Alcohol control laws in states with state-run compared with privatized alcohol distribution systems

In the United States, 17 states use some form of state-run system for the distribution of beer, wine and/or spirits for off-premise outlets (control states).  Over the last few decades some states, most recently Washington, have privatized a part or all of their distribution system despite a recommendation by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force against privatizing retail sales of alcohol.  In the present study we examined how 17 alcohol control policies differed in control (n=18; including Washington) compared with privatized states (n=32), using data obtained from the Alcohol Policy Information System for 2009. We assigned a score for each of the 17 policies in each state based on the level of the policy’s restrictiveness.  Scores were developed based on both theoretical and empirical evidence for the available data. In addition, we created summary scores for policies in four domains (underage use, provision to underage, servers, and alcohol availability) and an overall summary score across all 17 policies.  Differences in the mean scores between control and privatized states were assessed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test.  We also analyzed differences among the control states based on levels of policy restrictiveness.  We found that control and privatized states did not differ for any of the 17 alcohol control policies or across the summed scores.  Control states do not appear to be more or less restrictive than privatized states on other alcohol control policies.  These findings suggest that a state’s alcohol distribution system is independent of its overall policy environment.