1. Alcohol Availability & Alcohol Consumption: New Evidence from Sunday Sales Restrictions Kitt Carpenter (UC Irvine) & Daniel Eisenberg (University of Michigan) Comments welcome (kittc@uci.edu)

2. Motivation  Large body of evidence in economics and public health that links alcohol availability and alcohol consumption.  Availability as measured by: Prices, taxes Age restrictions Proximity to liquor stores

3. Our Paper: Sunday Sales Policies  All states allow alcohol to be purchased on Sundays for on-premise consumption (e.g. at bars & restaurants).  States and provinces vary as to whether alcohol can be purchased on Sundays for off-premise consumption (e.g. at home). Some have no restrictions Some prohibit entirely Some allow localities to decide

4. Sunday Sales Map: 2006 (APIS)

5. Background  “Blue laws” have been around since before the Revolutionary war.  Prohibited shopping, working, or consuming alcohol on Sundays.  Enforcement unclear, but strong support around Prohibition era.

6. Policy Relevance  Since 2002, 12 states have repealed their bans on off-premise Sunday sales, trying to increase state tax revenues.  Possible unintended effects: What if Sunday sales restrictions do not affect overall sales/consumption? (e.g. if they simply shift the within-week distribution?) What if bar goers substitute toward home drinking? If consumption does increase on Sundays, what if there are negative externalities? (e.g. fatalities)

7. Our Question: Do Blue Laws Affect Drinking?  We are aware of no empirical evidence on the effects of these restrictions on alcohol consumption per se.  This is surprising, since the restrictions: are widespread (16 states prohibit SS) are nontrivial (14% of hours of sale) have directly testable implications

8. Related Literature - Fatalities  McMillan et. al. (2005 AJPH) Considers New Mexico’s 1995 repeal of its Sunday sales ban. Finds extremely large fatality increases (42%)  Smith (’78, ’87, ’88a, ’88b, ’90) Uses Australian city/state introduction of Sunday trading hours, controls for changes in outcomes on other days of the week. Finds extremely large fatality increases (32-100%).

9. Data Requirements For This Study  Geographic identifiers & day-specific alcohol consumption outcomes.  In US: NLAES 1992 (N ~ 40,000)  In Canada: NPHS 1994-99 (N ~ 57,000) We use the data as repeated cross- sections to take advantage of large Ontario buy-in in 1996/97

10. Cross-Section Drinking Model: OLS  Day-specific drinking outcome =  +  1 X +  2 (Sunday sales allowed) +  3 Z + J d +   X includes: race, education, sex, marital status, veteran status, employment dummies  J d are Census division indicators (US only)  Z is state ACCRA real beer, wine, and spirits prices (US only)

11. Coefficient is: Sunday Sales OK US: NLAES 1992 OverallWedThurFriSatSunMonTues Any drinks.011 (.018).014 (.010).011 (.010) -.002 (.018) -.0004 (.018).030** (.014).013 (.008).015 (.009) Among current drinkers Any drinks --.017 (.015).015 (.01) -.015 (.022) -.015 (.020).047** (.021).016 (.012).020 (.013) # days drank in month --.055 (.037).041 (.036).023 (.080).037 (.067).161** (.061).057* (.033).063* (.032)

12. Alternative Model: Any Drinks OverallWedThurFriSatSunMonTues Sunday sales partly restricted.002 (.025).003 (.012).002 (.012) -.021 (.026) -.019 (.025).022 (.019).006 (.010).007 (.011) Sunday sales not at all restricted.020 (.021).025** (.012).022* (.013).019 (.020).021 (.019).038** (.016).021** (.010).024** (.011)

13. Coefficient is: Sunday Sales OK Canadian NPHS 1994-1999 OverallWedThurFriSatSunMonTues Any drinks.022*** (.006).004 (.004).004 (.004).007 (.005).011 (.005).031*** (.005).008* (.004).011** (.004) Among past week drinkers Any drinks ---.003 (.008) -.004 (.008) -.004 (.009) -.004 (.009).049*** (.049).005 (.008).011 (.008) # drinks-.206 (.146) -.009 (.026).011 (.032) -.094** (.041) -.261*** (.048).102*** (.035).016 (.027).028 (.026)

14. Interpreting Cross-Section Results  Patterns of coefficients support a causal effect of Sunday sales restrictions on point in time consumption.  Modest evidence of Monday/Tuesday spillovers & Friday/Saturday substitution.  Estimates consistent with a small but nontrivial effect of Sunday sales on overall population drinking.

15. Remaining Unobservables?  What if unobserved characteristics about states are correlated not only with overall alcohol consumption but also day-specific consumption?  Religiosity may be correlated both with the presence of a Sunday sales restriction and lower drinking on Sundays.  Goal: isolate a plausibly exogenous change in Sunday-specific availability.

16. Ontario’s policy change  Alcohol sales are heavily regulated by the Canadian provincial governments.  In Ontario, off-premise alcohol sales only available at LCBO’s (not at supermarkets).  Prior to 1997, allowed some Sunday sales at a few Nov/Dec holidays.  After 1997, Sunday sales ok.  No other province changed Sunday alcohol sales policy over this period.

17. Diff-in-Diff Drinking Model: OLS  Day-specific drinking outcome =  +  1 X +  2 (After 1997) +  3 (Ontario) +  4 (After 1997 * Ontario) +   X includes: race, education, sex, marital status, employment dummies  Robust standard errors clustered on province.

18. Coefficient is: Ontario * After ’97 Canadian NPHS 1994-1999 OverallWedThurFriSatSunMonTues Any drinks.012 (.013) -.00002 (.010) -.005 (.009).002 (.011).004 (.012).021* (.011).008 (.009).014 (.009) Among past week drinkers Any drinks ---.010 (.018) -.018 (.017) -.006 (.020) -.008 (.019).031 (.020).008 (.018).021 (.018) # drinks.083 (.315) -.068 (.057) -.035 (.061) -.032 (.090) -.035 (.106).148* (.086) -.007 (.058).113** (.050)

19. Interpreting the DD Results  Consistent with a causal effect of Sunday sales restrictions on Sunday alcohol consumption  Modest evidence of effects on overall population drinking  Effect sizes slightly smaller than those implied by cross-sectional results  Relevant subsamples are significant at 5% (prime age adults, females)

20. Implications  We have not evaluated the overall costs/benefits of liberalizing Sunday sales policies.  Main benefits are reductions in inconvenience costs.  Modest consumption effects suggest health costs are unlikely to be severe, though this requires more research.

21. Next Steps  Canadian Community Health Survey (2001 and 2003), very large samples (100K each)  Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) 1992: Do day-specific fatalities mirror our day- specific consumption patterns? More recently, do repeals of Sunday sales bans affect day-specific fatalities?  Comments welcome (kittc@uci.edu)