In the wake of the most recent homicide at a local nightclub, city leaders are reconsidering state Alcohol Beverage Control board notification of incidents related to businesses that sell alcohol. While this reflection comes far too late for innumerable violent crime victims, it is a reasonable place to start.
For as long as humans have consumed alcohol, we have dealt with problems stemming from misuse. Throughout history alcohol has been a recurrent, consistent and common element of most violent crime. Knowing this, we should be able to craft public policy to combat the consequences of misusing alcohol. Fortunately, our development of better alcohol control policies is aided by efforts undertaken in other communities.
Criminologists John Eck and Ronald Clarke are among the most prolific scholars in the field of situational crime prevention. In a landmark publication, Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Simple Steps, Eck and Clarke present valuable insights, “Crime is facilitated by alcohol and drugs, which undermine inhibitions or impair perception and cognition so that offenders are less aware of breaking the law.” In other words, people under the influence of drugs and alcohol do things that they might not otherwise do. This is hardly new news.
Eck and Clarke go on to recount a number of successful interventions related to alcohol-involved crime. In one instance they describe the efforts of Johannes Knutsson, research director at the Norwegian Police College. Knutsson observes that limiting the amount of alcohol individuals could bring into a Swedish resort town on Midsummer Eve helped to reduce drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
Similarly, in response to an epidemic of binge drinking, Barrow, Alaska, instituted a total ban in 1994 on the sale of alcohol. This ban led to an 81 percent drop in alcohol-related calls for service, a reduction of 43 percent in felonies, and a drop of more than 90 percent in removals of drunken people from public places. While such a ban might be difficult to enact in Pine Bluff, tough times call for tougher measures. As such, no possibilities should be dismissed without appropriate consideration.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
This one observation — that limits on availability tend to curb inappropriate use — is worth lengthy consideration. Assuming that our community would not countenance an outright ban on alcohol sales, perhaps we need to set much tighter limits on the dates, times and conditions under which alcohol may be purchased.
A good first step would be to repeal the ludicrous extension of club hours passed by the city council last year. This myopic pandering to club owners all but ensured a spike in club-related crime. It’s time we right that wrong.
Second, there needs to be a moratorium on the issuance of alcohol sales permits. We have all the venues for alcohol purchase that we need. One more liquor store, night club or convenience store hardly contributes to the betterment of our community.
Lastly, we need to consider alcohol sales restrictions already in place in other communities. Bans on single service, pints, half-pints and similar small packages is a proven strategy to reduce alcohol misuse. So too are increased alcohol taxes. Nobody likes higher taxes, but given the choice of bearing the costs of crime or enduring higher priced alcohol, it’s an easy decision.
Detractors may decry this as more “nanny state” politics. Maybe so, but just remember, the people to whom we assign nannies are the ones who don’t regulate themselves. Alcohol misuse fits that definition perfectly. Until we find a way to make people refrain from alcohol misuse of their own accord, we may have to tolerate a little nanny-business.
History has ably shown that we cannot reduce improper alcohol use through threat of prosecution. The profusion of multiple DWI and public drunkenness offenders proves that point. Instead we must control the source and thus deprive the unrepentant of the means to offend.