DN Debate. Monopoly is not conducive to the reduction of alcohol consumption

Alcohol, tobacco and gambling creates extra costs for the Swedish society affects families, the public sector and, not least, consumers themselves. In a new ESO-report presented today, I analyse how large the costs are and who is affected. In the report, in my opinion, even if policies in the areas of reaching its objectives and whether the measures are effective. The analysis leads to a number of new lessons learned and proposals on how regulatory frameworks for alcohol, tobacco and gambling should be changed.

for Example, the proportion of daily smokers in the population has been halved since 2003. In addition, the pay of smokers for the costs faced by society, and contributing almost six billion to society per year. Smoking leads to significant additional health care costs for the public sector, but smokers compensate for this via the tax increase.

The public sector may also lower tax revenue because smokers have a higher morbidity and mortality. This is offset by the smokers can be expected to die approximately ten years prematurely, and that the public sector is, therefore, lower costs for pensions, care of the elderly and care of the elderly. The big costs as a result of smoking affects rather than smokers themselves, through poorer health and lower lifetime earnings.

Because the alcohol monopoly is not conducive to the reduction of alcohol consumption should be the starting point for such a review to be that the alcohol market is opened to competition.

Their success in reducing smoking prevalence is the result of EU initiatives with the requirements of the minimiskatter, which has resulted in significant increases in the tax on tobacco within the EU. This has enabled increases also in Sweden, without the risk of increased smuggling or egeninförsel.

tobacco policy, however, has not succeeded in reducing the use of Swedish moist snuff. In spite of massive tax increases and higher prices have snusandet instead increased. This has led to the proceeds from the snusskatten far surpassing the costs snusningen brings to the society. Estimated to contribute snuff users with over two billion per year.

The new tobacco act, which shall enter into force on 1 July this year, trying to control tobacco use through smoking bans and licence for traders. The major social benefits from the previous smoking ban is, however, already harvested. Injunctive and kravpolitik in the field of tobacco appears to be as effective, but its potential to reduce smoking, or damage from smoking is very limited. If the goal is to continue to reduce smoking, the policy should instead focus on using the tobacco tax that contributes revenue to the state.

Consumption has not diminished, and consumers will not pay for all the costs that affect society. The reason is that alkoholpolitikens most important tools to reach the objectives, the taxation of alcohol and alcohol monopoly, is exhausted.

For the taxation of alcohol should be able to be used just as effectively as the tax increase is required to alkoholskatterna raised in Sweden’s neighbouring countries, or else risk egeninförsel and smuggling to increase. The coordination around alcohol taxation at the EU level, however, is non-existent and higher taxes in the EU is thus not to be expected in the foreseeable future.

furthermore, It is questionable whether it is possible to further restrict the Systembolaget opening hours or reduce the number of stores. The risk is that alkoholmonopolets question of the legitimacy and that the monopoly be abolished if The service does not live up to the expectations of the citizens.

Deregulation in the united states and Canada, show on the contrary that consumption can be held back even when the markets are opened for competition.

The higher alcohol consumption in other european countries is explained by the lower prices, not that there is a Swedish alcohol monopolies. Reports that consumption would increase by up to 40 per cent if the monopoly was abolished has no empirical support, but is the result of arbitrary assumptions about how the alcohol market is possibly reacts on the whole of the Swedish alcohol policy to be abandoned.

the Consequence of alkoholpolitikens bad cornering is the fact that 20 per cent of the swedes ‘ alcohol consumption comes from smuggling, egeninförsel or egentillverkning which are not taxed in Sweden. This lack of governmental control over the market is far bigger than what was on the gaming market when it began to be called a ”wild-västernmarknad”, which meant that the market omreglerades.

the Farm (except from the Wine detaljhandelsmonopol) and star, miniscule prices (with the exception from the taxation of alcohol should control the alkoholpriset) are the latest examples in a long line. If such exception is introduced, alcohol is broken up, which opens the door to further defections. In extension, the risk that this will lead to a completely ineffective alkoholmarknadsreglering that creates more mess than it clear up. Farm and minimum prices should therefore not be introduced.

there is No indication that alcohol policy can achieve its goals in the future or that the requirements of the exception are less. The government should immediately initiate a review of the rules which should govern the alcohol market in the future.

Because the alcohol monopoly is not conducive to the reduction of alcohol consumption should be the starting point for such a review to be that the alcohol market is opened for competition, where the private alkoholbutiker be given the opportunity to sell alcohol in the same way as Wine. The sale of alcohol in supermarkets should also be a utredningsalternativ. The goal should be to develop a new regulatory framework which, in practice, can control the consumption of alcohol and gives the state control over the market.

alcohol sales made at all, no requirements, despite the fact that alcohol leads to much more extensive damage. Such an asymmetry between the areas is inadequate, particularly because the health warnings on packaging, the documented consumption is reduced.

Already should now, therefore, the state set requirements for mandatory information on the packaging. The information should include the contact details of help and guides, information on recommended intake as well as images and texts, in the same way as for tobacco, which clearly shows alcohol risks and harms.