.6 Alcohol sales at military outlets are there- fore exempt from state and local taxation. The Department of Defense alcohol outlets serve some 8 million people- 2 million active members, 3 million dependents, 1 million ci- vilians, and 2 million national guard and reserve members (Killeen 1979~. Over one-half of active members are under 25 and 40 percent are single which means that the major customers of military sales are precisely those within one of the current NIAAA target groups (Killeen 1979~. In sum, the armed forces' policies on alcohol sales have a major impact on the country, and they must be included when discussing policy issues concerning the regulation of alcohol availability. All three services (the Army, Navy, and Air Force the Marines are not included in this paper) operate both on-premise and off-premise outlets. The club (or open mess) system, a major component of the military's recreational services, provides the primary on-premise outlets. It sells all types of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and sells beer for off-premise consumption. The Air Force has 320 open messes worldwide, which had a total volume of alcohol sales of $61.9 million in fiscal 1977; the Navy operates 311 clubs, which had a total volume of $49.5 million; and the Army has 654 on-premise outlets world- wide (304 within the United States), which had a volume totaling $68 6 Because federal agencies (except the BlA) could voluntarily relinquish authority over alcohol distribution to the states, this qualification may have been deemed necessary to ensure that federal control over disputes is retained.

OCR for page 388
448 MOSHER and MOTTL These business drinking policies can condone serious abuses. For example, potential sellers of goods may try to ply buyers with alcohol in order to loosen their judgment and increase sales. This practice, although unethical and perhaps illegal, appears to be a tax deductible expense. In fact, it appears that alcohol consumption at business con- ventions or other business meetings or trips can generally be claimed as deductions provided that a business associate is included in the drink- . , sing episode. The IRS does not compile the amounts claimed by taxpayers for particular types of tax deductions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) estimates that U.S. corporations and federal, state, and local governments spent an aggregate of $10 billion on alcohol in 1979 (Mosher 1980~. The alcohol industry estimates that at least two-thirds of this amount ($6.7 billion in 1979) can be attributed to corporate purchases (Spirits Magazine 1960~. Virtually all of this expense can be assumed to have been taken as a business tax deduction, saving corporations approximately $2.7 billion on their tax returns. This amount must be supplemented by alcohol deductions taken by individual taxpayers, for which there are no available estimates. Tax savings for business use of alcohol probably total between $4 and $7 billion annually (Mosher 1980~. Most corporate purchases result in drinking without cost, since the corporation, a fictitious entity, pays the expense and provides the alcohol to employees, associates, guests, and customers, usually without reim- bursement. This is particularly important in light of current policy pro- posals to raise the price of alcohol as a means to reduce alcohol-related problems (e.g., Bruun et al. 1975; Popham et al. 1975, 1976~. Business lunch deductions became a political issue early in the Carter Administration as a symbol of unfair "tax loopholes." Mistermed the "three-martini lunch" (an inaccurate characterization because any num- ber of drinks may be deducted), the issue was presented as a tax loophole rather than a public health issue and the proposal was eventually dropped for lack of support. The administration failed to separate the issue of alcohol deductions from meal deductions generally. Tax policies reflect conscious decisions concerning governmental priorities, and changes are often made in tax deductions in order to encourage or discourage particular business and consumer practices. Tax deductions are considered "indirect government subsidization of activities" by tax analysts (Mosher 1980, p. 3) and provide an important means for establishing government priorities. For example, consumers can no longer deduct gasoline taxes on their returns, reflecting the government's increasing concern for reducing, or at least not encour-

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 449 aging, gas consumption. Child care expenses, once not deductible, are now deductible, but only if both parents are gainfully employed or seeking employment. A parent's decision to engage in volunteer work will not qualify for obtaining the deduction. This could be viewed as a partial accommodation to the women's movement. Public health policies are also reflected in Tax Code provisions and IRS regulatory decisions. For example, part but not all of a family's medical budget is deductible. Certain types of treatment, deemed un- scientific, are excluded. Donations to certain public health organizations may be deducted. Businesses that provide various health benefits or services to employees may deduct these expenses. Thus, there is a strong precedent for translating governmental objec- tives, including public health priorities, into tax deduction policy. A public health perspective provides a strong rationale for examining the alcohol deductions. Present policies act to encourage providing drinks to business associates in a variety of settings, place no limit on the amount of drinking that is appropriate, are an indirect discount on the price of alcohol, and promote extensive advertising of alcohol products. They establish as a government policy, in conflict with policies advanced by NIAAA, that the service of alcohol is an "ordinary and necessary" part of various business dealings. Perhaps most ironically, a tax deduc- tion can be claimed for providing a gift of alcohol to an employee in recognition of his or her safety achievements. A number of possible reforms could be considered in an attempt to realign tax policy with NIAAA priorities. For example, limits could be placed on the number of drinks permitted on one business occasion or the places that may be frequented. More sweeping reforms are also available, such as declaring that the use of alcohol is not an ordinary and necessary business expense in any circumstance. Such proposals are highly political and may generate strong opposition from restaurant and business groups. Although the IRS could, through regulation, implement at least minimal reforms, congressional direction would probably be needed. However, if one views alcohol deductions as a public health issue and analyzes their implications for NIAAA initiatives (at least on a symbolic level), airing the issue might provide a valuable educational tool. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION The Small Business Administration (SBA) is fundamentally concerned with aiding, counseling, and assisting small businesses. It does so pri-

OCR for page 388
450 MOSHER and MOTTL marily by offering loans and by ensuring that small businesses receive a fair proportion of government purchases and contracts. SBA loans are divided into two categories direct loans to small busi- nesses (Article 7a of the SBA Act) and loans to small business invest- ment corporations (SBIC), which, in turn, provide loans to small busi- ness concerns. The direct loans are usually in the form of bank guarantees the borrower obtains the loan from a private bank, and the SBA acts as guarantor. Until approximately 1968, SBA regulations pro- hibited the granting of any loan (including SBIC loans) to any business that received more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from alcoholic beverages. The regulation was repealed by order of the SBA adminis- trator by publication in the Federal Register. SBA personnel today state that the change was due to the administrator's decision that alcoholic beverage outlets were no longer considered suspect businesses and were entitled to the benefits received by other small businesses. Lobbying efforts were not a factor in the decision, according to current personnel. . The regulatory revision took place during the ghetto riots of the late 1960s. Many ghetto businesses were burned and looted, and the SBA received many applications for assistance. Coincidentally, liquor stores and bars made up a large part of the businesses affected by the civil disturbances. Liquor establishments are one of the few small businesses that have proven to be successful with minority proprietorship. Cer- tainly, civil rights concerns in the late 1960s had at least some influence in the decision to make loans available to liquor stores and bars. In addition, the timing coincided with nationwide policies that dramatically increased the availability of alcoholic beverages. Current figures on direct loans granted by SBA indicate that alcoholic beverage businesses obtain a significant portion of SBA financing, par- ticularly among minority applicants. For fiscal 1978, 636 loans amounting to $48 million were granted to bars and liquor stores, and 40 loans ($7.5 million) were granted to alcoholic beverage wholesalers. Of these, 262 loans (162 of which were liquor stores) were granted to minority ap- plicants. This means that 2.1 percent of all SBA loans and 4.3 percent of all minority loans involved alcoholic beverage distribution. The per- centage of alcoholic beverage concerns that have minority ownership is particularly striking: 38.8 percent of alcoholic beverage loans (and 50.9 percent of liquor store loans) went to minority applicants, compared with 18.9 percent of nonalcoholic beverage loans. At the end of fiscal 1978, SBA had outstanding direct loans to 1,764 alcoholic beverage businesses, 1,060 of which were liquor stores. SBA officials state that there are no longer any special considerations for or restrictions on bars and liquor store applications except for those

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 451 that might affect their potential for financial success. Applications are considered on an individual merit basis, and there are no records kept to determine the default rate of loans by the type of business. As these statistics show, SBA has a significant involvement in the establishment of new alcoholic beverage outlets throughout the country. Yet its staff has no concern with alcohol-related problems and no contact with the policies of NIAAA. SBA policies provide a case study of conflicting federal policies (in this case, alcohol beverage control versus promotion of minority business) in which alcohol policy makers have had no input. SBA could provide a source of information for evaluating the retail trade in alcoholic beverages through the study of loan repayment sta- tistics. Many proposals for reform in the retail trade could be made conditions for SBA financing. For example, mandatory training of on- premise sales personnel or requirements that establishments maintain certain hours, be located off main highways, or provide for alternative modes of transportation could be required for a loan to be granted. These restrictions could be made on an experimental basis to determine whether they have a beneficial effect on alcohol-related problems. Such reforms could provide important new research data at minimal costs. CONCLUSION Perhaps the most important finding of this study is that significant por- tions of federal authority to regulate the availability of alcohol and to respond to alcohol-related problems rest with federal agencies not usu- ally associated with alcohol policy. This has resulted in little or no coordination in the development of the federal response to alcohol, particularly in the area of prevention. In some cases, contradictory pol- icies are being made and enforced; in others, promising new prevention strategies (and potential new allies) are not being pursued. This paper has outlined the scope of federal authority, the important actors, and the potential impact of new strategies of prevention policy. Determining which actors should be approached and what strategies are appropriate is dependent on several factors. First, the current pol- icies of particular agencies can be examined to determine whether al- cohol is already considered within an agency's realm of responsibility. The Department of Defense, for example, is already operating an ex- tensive alcoholic beverage market as well as large prevention and treat- ment programs. Alcohol is perceived both within and outside the services as a source of serious problems that the military must contend with in order to fulfill its military responsibilities effectively.

OCR for page 388
452 MOSHER and MOTTE In other cases, the relevance of alcohol to the agency's mission may exist, but the agency does not yet acknowledge the relationship of al- cohol issues to its decisions. For example, the IRS does not consider itself involved with alcohol policy, yet its actions have an impact on the perception of alcohol in the population, at least on a symbolic level. If a particular agency is already addressing alcohol issues, political support and recommendations for improvement or further study can be offered. For example, the military may provide an excellent opportunity to learn more about the relationship of alcohol availability and alcohol- related problems, and experimental programs may be appropriate. In some cases, however, a first step may be necessaryconvincing an agency that its actions do in fact have an impact on federal alcohol . . pa lcles. In many cases described in this paper, agencies with the capacity to address alcohol-related issues do not view alcohol as part of their man- date. This may be justified. For example, alcohol issues are insignificant to the main goals of the Bureau of Land Management and. the National Park Service. Despite their supervision of a modest alcohol retail trade and their concern for at least some alcohol-related problems (e.g., drunk driving), they have only minimal enforcement and supervisory capacity and have important, unrelated responsibilities. A particular agency's view of its own responsibilities may conflict, however, with a significant part of its statutory duties. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is mandated to provide useful and extensive statistical data on the cases of accidents involving con- sumer products. Its accident forms and collection procedures virtually ensure that this responsibility cannot be met, particularly as to alcohol involvement. In fact, the commission in the past has considered alcohol as outside its scope of responsibility altogether, despite this statutory directive. The Federal Railroad Administration's duty to ensure safe rail transportation appears to be significantly hampered by its failure to determine the extent of alcohol involvement in accidents, particularly given the recent study of drinking among railroad employees. Agencies with overlapping responsibilities may fail to act, relying on others to do so: for example, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation, in regard to the general study of alcohol involvement in transportation accidents. When a particular agency is not meeting statutory responsibilities, strategies that attempt to initiate policy changes and new programs may be appropriate. The tactics relied on depend on a given agency's current financial and political situation and its likely response. Alcohol policy makers in some instances may have to take as a first step simply opening

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcoho! Agencies 453 an issue for debate, hoping that alliances can be formed and attitudes changed. More concrete actions may be appropriate if an agency is likely to be responsive. Coordinating federal alcohol policy may in some cases require direct contacts with particular agencies or interested third parties. In others, however, there may be issues common to more than one agency. For example, a common thread through most of this paper concerns the need for better statistical analysis from a variety of federal agencies. Here, an interagency approach may prove to be useful. NIAAA is currently mandated by law to coordinate the Interagency Committee on Federal Activities for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which includes a prevention subcommittee. However, the full committee as presently constituted does not include many of the agencies discussed in this paper. Its emphasis has been on coordinating treatment efforts rather than on prevention; and it has not attracted attendance by high-level officials. This committee may have potential usefulness. However, if it is relied on as a means to address some of the strategies discussed in this report, NIAAA will need to place renewed emphasis on improving its effec- tiveness. Agency responsibilities, according to the agency's own perception and according to its statutory mandate, will be important factors in evaluating new strategies associated with nonalcohol-specific agencies. If NIAAA decides that coordinating alcohol prevention policies among agencies with significant alcohol-related responsibilities is part of its mission, it will need to devote long-term staff and financial support to the effort. Important new contacts will be necessary, either directly with particular agencies, or through a committee approach. The process of implemen- tation requires both negotiation and careful analysis of costs and possible opposition. We hope that our preliminary contacts and analysis provide a sound basis for further research and study. REFERENCES Aarens, M., Cameron, T., Roizen, J., Roizen, R., Room, R., Schnebeck D., Wingard, D. (1977) Alcohol, Casualties and Crime. Berkeley, Calif.: Social Research Group. Berl, W., and Halpin, B. (1978) Human Fatalities from Unwanted Fires. Laurel, Md.: John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. BNun, K., Edwards, G., Lumio, M., Makela, K., Pan, L., Popham, R., Room, R., Schmidt, W., Skog, O., Sulkunen, P., Osterberg, E. (1975) Alcohol Control Policies in Public Health Perspective. Helsinki, Finland: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies. Bunce, R. (1979) The Political Economy of California's Wine Industry. Berkeley, Calif.: Social Research Group. Cahalan, D. Cisin, I., and Crossley, H. (1969) American Drinking Practices: A National

OCR for page 388
454 MOSHER and MOTT' Survey of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I., Gardner, G., Smith, G. (~1972) Drinking Practices and Problems in the U.S. Army, 1972. Information Concepts, Inc., Report No. 73-6. Washington, D.C.: Information Concepts, Inc. Cahalan, D., and Cisin, I. (1975) Final Report on a Service Survey of Attitudes and Behavior of Naval Personnel Concerning Alcohol and Problem Drinking. Washington, I).C.: Bureau of Social Science Research. CSB Radio (1979) Special: Up in Smoke Cigarettes and Safety. May 26, 1979, 8:30-8:54 p.m., E.D.T. New York City, N.Y. CBS News. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1976a) Report to Congress: Alcohol Abuse Is More Prevalent in the Military Than Drug Abuse. MWD-76-99, April 8, 1976. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1976b) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product Safety Commission Should Act More Promptly to Protect the Public from Hazardous Products. HRI)-78-122, June 1, 1976. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1977) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product Safety Commission Needs to insure Safety Standards Faster. HRD-78-3, December 12, 1977. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1978a) Report to Congress: Stronger Federal Aviation Administration Requirements Needed to Identify and Reduce Alcohol Use Among Ci- vilian Pilots. CED-78-58, March 20, 1978. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1978b) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product Safety Commission Has No Assurance That Product Defects Are Being Reported and Corrected. HRD-78-48. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1979a) Report to Congress: Changes Needed in Operating Military Clubs and Alcohol Package Stores, Volume I and II. FPCD-79-7, January 15, 1979 and April 23, 1979. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Comptroller General of the U.S. (1979b) GAO Staff Report: The Tax Status of Federal Resale Activities: Issues and Alternatives. FPCD-79-19, April 19, 1979. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1978) HIA Hazard Analysis Report, Upholstered Furniture Flammability 1978. Washington, D.C.: Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion. Dooley, D., and Masher, J. (1978) Alcohol and legal negligence. Contemporary Drug Problems 7~2~:145-179. Douglass R.' and Freedman, J. (1977) Alcohol Related Casualties and Beverage Market Response to Beverage Alcohol Availability Policies in Michigan: Final Report Ann Arbor, Mich.: Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan. Federal Aviation Administration (1976) Alcoholism and Airline Flight Crewmembers. Office of Aviation Medicine, Memorandum, November 10, 1976. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Railroad Administration (1976) AccidentlIncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976 No. 144. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Railroad Administration (1977) Accidentllncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976 No. 145. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Railroad Administration (1978) AccidentlIncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976 No. 146. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcoho! Agencies 455 Feinburg, J. (1978) Consumer product safety: The current record of administrative inter- pretation. Federal Bar Journal 37~2~:344-356. Fowler, F. (1979) A toast to NASAP. Driver: The Traffic Safety Magazine for the Military Driver 11~1~:1-13. Frank, G. (1979) Passengers 75, Flight Attendants 0. San Francisco Chronicle, September 28, p. 29. Green, M., and Moulton, D. (1978) The case of the battered agency. The Nation June 10:698-700. Gusfield, J. (1976) The prevention of drinking problems. Pp. 267-293 in Filstead, Rossi, Keller, eds., The Prevention of Drinking Problems: New Thinking and New Directions. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company. Haddon, W. (1973a) Energy damage and the ten countermeasure strategies. Journal of Trauma 13~4~:321-331. Haddon, W. (1973b) Exploring the Options in Research Directions: Toward the Reduction of injury. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication 73-124. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Health. Hall, A. H. (1975) Remarks: The FRA position and proposal. Pp. 3-7 in New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Proceedings of 1975 Conference on the De- tection, Prevention and Rehabilitation of the Problem Drinking Employee in the Railroad Industry. No. PB-248906. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. Kenefick, J. C. (1977) The great train robbery. Pp. 4-6 in Federal Railroad Administration, Proceedings of the 1976 Conference: Employee Assistance ProgramsAn Alternative to Tragedy. Report No. FRA-OPPD-77-1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Admin- istration. Killeen, J. (1979) U.S. military alcohol abuse prevention and rehabilitation programs. Pp. 355-381 in H. Blane and M. Chafetz, eds., Youth, Alcohol and Social Policy. New York: Plenum Press. Long, J., Hewitt, L., and Blane, H. (1976) Alcohol abuse in the armed services: A review. I. Policies and programs. Military Medicine 141:844-850. Lowrance, W. (1976) Of Acceptable Risk. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufmann, Inc. Manley, T., McNichols, C., and Stahl, M. (1979) Alcoholism and Alcohol Related Prob- lems Among USAF Civilian Employees. U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology Tech- nical Report 79-4, August, 1979. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: U.S. Air Force. Mannello, T. A., and Seaman, F. J. (1979) Prevalence, Costs, and Handling of Drinking Problems on Seven Railroads: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: University Research Corporation. May, P. (1977) Alcohol beverage control: A survey of tribal alcohol statutes. American Indian Law Review 5:217-288. Medicine in the Public Interest, Inc. (1976) The Effects of Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws. Washington, D.C.: Medicine in the Public Interest, Inc. Morgan, P. (1980) The evolution of California alcohol policy: Alcohol problem manage- ment in the post-war period. Contemporary Drug Problems 9~1~:107-140. Mosher, J. (1975) Liquor Legislation and Native Americans: History and Perspective. Unpublished paper. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif. Masher, J. (1978) Alcoholic Beverage Controls in the Prevention of Alcohol Problems: A Concept Paper on Demonstration Programs. Prepared for the Division of Prevention, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif.

OCR for page 388
456 MOSHER and MOTTL Mosher, J. (1979a) Dram shop liability and the prevention of alcohol-related problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 40~9~:773-798. Mosher, J. (1979b) Alcohol Beverage Control System in California. Unpublished paper. Social Research Group, Berlceley, Calif. Mosher, J. (1979c) Retail Distribution of Alcoholic Beverages in California. Unpublished paper. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif. Mosher, J., and Wallack, L. (1979) The DUI Project: A Description of an Experimental Program to Address Drinking-Driving Problems. Sacramento, Calif.: California De- partment of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Mosher, J. (1980) Alcoholic Beverages on Tax Deductible Business Expenses: An Issue of Public Health Policy and Prevention Strategy. Unpublished paper. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif. National Transportation Safety Board (1974) Railroad Accident Report: Rear-End Col- lision of Two Southern Pacific Transportation Company Freight Trains, lndio, Califor- nia, June 25, 1973. Technical Report No. NTSB-RAR-74-1, adopted March 20, 1974. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board (1978) Annual Report to Congress 1977. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board (1979a) Annual Report to Congress 1978. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board (1979b) Marine Accident Report: Ferry MIV George Prince Collision with the Tanker S.S. Frosta (Norwegian) on the Mississippi River Lulingl Destrehan, Louisiana October 20, 1976. Technical Report No. NTSB-MAR-79-4, adopted March 22, 1979. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board (1980) Railroad Accident Report: Rear-End Col- lision of Two Southern Pacific Transportation Company Freight Trains, 02-Holat-21 and 01-BSM FK-20, Thousand Palms, California, July 24, 1979. Technical Report No. NTSB-RAR-74-1, adopted March 20, 1974. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. O'Hanlon, T. (1979) August Busch brews up a new spirit in St. Louis. Fortune Magazine, January 15:98. O'Malley, B. (1979) Cigarettes and sofas: How the tobacco lobby keeps the home fires burning. Mother Jones, July:56-62. O~rerbey, J. W. (1979) Letter of the Director, Analysis and Management Studies, United States Fire Administration to A. Jarvis, Legislative Assistant to Representative Moak- ley, September 5, 1979. Polich, J., and Orvis, B. (1979) Alcohol Problems: Patterns and Prevalence in the U.S. Air Force. R2308-AF, June 1979. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Popham, R., Schmidt, W., and deLint, J. (1975) The prevention of alcoholism: Epide- miological studies of the effect of government control measures. British Journal of Addiction 70:125-144. Popham, R., Schmidt, W., and deLint, J. (1976) The effects of legal restraint on drinking. Pp. 597-625 in D. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds., The Biology of Alcoholism, Volume 4: Social Aspects of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press. Room, R., and Mosher, J. (1979) A role for regulatory agencies in the prevention of alcohol problems. Alcohol and Health Research World 4~2~:11-18. Schuckit, M. (1977) Alcohol problems in the United States armed forces. Military Chap- lains Review (Winter):9-19. Spirits Magazine (1960) Is liquor's billion dollar business being recognized? Spirits, Oc- tober.

OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies 457 Stiehl, C. (1975) Alcohol and Pleasure Boat Operators: Final Report. No. CG-D-143-75. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard (1979a) Boating Statistics, 1978. COMDTINST M16754.1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard (1979b) Statistics of Casualties, 1978. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast Guard. U.S. Congress (1976) Media Images of Alcohol: The Effects of Advertising and Other Media on Alcohol Abuse. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Nar- cotics of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate 94th Congress, March 8 and 11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress (1978) Consumer Product Safety Commission. Hearing before the Sub- committee on Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, March 9. House Document 95-68. 95th Congress, Second Session. Washington, D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1972) Fourth Annual Report to the President and the Congress on the Studies of Death, Injuries, and Economic Losses Resulting from Accidental Burning of Products, Fabrics, or Related Materials. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Waas, M. (1980) Life savers: Self-extinguishing cigarettes.Washington Post Sunday Out- look, June 1:2. APPENDIX RELEVANT REGULATIONS AND LAWS BY AGENCY National Park Service 36 Code of Federal Regulation ("CER") 2.16, 5.2 Public Law 89-249, October 9, 1965; 79 Stat. 969-971 Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR 8363 Army Corps of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 1130-2-400, May 28, 1971 Forest Service 36 CFR 3.14, 4.6 Bureau of Indian Affiars Act of August 15, 1953, ch. 505 2; 67 Stat. 586; 25 CFR ~11.1, 11.55 Department of Defense DOD Directive 1330.15, April 11, 1972 DOD Directive 1010.2, March 1, 1972 (as amended) DOD Instruction 1010.3, May 22, 1974

OCR for page 388
458 Army Regulation A210-65, December 1, 1978 Air Force Regulation 215-1, July 31, 1974 (as amended) Navy Manual for Messes Ashore NAVPERS 15951 U.S. Navy Regulations 1973, art. 1150 SECNAV Instruction 1700.11B, March 29, 1973 MOSHER and MOTTE Consumer Product Safety Commission Consumer Product Safety Act, Public Law 92-S73, October 27, 1972; 86 Stat. 1207 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR 55.11, 55.33 National Transportation Safety Board 49 U.S.C.A. 1901 et seq. Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR 67.1-67.31, 91.11, 121, 575 Federal Railroad Administration Rail Safety Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-458, May 10, 1970) Coast Guard Public Law 92-75, August 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 214-226 46CFR 10.1 et seq. Internal Revenue Service 26 U.S.C.A. 162, 274 26 CFR 1.274.2 Small Business Administration none