Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2003 May 1;94(3):201–206. doi: 10.1007/BF03405067

Public Perception of Alcohol Policy Issues Relating Directly or Indirectly to Privatization

Results from a 1999 Ontario Survey

Lise Anglin 1,✉, Norman Giesbrecht 1, Anca Ialomiteanu 1, Janet McAllister 1, Alan Ogborne 1
PMCID: PMC6980040  PMID: 12790495

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to measure public opinion on alcohol policy issues relating to youth, litigation, outlet density, and government action. The authors comment on the implications of public opinion with regard to proposals for privatization of alcohol retailing in Ontario.

Method: Using data from a 1999 provincial survey (n = 1,288), the authors examine the opinions of Ontario adults (male and female over the age of 18) on seven alcohol policyrelated items. In order to identify characteristics of persons tending to express certain opinions, the opinion items are cross-tabulated with sex, age, drinking pattern, marital status, and education. A scale is created to show the level and strength of aggregate support for alcohol controls. A logistic regression confirms associations between demographic characteristics and opinions.

Results: The majority expresses opinions favouring alcohol controls and disagreeing with privatization (73% of total sample against). However, differences of opinion are observed within groups, between groups, and between items. In particular, higher-risk drinkers stand out for their dislike of most control measures.

Discussion: Taken as a whole, the results suggest that privatization of alcohol retailing in Ontario would run contrary to the wishes of the majority. Disapproval would probably be even stronger if more people realized there is often a connection between privatization and increased outlet density, relaxation of other controls, and less consideration for public health.

Footnotes

Some of the findings presented in this paper appeared in an internal CAMH Research Document (see Reference 1).

The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

References

  • 1.Anglin L, Giesbrecht N, Kobus-Matthews M, McAllister J, Ogborne A. CAMH Research Document Series No. 145. Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2001. Public opinion of Ontario adults on alcohol policy issues: Findings from a 1999 general population survey. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Anglin L, Neves P, Giesbrecht N, Kobus-Matthews M. Alcohol-related air rage: From damage control to primary prevention. J Primary Prevention. 2003;23(3):283–97. doi: 10.1023/A:1021341707993. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Goar C. The Toronto Star. 2002. The risky logic of privatization. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Brennan R, Theobald S. The Toronto Star. 2002. Flaherty vows to get out of booze business. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Stimmell G. The Toronto Star. 2002. LCBO at crossroads. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Laxer G, Green D, Harrison T, Neu D. Out of control: Paying the price for privatizing Alberta’s liquor control board. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Her M, Giesbrecht N, Room R, Rehm J. Privatizing alcohol sales and alcohol consumption: Evidence and implications. Addiction. 1999;94(8):1125–39. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.94811253.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Giesbrecht N, Kavanagh L. Public opinion and alcohol policy: Comparisons of two Canadian general population surveys. Drug and Alcohol Review. 1999;18:7–19. doi: 10.1080/09595239996716. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giesbrecht N, Greenfield T. Public opinions on alcohol policy issues: A comparison of American and Canadian surveys. Addiction. 1999;94(4):521–31. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9445217.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Smart RG. The impact on consumption of selling wine in grocery stores. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 1986;21:233–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alavaikko M. [Liberalization of Finnish alcohol legislation in the reform of 1994] Nordic Alcohol and Drug Studies. 1998;15(3):154–67. doi: 10.1177/145507259801500304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Edwards G, Anderson P, Babor TF, Casswell S, Ferrence R, Giesbrecht N, et al. Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1994. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wagenaar A, Holder H. Changes in alcohol consumption resulting from the elimination of retail wine monopolies: Results from five U.S. states. J Studies on Alcohol. 1995;56(5):566–72. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Giesbrecht N, Ialomiteanu A, Room R, Anglin L. Trends in public opinion on alcohol policy measures: Ontario 1989–1998. J Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62(2):142–49. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mosher JF. The merchants, not the customers: Resisting the alcohol and tobacco industries’ strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. J Public Health Policy. 1995;16(4):412–32. doi: 10.2307/3342619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jensen BA. From tobacco to health care and beyond: A critique of lawsuits targeting unpopular industries. Cornell Law Rev. 2001;86(6):1334–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cunningham R. Summary prepared for the Canadian Cancer Society. 2002. Background on tobacco liability lawsuits in Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ferrence R, Ashley MJ, Cohen J, Stephens T. Tobacco industry litigation and the role of government: A public health perspective. Can J Public Health. 2001;92(1):39. doi: 10.1007/BF03404841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Solomon R, Payne J. A report commissioned by the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse. 1996. Alcohol Liability in Canada and Australia: Sell, Serve, and Be Sued. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Godfrey C. Licensing and the demand for alcohol. Applied Economics. 1988;20:1541–58. doi: 10.1080/00036848800000085. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gruenewald P. The relationship of outlet densities to alcohol consumption: A time series cross-sectional analysis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1993;17:38–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00723.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.MacDonald S. The impact of increased availability of wine in grocery stores on consumption: Four case histories. Br J Addiction. 1986;81:381–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1986.tb00344.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.West P. Alcohol policy. In: Anglin L, editor. The Ontario Experience of Alcohol and Tobacco: New Focus on Accessibility, Violence and Mandatory Treatment. A report of the Ontario Alcohol and Other Drug Opinion Survey, ARF Internal Document #122, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Greenfield T, Johnson S, Kaskutas L, Giesbrecht N, Anglin L, Kavanagh L, MacKenzie B. U.S. Federal Alcohol Control Policy Development: A Manual. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Room RR. Why have a retail alcohol monopoly? Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Paper presented at an International Seminar on Alcohol Retail Monopolies; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Casady RJ, Lepkowski M. Telephone sampling. In: Levy PS, Lemeshow S, editors. Sampling of Populations. New York, NY: Wiley; 1999. pp. 455–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Adlaf EM, Ivis FJ, Paglia A, Ialomiteanu A. Ontario Drug Monitor 1998: Technical Guide. 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Montonen M. Alcohol and the Media. 1996. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES