Russian Alcohol Policy in False Mirror

Abstract

Turbulent events of the last 9 years on the Russian alcohol scene became the subject of special attention in the expert community. Among the papers dedicated to the alcohol events, we should pay attention to the article ‘Effect of Specific Alcohol Control Policy Measures on the Level of Alcohol-Related Mortality in Russia from 1998 to 2013’ by Khaltourina and Korotayev (2015). The authors analyzed the trends following several parameters: rate of spirits and vodka production, vodka sales level and mortality due to acute alcohol poisoning, male and total mortality rates. They correlated these parameters to the adoption of different laws that regulate alcohol market and concluded that ‘The effect of the policy measures introduced in 2006 lasted through the following years’ (p. 8). Let us see if it is true. Anti-alcohol activity in this country began with the adoption of two laws in 2005. The first one (102—FL), among other issues, introduced new excise stamps from January 1, 2006. After that time, other stamps have been prohibited. The second law (209—FL) significantly increased nominal capital of alcohol market players since July 1, 2006, so that the market became free from small and average players in favor of large producers. Moreover, the law 209 introduced new and more toxic denaturant additives for household alcohol-containing liquids after July 1, 2006. The introduction of new excise stamps has been a routine procedure: since 1994, they have been changed seven times (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2005) and differed only in their protection level. There was a significant delay with their printing: first stamps were issued in February 2006 only for 0.5l vodka bottles. Stamps for other beverages were printed during the year. This resulted in long and complex market disorganization. In addition, since July 1, chaos had increased because small producers and distributors left the market. Naturally those changes were accompanied by both consumption and mortality rate decrease in 2006–2007 (Fig. 1). One of the consequences of the legal alcohol shortages was appearance of additional amounts of toxic ‘alcohol substitutes’ on the market, for example household chemistry liquids with new denaturant additives. The latter led to the increase of toxic hepatitis incidence and increased mortality rates due to liver diseases in the following years. By 2008, the crisis in the alcohol market was overcome, and mortality rates returned to the 2004–2005 trends (Fig. 1). Therefore, the effect of the policy measures introduced in 2006 was rather a side effect of the two laws characterized by numerous negative consequences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.