Executive Summary
Undermined communities already have very few access to healthy resources like healthy foods, affordable healthcare, clean water and so much more. To further deepen the issue in the community, drug and liquor companies are pushing the use of their products to these communities. They especially push drugs and alcohol to African American individuals living in urban low income communities (Thomas A. LaVeist, 2000). Vulnerable communities tend to lean towards alcohol and drugs to help cope with stress and pain. With many drug and liquor stores being found on every corner or few blocks in these low income neighborhoods, they’re easily accessible. The only requirement is being 21 and over, as long as you have proof you can buy as much of that product as you desire. Adolescents are also able to attain these products from parents, neighbors, relatives and even friends. Continuous long- term consumption of these products can further negatively impact their health in many ways. High doses of alcohol can cause liver cancer , heart disease, anxiety and much more. Different drugs can also cause different diseases. We see these liquor companies adding on to the troubling public health of low income communities.
Introduction
Literature Review
Drug and liquor companies target low-income communities for profit off of these products because low-income communities are more likely to use these products to cope with anxiety and pain. As Michael Bayba says, “Scientists know that genetic, environmental, and developmental factors determine a person’s risk for developing a substance use disorder (2020). The more risks a person has, the higher the chance that using drugs will lead to addiction. Bayba continues, “[C]onsuming these products can lead to poor judgement leading to poor decision making. Drugs can change key brain regions that are needed for key functions. It can also drive the compulsion of drug abuse that’s a sign of addiction.” These communities suffer with many issues due to the low support and constant responsibilities needed to survive under their conditios. In all vulnerable communities around the US, we see a lot of liquor stores and drug dispensaries located not so far apart from each other (Elizabeth A. Shack, 2003) . This allows low income residents in the neighborhood to have easy access to these items. Drugs and alcohol are easily accessible to these groups which causes so many further issues due to long term use.
More specifically, drug and alcohol abuse is a critical problem especially in communities of color; substance abuse in general, however, can lower a city’s overall productivity as well as perpetuate mental health disorders, liver disease, STDs, and other disorders (Moss, 2013). As a result, many communities aim to lower the consumption rate from liquor stores and other vendors, where cities have increased tax rates on alcohol and prescription drugs, surveillancing illegal drugs, limited days or hours of sale, and Host “Dram Shop” Liability Laws, where sellers of alcohol are held liable to alcohol-attributable crimes caused by a customer (CDC, 2019). These rules and regulations have been acknowledged for decades now in hopes for owners to promote safe use of drugs and alcohol. A 1993 review of 15 studies that used State and national consumption data found that every 1-percent increase in price translated to a 0.3-percent decrease in demand for beer, a 1.0-percent decrease in demand for wine, and a 1.5-percent decrease in demand for spirits (Leung and Phelps, 1993). These rates may be as low as expected however, it is good to see a decline and change in consumption rates. The price sometimes doesn’t stop individuals from buying large amounts of these products because when people want something they always find a way to get it, especially if it’s so nearby. A more recent study provided evidence that alcohol demand may not respond as much to price changes as previously thought (Nelson, 1997). These trends seem to contradict the law of demand, which predicts that falling prices will lead to higher consumption, other things being equal (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999).
In San Francisco, there have already been some movements in addressing the problem of substance abuse through minor taxes and substance abuse programs. However, these programs are still not enough, as there are 35% people who are homeless who rely on at least one substance (Genesis Recovery, 2020). This Implies that our current solutions still need to be improved or are missing a crucial component. From trials such as the National Prohibition Act in the United States which made alcohol illegal, it seems that the United States has turned away from prohibiting alcohol and instead to regulating it.
As San Francisco has done, however, the problem still prevails as other factors contribute to one’s dependence on substances, such as financial need with rising housing prices and competitive markets. Liquor stores, particularly, are able to solve this problem momentarily for small families making a living in their local neighborhoods. They are able to cope with the financial stress by profiting from selling alcohol, high-calorie snacks and drinks, gasoline, and cigarettes. From a city’s point of view, liquor stores leak a plethora of community health issues, but this does not mean that the families are to blame. Rather, we propose a solution to merge both issues: converting neighborhood liquor stores into government-assisted and approved family produce markets.
Rationale
It is crucial for San Francisco to recognize the problem of substance abuse in its city, publicizing and enforcing a policy that limits their consumption. By additionally providing healthier coping programs, people are more likely to choose the safer alternatives. Policies have been set to help limit the use of drugs and alcohol like an increased tax rate and having limited hours of sale, these are good policies that should continue to be enforced, however adding a cap on stores in the area will further push the drive for decreased drug and alcohol use while not banning it entirely.
Proposed Policy
In our proposed solution, we provide two parts. Our first policy is our preventative enforcement policy, to counter drug usage. We may enact a new policy where there is a limited cap on the amount of liquor and drug stores in a certain neighborhood will allow residents to actually have to travel to attain the product. Having only 1-2 stores located in the same zip code will make it a little harder to turn to other stores to get the substances when they are farther away. It also overall allows individuals to have control on their intake as well. There can also be a cap on certain amounts of items you can buy. Once you reach that cap, you can’t buy anymore for a month or given amount of time based on how severe the effects of the product is. We should start treating alcohol and substances like drugs in the pharmacy, with a secure logistical log of their purchase history.
In our second policy, we propose for government assistance on small family owned stores that sell health concerning products. The government will offer a stipend that these business owners can use to revise their store. They will also assist with rent control so it won’t be a challenge to maintain the business.We aim to make a push for more healthy produce markets. The government will later also offer a stipend for the fruits and vegetables each store sells. This stipend can only be received if there is less to no alcohol and cigarettes sold in the store. The switch will further decrease the high amount of poor health enhancers while protecting small businesses.
Key Design Decisions
Definitions
low-income family: A family making usually earning minimum wage and also supporting three or more people falling squarely below the poverty line based on the United State standards.
liquor store: a store selling alcoholic drink (on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to provide signed verification that states an applicant for a neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general liquor license has completed the pre application meeting required under California Business and Professions Code Section 23826.13(d)(3)).
Smoke shops: A store that sells tobacco, cigarettes, nicotine, and other forms of smoking equipment.
Drug store: a drug store, pharmacy, or other establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of medication, pharmaceuticals, or medical supplies ( SF Planning, 2021)
Proposed Regulation Rates
There should be a maximum of one smoke shop in a neighborhood, 3-4 places that sell alcohol ( depending on size) , 3 drug stores shops. Bars and clubs can sell alcohol but exclusively. Individuals will be able to buy up to 4 bottles/ cans of alcohol max per week, 4 smoke items. Drug stores won;t hold a cap because it’s understandable that these drug prescriptions may be for health reasons. This allows there to be a limit on how much a person can consume. However, big chain grocery stores may sell alcohol and they may not be fond of this policy. They can probably opt out of this if they keep a cap on how much they sell to their customers.
The penalty for companies/ shops if they break it can lead to a court hearing and a $1000 fine. If an individual finds a way to buy products over the cap, they may have to pay a $300 fine for the first offense and it grows by $100 after. By the 2nd offense they may also have to face jail time and attend court hearings.
Adjusting the Regulation Rate
If stores have to close down to maintain this rule, they will get government assistance and unemployment benefits to help them get by. If the net profit is 20% less than before, they will also receive additional government assistance. There will be a government record that entails the history of an individual's purchase. We will keep track of the individuals purchase history by scanning their drivers license into the system. If they have a fake drivers incense the system will quickly figure it out. If there is suspicious activity within the store, the authorities will get involved. Since the cap for items allowed to be purchased a month is low, this cap is for individuals and not families.
Purpose
There will be a decline in health issues involving drugs and alcohol in the community. This means less money being put in healthcare assistance programs for the low income. Instead, the money used to fund other government health programs and potentially offer more affordable medical technologies. The individuals in the low income community also don’t have to be in debt when paying for their medical bills and prescriptions.
Policy Purpose: Fiscal Revenue
There will be government assistance to help regulate the lower rates of sales in the liquor stores and smoke shops. They will be paid a small non taxable pay to help their business continue thriving.
Policy Purpose: Health
Drugs and alcohol have been the main leading causes of health issues in low income communities. Individuals in this community turn to drugs and alcohol to help cope with pain and stress. These substances can be addicting and large doses of these can lead to many long term issues. By setting this policy, it can help people control their intake because drugs and alcohol are harder to access.
Legal & Ethical Considerations
Larger companies may try to stop this policy from going through because they make a lot of profit from the low income purchasing these substances. The government is also in a lot of debt, so they might not want to continue paying large companies and lose more money. The sudden change can also make the low income community mad because they have been so used to these products for so long. There has been a culture built from drugs and alcohol and taking this away can cause disapproval.
For convenience stores that sell liquor and cigarettes there will be a cap based on how much they can sell to individuals. The government will imburse profits loss via stipend or checks. The reimbursement/ stipend can be used to give back to the store. Store owners can use that money to further invest in their store. Whether that's buying more refrigerators for healthier fruits and veggies, more shelves for the foods, or adding aisles for hygiene and self care products. There is still a lot of freedom for these store owners to bring profit into their stores.
Bibliography
Addiction Group. 2021. “Addiction and the Low-Income American Community.” Addiction Group, www.addictiongroup.org/addiction/low-income/.
American Legal Publishing Corporation. 2020. “SEC. 1297. NEIGHBORHOOD-RESTRICTED LIQUOR LICENSES.” codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_police/0-0-0-50977. Accessed 27 July 2021.
Blocker J. S., Jr. 2006. Did prohibition really work? Alcohol prohibition as a public health innovation. American journal of public health, 96(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.065409
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1999. Calculated from Consumer Price Index data, not seasonally adjusted, for all items: beer, ale, and other malt beverages at home; distilled wine at
home; and spirits at home. http://stats.bls.gov/sahome.html
CDC. 2019. “Community Strategies to Reduce Excessive Alcohol Use | CDC.” https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/alcohol/reducing-excessive-alcohol-use/community-strategies.htm#:~:text=%20Community%20Strategies%20to%20Reduce%20Excessive%20Alcohol%20Use,Liability%20Laws.%20Laws%20that%20hold%20alcohol...%20More%20 Accessed 24 July 2021.
Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Public Health, and JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. 2013. “Off-Premises Liquor Stores Targeted to Poor Urban Blacks.” www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2000/alcohol-off-premises.html.
“Laws & Regulating Bodies Controlling How Beer, Wine, & Liquor Is Sold.” Alcohol.org, 2019, www.alcohol.org/laws/regulating-bodies/.
Leung, S.-F., and Phelps, C.E. My kingdom for a drink...? A review of estimates of the price sensitivity of demand for alcoholic beverages. In: Hilton, M.E., and Bloss, G., eds. Economics and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems: Proceedings of a Workshop on Economic and Socioeconomic Issues in the Prevention of AlcoholRelated Problems, October 10–11, 1991, Bethesda, MD. NIAAA Research Monograph No. 25. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1993. pp. 1–31.
Moss HB. The impact of alcohol on society: a brief overview. Soc Work Public Health. 2013;28(3-4):175-7. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2013.758987. PMID: 23731412.
Shack, Elizabeth A. “Low-Income Neighborhoods Home to Higher Number of Liquor Stores.” CNS Maryland, CNS Maryland, 18 Apr. 2003, cnsmaryland.org/2003/04/18/low-income-neighborhoods-home-to-higher-number-of-liquor-stores/.
