To learn how the local context may affect a city's ability to regulate alcohol products such as high–alcohol-content malt liquor, a beverage associated with heavy drinking and a spectrum of nuisance crimes in urban areas.
Approach.
An exploratory, qualitative case study comparing cities that adopted policies to restrict malt liquor sales with cities that considered, but did not adopt policies.
Setting.
Nine large U.S. cities in seven states.
Participants.
City legislators and staff, alcohol enforcement personnel, police, neighborhood groups, business associations, alcohol retailers, and industry representatives.
Method.
Qualitative data were obtained from key informant interviews (n = 56) and media articles (n = 360). The data were coded and categorized. Similarities and differences in major themes among and across Adopted and Considered cities were identified.
Results.
Cities faced multiple barriers in addressing malt liquor–related problems, including a lack of enforcement tools, alcohol industry opposition, and a lack of public and political will for alcohol control. Compared to cities that did not adopt malt liquor sales restrictions, cities that adopted restrictions appeared to have a stronger public mandate for a policy and were less influenced by alcohol industry opposition and lack of legislative authority for alcohol control. Strategies common to successful policymaking efforts are discussed.
Conclusion.
Understanding the local context may be a critical step in winning support for local alcohol control policies.
BaborTFCaetanoRCasswellS. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity—Research and Public Policy.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
2.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Preventing problems related to alcohol availability: environmental approaches (reference guide). Department of Health and Human Services publication (SMA) 99-3298. 1999. Available at: http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/phd822/aar.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2010.
3.
MosherJToomeyTGoodC. State laws mandating or promoting training programs for alcohol servers and establishment managers: an assessment of statutory and administrative procedures. J Public Health Policy.2002;23:90–113.
4.
WagenaarAToomeyT. Effects of minimum drinking age laws: review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. J Stud Alcohol.2002(suppl. 14):206–222.
5.
WagenaarASaloisMKomroK. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1002 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction.2009;104:179–190.
6.
WagenaarAZobeckTWilliamsGHingsonR. Methods used in studies of DWI control efforts: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1960 to 1991. Accid Anal Prev.1995;27:307–316.
7.
WittmanF. Community control of alcohol and drug risk environments: the California experience. Subst Use Misuse.2007;42:1835–1849, PMID:18075912.
8.
CohenDAMasonKScribnerR. The population consumption model, alcohol control practices, and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Prev Med.2001;34:187–197.
9.
HolderHReynoldsR. Application of local policy to prevent alcohol problems: experiences from a community trial. Addiction.1997;92(suppl 2):S285–S292.
WagenaarAToomeyT. Alcohol policy: gaps between legislative action and current research. Contemp Drug Prob.2000;27:681–695.
12.
HolderH. Current challenges faced by efforts to prevent alcohol and other drug problems: lessons from science-to-practice. Drug Alcohol Rev.2009;28:99–102.
13.
Jones-WebbRMcKeePHannanP. Alcohol and malt liquor availability and promotion and homicide in inner cities. Subst Use Misuse.2008;43:159–177.
14.
BradizzaCACollinsRLVincentPCFalcoDL. It does the job: young adults discuss their malt liquor consumption. Addict Behav.2006;31:1559–1577.
15.
AlanizMLWilkesC. Pro-drinking messages and message environments for young adults: the case of alcohol industry advertising in African American, Latino, and Native American communities. J Public Health Policy.1998;19:447–472.
16.
Miller Brewing Company, Behavioral Tracking Study 2000.Milwaukee, Wis: Miller Brewing Company; 2000.
SampsonRScottMSTackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; 1999.
BluthenthalRNTaylorDBGuzman-BecerraNRobinsonPL. Characteristics of malt liquor beer drinkers in a low-income, racial minority community sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res.2005;29(3):402–409.
25.
VilamovskaAMBrown-TaylorDBluthenthalRN. Adverse drinking-related consequences among lower income, racial, and ethnic minority drinkers: cross-sectional results. Alcohol Clin Exp Res.2009;33(4):645–653.
26.
ChenM-JPaschallMJ. Malt liquor use, heavy/problem drinking and other problem behaviors in a sample of community college students. J Stud Alcohol.2003;64(6):835–842.
27.
Jones-WebbRMcKeePToomeyT. Regulating malt liquor in urban areas in the US. Contemp Drug Probl. In press.
FriedmanR. A conceptual framework for developing and implementing effective policy in children's mental health. J Emot Behav Disord.2003;11:11–18.
31.
American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys.5th ed.Lenexa, Kans: AAPOR; 2008:36.
32.
HsiehH-FShannonS. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res.2005;15:1277.
33.
StraussACorbinJBasics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1998.
34.
CorbinJStraussA. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol.1990;13:3–21.
35.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Research Report: The Role of Alcohol Beverage Control Agencies in the Enforcement and Adjudication of Alcohol Laws.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2005.
