Comprehensive policy perspectives on mitigating alcohol misuse among minoritized communities in New York City

Introduction

Alcohol misuse in the United States and in New York City (NYC)

Alcohol misuse, which includes binge drinking and excessive drinking (1), represents a widespread public health problem associated with over 200 different illnesses and injuries (e.g., liver diseases, tuberculosis, and violence) (2). Globally, alcohol misuse ranked as the seventh most significant contributor for mortality and disability (3), and in the USA, excessive drinking ranks as the third leading cause of preventable mortality (4). Each year, excessive alcohol use contributes to the deaths of over 178,000 Americans nationally (5) and more than 1,700 residents in NYC alone (6). In 2010, the national cost of excessive alcohol use reached $249 billion, equaling 1.65% of the gross domestic product, with 72% of those costs resulting from workplace productivity losses. Noticeably, New York State is one of the states with the highest costs per person/year at $843 compared to the $807 national average (7). The cost of excessive drinking has detrimental impacts not only on drinkers’ lives, but also on the community, with losses in workplace productivity, healthcare costs, law enforcement, interpersonal violence, and motor vehicle crashes. Surprisingly, the top ten alcohol producers in the USA were exempted from paying tax on $1.5 billion spent on beer advertisement alone in 2017 (8). The tax breaks create significant incentives for the alcohol industry, which does not contribute to the societal welfare, but rather adds to societal costs from healthcare fees and lost productivity (8). This situation worsened during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as a representative sample of American adults showed a significant 14% increase in past-month alcohol use between pre-pandemic and early months of the pandemic (9). This prevalence is much higher in NYC in 2021, especially in Harlem—a predominantly Black community—where 52.3% and 57% reported past-year alcohol misuse and past-year binge drinking, respectively (10). Furthermore, over a third of Harlem residents initiated and/or used more substances during COVID-19 (11). In addition to overcoming COVID-19-related impacts, addressing alcohol misuse—an increasing urban problem—needs to be prioritized since the long waiting lists for substance use disorder treatment services are expanding.

Alcohol dependency is found most prevalent among White Americans (21%), followed by Hispanic/Latino individuals (14.8%), and lowest among Black individuals in NYC (11%). Although remission from dependence is roughly similar across race and ethnic groups (12), Black and Hispanic/Latino New Yorkers face a higher likelihood of hospitalization or death compared to White counterparts due to excessive drinking (13). A potential explanation is that minoritized individuals, specifically Black (35.4%) and Hispanic/Latino (33%) people are more likely to struggle with persistent and recurring alcohol dependence compared to White individuals (22.8%) (14). More importantly, Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals are more likely to discontinue their alcohol treatment programs than their White counterparts (15,16), largely due to socioeconomic factors (17). While a more comprehensive understanding of these effects among minoritized communities is beneficial, community interventions targeting these vulnerable groups in NYC are needed to ultimately eliminate health disparities related to alcohol use.

Even though there are numerous effective treatments, including behavioral therapies (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy), medications (e.g., naltrexone and acamprosate), and support groups (e.g., alcoholics anonymous) (18), only 5.4% of Americans with alcohol use disorders received past-year alcohol use treatment at a specialty facility (19). More specifically, treatment is less accessible for Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Indigenous communities than for White individuals (20) due to a plethora of barriers such as insufficient information about treatment options, the stigma associated with alcoholism, inadequate physician training, and a shortage of treatment facilities and staff (13). Linking New Yorkers with alcohol misuse to treatment plays a significant role in reducing their risk of chronic diseases and conditions and economic costs. However, treatment referrals are only helpful in narrowing the gap in treatment accessibility on a small scale. A comprehensive approach to policies on alcohol misuse is needed for improving both treatment and prevention in this post-COVID-19 pandemic era.

Factors associated with alcohol misuse during the pandemic in NYC

A previous study showed that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after events such as the World Trade Center bombing was associated with increased alcohol consumption among New Yorkers. Particularly, alcohol consumption experienced a slight upward trend over time and was associated with PTSD symptoms, with those suffering from PTSD consuming roughly one extra drink per month (21). NYC was one of the first epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic when the virus began circulating in March 2020 and disproportionately devastated low-income and minoritized communities. High consumption of alcohol during COVID-19 could be due to social isolation, psychological distress, financial stressors, and the inability to visit outpatient providers along with other stressors (22). Yet, substance use, including alcohol drinking, is an acute and maladaptive coping solution that has many consequences.

According to the COVID-19 Tracking Survey by the City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, 34.4% of adult New Yorkers in reported depression and anxiety symptomatology (23), a figure that is more than twice as high as the pre-pandemic rate in New York State (15.1%). Throughout the pandemic, the percentage of New Yorkers with poor mental health remained elevated, peaking at 37% in October 2020 with minoritized individuals reporting the highest figures (24). The reasons for poor mental health varied across races and ethnicities. For example, approximately half of Hispanic/Latino individuals (49%) were more likely to experience unemployment or reduced work hours compared to White people (34%). Also, 53% of Hispanic/Latino individuals experienced financial stress which is higher than the respective percentage among White counterparts (40%) (25). Importantly, Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals had twice of the likelihood of being hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 compared to White people (26). They were also more frequently employed in essential jobs, which limited their ability to practice social distancing and increased their exposure risk (27).

Increased alcohol marketing and availability of alcohol retail were other pathways that could have led to increased alcohol assumption during COVID-19. The pressure of declining alcohol sales via traditional channels—due to social distancing, work from home, closures of bars and restaurants (28)—promoted the beverage industry to explore different strategies to offset losses and boost revenue. These strategies included promoting alcohol delivery services, leveraging digital media for marketing, and focusing on brand image enhancement (29). The alcohol industry has capitalized on the global pandemic to boost its marketing efforts, with approximately three-quarters of advertisements either directly or indirectly referencing COVID-19. For instance, in Australia, an alcohol advertisement appeared approximately every 35 seconds on average, with common themes such as convenient access from home (58%), saving more (55%), purchasing more (35%), drinking during COVID-19 (24%), and consuming alcohol to cope, endure, or improve one’s mood (16%) (30).

In the USA, more than a third of adults reported increasing alcohol use because of increased alcohol availability (31). From March to September 2020, sales at food services and drinking experienced a remarkable decrease, while alcohol retail store sales surged significantly. Liquor store sales reached $41.9 billion, making a 20% increase compared to the same period in 2019 (32). Remarkably, approximately 2 months after the U.S. declaration of COVID-19 as a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, online alcohol sales soared by over 331% compared to a year prior (33). In NYC alone, Drizly—the largest platform for alcohol e-commerce delivery in the USA—reported a 450% increase in alcohol orders within 72 hours of the city’s bar closures (29). The increasing trend of alcohol sales during COVID-19 implies high substantial at-home alcohol consumption and high potential for alcohol-related adverse health consequences.

Previous policies and programs mitigating alcohol misuse

In the past, statewide efforts sought to reduce alcohol misuse in NYC. Multiple initiatives and outreach campaigns (e.g., #CombatAddiction, #Talk2Prevent) were placed to lessen the prevalence of substance use disorders. In 2012, the NYC Health Department and Mental Hygiene launched a campaign featuring images of New Yorkers “partied out” in the subway to address the growing issues of alcohol misuse. That same year, the Long Island Railroad implemented a temporary ban on alcohol sales on overnight weekend trains to reduce binge drinking. Following this trial ban, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has prohibited beer, wine and spirit advertisements since 2017, and alcohol consumption remains illegal on public transportation. Two years later, Mayor Bill de Blasio issued an Executive Order that banned alcohol advertisements on City property (e.g., bus shelters, Wi-Fi LinkNYC and recycling stations), however, this sector only covers 3% of the city’s total advertisement space (34). While no effectiveness reports have been recorded for these programs, stricter policies and effective intervention are needed to lessen the high rates of individuals struggling with alcohol misuse.

Additionally, the New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA) issued the 200-foot and 500-foot rules. The 200-foot rule prohibits certain licenses from being issued if any retail establishment (both on-premises and off-premises) is “on the same street and within 200 feet of a school/place of worship.” The 500-foot rule prohibits issuing a retail license if an establishment is within 500 feet of three establishments that have on-premises liquor licenses. This rule is applicable to on-premises liquor license in municipalities with a population of at least 20,000 people (35). Yet, some limitations exist by these rules. For example, the 200-foot rule measures distance “in a straight line from the center of the nearest entrance of a school/place of worship to the center of the nearest entrance of an alcohol-serving establishment.” These measurement rules may therefore not be as effective in limiting the alcohol outlet landscape in NYC.

A study conducted in Baltimore, MD, showed that 65% of off-premises alcohol outlets violated the 300-foot law either recently or historically (36). The finding showed that applying new zoning legislation to address oversaturation of alcohol outlets will theoretically reduce the number of available land parcels for such establishments by 27.2%. This study also noted that in 2019, most off-premises alcohol outlets were concentrated in areas with larger Black individuals, more single-parent households, greater family poverty rates, and higher unemployment compared to citywide averages (36). Additionally, in NYC, the 200-foot and 500-foot law does not apply to grocery stores that sell wine and beer (37), meaning the true alcohol outlet density may not be well controlled by these rules. This raises significant concern about socioeconomic and racial disparities in the placement of alcohol retailers and the related negative impacts on communities. Appropriate regulation of alcohol outlet density with consideration of variations in population density throughout NYC is needed to not only reduce the risk of excessive alcohol consumption among disadvantaged communities and minoritized individuals, but also support the financial viability of current alcohol businesses (38).

Suggested solutions toward alcohol misuse in NYC

Restriction on contents, time, and place of alcohol marketing

A study among Americans aged 15–26 years old indicated that each additional advertisement viewed per month led to a 1% increase in alcohol consumption, and each extra dollar per capita allocated to alcohol advertisement in media markets resulted in a 3% rise in alcohol intake (39). Literature shows that a complete ban on alcohol advertisement in the USA could potentially reduce alcohol-related years of life lost among 20-year-old residents by 16.4%, while even a partial ban might decrease these losses by 4% (40). However, alcohol marketing is primarily self-regulated which allows alcohol corporations to develop their own marketing guidelines. During COVID-19, South Africa has implemented periodic alcohol bans and restrictions to lower the number of trauma-related hospitalizations and to ensure that the health system had sufficient capacity to handle COVID-19 cases. However, the alcohol industry consistently opposed these measures, arguing that they lead to economic harm, illicit trade as well as insufficient evidence on the benefits of alcohol bans (41). To resist these regulations, the industry employed tactics such as lobbying, framing, and litigation. To overcome similar challenges and achieve lasting health policy changes, particularly given the demonstrated link between alcohol bans and a decline in unnatural deaths during COVID-19 (42), the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau authority should consider enacting stricter policies. These could include partial restrictions on alcohol advertising messages, timing, and placement, in conjunction with existing advertising bans on city property.

Furthermore, Black and Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods have faced a disproportionate concentration of outdoor alcohol advertisements (43) and alcohol retail locations (44). Reducing alcohol advertisement in these communities is important as it improves health equity within New York and can reduce alcohol consumption in those neighborhoods. For example, faith-based organizations successfully advocated the removal of alcohol advertising on NYC public transit in 2017 because alcohol advertisings primarily focused on stations serving neighborhoods with higher poverty and percentage of Hispanic/Latino people (45). A previous study showed that a high density of alcohol outlets corresponds with greater volumes of alcohol advertisements in those communities (46). It is critical for NYSLA to use innovative tools that account for the variations in both outlet density and population density across NYC (e.g., “a distance-based buffer weighted by population density”) (47) rather than the traditional measurement of the 200- and 500-foot rules when issuing liquor licenses, as this will also help reduce alcohol advertisement in these communities.

Maintaining limited liquor store hours on Sundays

Currently, NYSLA requires restaurants, bars, or other businesses not to sell on-premises alcohol consumption between 4:00 AM and 8:00 AM to the public Monday through Saturday, and before 12:00 PM noon on Sundays. For off-premise consumption, liquor stores, supermarkets and other businesses are not allowed to sell at three critical time points: (I) between midnight and 8:00 AM from Monday to Saturday; (II) before 12:00 PM noon and after 9:00 PM Sundays; and (III) on Christmas Day (December 25^th) (48). However, as of May 5^th, 2022, the Senate agreed to update the Blue Laws which allow alcohol retailers to open at 10:00 AM instead of the current 12:00 PM (49). Grøtting et al. showed that one additional hour of trading time leads to a modest rise in overall alcohol consumption (50). Increased alcohol use is known to correlate with a higher incidence of health and social problems within community (51-54). Furthermore, evidence suggests that restricting days and hours of alcoholic sales is effective in curbing excessive drinking and its associated harms (55).

Stricter privatization of retail alcohol sales

Following the conclusion of Prohibition in 1933, the USA legalized the import, transport, and sale of alcohol, however, some states continued to enforce prohibition laws (56), with Mississippi being the last to do so in 1966. To date, there are 17 control states where alcohol is sold through government-run retail stores and 33 license/open states where states allow privatization of retail alcohol sales by commercial interests (57). New York is an open state, issuing licenses to any entities that produce and distribute alcoholic beverages, and the state applies the three-tier system to differentiate the functions of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in the alcohol distribution chain (58). A benefit of being a control state is that it can earn a decent amount of revenue from liquor stores’ solid profit margin and which, in turn, can be reinvested into the community initiatives, including improvements in public education and the provision of affordable healthcare (59). However, a comprehensive analysis of 17 studies examining the impact of private ownership of alcohol stores showed that re-monopolizing alcohol sales was linked to a reduction in alcohol-related harm (56). In contrast, privatization led to an averageannual increase of 1.7 liters per person in pure alcohol consumption. Additionally, privatizing alcohol sales led to a 44.4% median increase in alcohol consumption per person, while non-privatized alcohol sales saw a median decline of 2.2% (56). Therefore, privatizing retail alcohol sales contributes to higher rates of excessive alcohol consumption due to reduced regulation, including longer sales hours and increased marketing and promotion. Although it is an open state, New York and the NYSLA need to put stricter regulations on alcohol sales and distribution. For example, it is critical for the state to increase the sales tax for beer, distilled spirits, and wine as well as consider setting up a floor minimum price. Additionally, the state could partner with alcohol wholesalers and retailers to select the products that will be available for purchase. If these stricter regulations are put in place, there can be a notable decline in alcohol use and alcohol-related harm. These strategies are considered “best buy” interventions by the World Health Organization, meaning they are highly cost-effective and feasible for implementation (60).

Implementing pricing strategies to increase the cost of alcohol by increasing tax and establishing a floor minimum price

A systematic review of 112 studies showed that increasing alcohol prices by 10% resulted in about 5% reduction in drinking, and increasing the alcohol tax twofold could lower alcohol-related issues by an average of 35% along with decreases in sexually transmitted infection (by 6%) and traffic fatalities (by 11%) (61). Furthermore, increased beer tax was linked to lower beer consumption and a lower likelihood of alcohol-related problems among Black individuals. Similarly, higher taxes on spirits were associated with lower beer consumption among Hispanic/Latino individuals (62). Another case-study in Hawaii found that raising the alcohol tax by $0.1 per drink could generate $58 million in revenue and boost economic productivity by $59 million (63). To discourage people who do not drink from starting and encouraging people who drink to quit or cut back, increasing the price through taxes and setting up a floor price for alcoholic products are necessary.

For example, Scotland was the pioneer in introducting minimum unit pricing to address the substantial harm caused by strong and low-cost alcohol, which led to a 3% reduction in alcohol sales per adults compared to the previous year (64). Increasing the price of alcoholic products via increasing tax and setting up a floor minimum price could change consumers’ consumption habits by cutting back on non-essential items such as alcohol and increasing spending on food and grocery products. This is particularly relevant given that the USA reached its highest rate of inflation of 8.5% since 1982 in the wake of COVID-19 (65). Therefore, implementing pricing strategies led by NSYLA would not only save lives and reduce alcohol-related consequences, but also contribute to societal development.

Integrating alcohol-related care and mental health care into primary care

In addition to changes in policies, treatment methods to mitigate alcohol misuse should be more accessible to the public and vulnerable populations, especially Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals. These populations faced increased structural inequities (e.g., being uninsured, inequities in social and economic factors) to accessing mental health and substance use disorder treatment during the pandemic. To overcome these challenges, a potential solution could be to integrate alcohol and mental health care into primary care (66,67). A randomized controlled trial with 74,225 patients in Washington State revealed that integrating alcohol-related care into primary care settings led to a 50% increase in the number of new alcohol use disorder diagnosis and a 54% increase in the initiation of treatment within two weeks of diagnoses (67). Given successful models in California and Washington, the New York State Department of Health needs to take a bold step to assess and pilot this ambitious integration into healthcare strategic plan.

Additionally, the implementation of the New York State Level of Care for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referral—a tool designed to assess individual circumstances and needs to recommend the most suitable treatment level—is proven to help clients remain in treatment for at least six months when they are admitted to outpatient care rather than to inpatient treatment (68). This tool has garnered favorable feedback from healthcare professionals and insurance providers for its practicality and clinical utility. Hence, it is essential to encourage providers to use this assistance tool across over 900 state-certified treatment programs in New York.

Conclusions

The syndemic of alcohol misuse and mental health problems could continue or even worsen for several years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Stricter policies (e.g., restrictions on liquor store hours, regulations on alcohol marketing, pricing strategies, and privatization of retail alcohol sales) and other effective interventions (e.g., integration of alcohol and mental health care into primary care) should be put in place to mitigate the negative interaction between mental health and alcohol misuse, especially among minoritized communities in big cities like NYC which were hard hit by COVID-19. It is essential for the state and city governors to build long-term prevention strategies in advance to address predictable public health issues such as increased consumption of alcohol and mental health problems following pandemics.

Acknowledgments

The author extends gratitude to Prof. Nicholas Freudenberg at the CUNY School of Public Health and Health Policy and Prof. Joseph P. Dario at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai for their invaluable guidance on the early draft of this manuscript.

Funding: None.

Footnote

Peer Review File: Available at https://jhmhp.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jhmhp-24-66/prf

Conflicts of Interest: The author has completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jhmhp.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jhmhp-24-66/coif). The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The author is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. The American Academy of Family Physicians. Alcohol misuse [cited 2022 December 27]. Available online: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/patient-care/care-resources/substance-abuse-addiction/alcohol-misuse.html
2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Alcohol facts and statistics (cited 2022 September 1). Available online: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
3. GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018;392:1015-35. Erratum in: Lancet 2018;392:1116 Erratum in: Lancet 2019;393:e44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol-related disease impact (ARDI) application 2013 [cited 2022 August 8]. Available online: https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/default/default.aspx
5. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Alcohol-Related Emergencies and Deaths in the United States 2024 [August 9, 2024]. Available online: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/alcohol-related-emergencies-and-deaths-united-states
6. NYC Health. Alcohol and drug use 2019 [cited 2022 October 13]. Available online: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/alcohol-and-drug-use.page
7. Sacks JJ, Gonzales KR, Bouchery EE, et al. 2010 National and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption. Am J Prev Med 2015;49:e73-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Strategies V. The sobering truth: incentivizing alcohol death and disability, an NCD policy report. New York: Vital Strategies; 2021.
9. Pollard MS, Tucker JS, Green HD Jr. Changes in Adult Alcohol Use and Consequences During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2022942. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Vu TT, Dario JP, Mateu-Gelabert P, et al. Alcohol Misuse, Binge Drinking, and their Associations with Psychosocial Factors during COVID-19 among Harlem Residents in New York City. J Urban Health 2023;100:638-48. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Vu TT, Dario JP, Mateu-Gelabert P, et al. Substance Use Patterns and Their Association with Depression and Social Factors During COVID-19 Among Harlem Residents in New York City. J Community Health 2023;48:937-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Arndt S, Vélez MB, Segre L, et al. Remission from substance dependence in U.S. Whites, African Americans, and Latinos. J Ethn Subst Abuse 2010;9:237-48. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. To SE. Alcohol dependence patterns and their impact on New York City. MedGenMed 2007;9:23. [PubMed]
14. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, et al. Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001-2002. Addiction 2005;100:281-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Chartier K, Caetano R. Ethnicity and health disparities in alcohol research. Alcohol Res Health 2010;33:152-60. [PubMed]
16. Bluthenthal RN, Jacobson JO, Robinson PL. Are racial disparities in alcohol treatment completion associated with racial differences in treatment modality entry? Comparison of outpatient treatment and residential treatment in Los Angeles County, 1998 to 2000. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007;31:1920-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Saloner B, Lê Cook B. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely than whites to complete addiction treatment, largely due to socioeconomic factors. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:135-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Treatment for alcohol problems: Finding and getting help. 2021.
19. Lipari RN, Van Horn SL. Trends in substance use disorders among adults aged 18 or older. Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2017.
20. Farahmand P, Arshed A, Bradley Mark V. Systemic Racism and Substance Use Disorders. Psychiatric Annals 2020;50:494-8. [Crossref]
21. Boscarino JA, Kirchner HL, Hoffman SN, et al. PTSD and alcohol use after the World Trade Center attacks: a longitudinal study. J Trauma Stress 2011;24:515-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Da BL, Im GY, Schiano TD. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hangover: A Rising Tide of Alcohol Use Disorder and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease. Hepatology 2020;72:1102-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. COVID-19 Tracking Survey Methodology. NYC, New York: City University of New York; 2021.
24. NY Health. Mental health impact of the Coronavirus pandemic in New York State. NYC, New York; 2021.
25. NYC Health. New data on COVID-19 and mental health in New York City NYC, New York2020 [cited 2022 October 13]. Available online: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/about/press/pr2020/new-data-on-covid-19-mental-health.page
26. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. COVID-19 Data NYC, New York [cited 2022 October 22]. Available online: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.page
27. Gwynn RC. Health Inequity and the Unfair Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Essential Workers. Am J Public Health 2021;111:1459-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Plata A, Motoki K, Spence C, et al. Trends in alcohol consumption in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-country analysis. Int J Gastron Food Sci 2022;27:100397. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Movendi International. How COVID-19 affects alcohol, advertising industries Sweden: Movendi International office; 2020 [cited 2022 November 29]. Available online: https://movendi.ngo/news/2020/03/27/how-covid-19-affects-alcohol-advertising-industries/
30. Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Cancer Council Western Australia. An alcohol ad every 35 seconds. A snapshot of how the alcohol industry is using a global pandemic as a marketing opportunity. Australia; 2020. Available online: https://fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020-05-08-CCWA-FARE-An-alcohol-ad-every-35-seconds-A-snapshot-final.pdf
31. Grossman ER, Benjamin-Neelon SE, Sonnenschein S. Alcohol Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey of US Adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:9189. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Castaldelli-Maia JM, Segura LE, Martins SS. The concerning increasing trend of alcohol beverage sales in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alcohol 2021;96:37-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Opara I, Malik S, Lardier DT Jr, et al. Alcohol Use Cravings as a Mediator Between Associated Risk Factors on Increased Alcohol Use among Youth Adults in New York During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Alcohol Treat Q 2021;39:415-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Mountainside. New York bans alcohol ads on City property [cited 2022 December 13]. Available online: https://mountainside.com/blog/alcohol/ny-bans-alcohol-ads-on-city-property/#:~:text=New%20York%20City%20has%20declared,LinkNYC%20kiosks%2C%20and%20recycling%20kiosks
35. New York State Liquor Authority. "Measuring the distance”: The 200 and 500 foot rules. In: Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. New York: New York State Liquor Authority; 2018. Available online: https://sla.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/06/200-500-foot-rules-050213.pdf
36. Hippensteel CL, Sadler RC, Milam AJ, et al. Using Zoning as a Public Health Tool to Reduce Oversaturation of Alcohol Outlets: an Examination of the Effects of the New "300 Foot Rule" on Packaged Goods Stores in a Mid-Atlantic City. Prev Sci 2019;20:833-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Springer J. The "500-foot-rule" explained 2020 [August 15, 2024]. Available online: https://liquorlicensenewyork.com/2020/06/liquor-license-101-the-500-foot-rule/
38. Stockwell T, Giesbrecht N, Vallance K, et al. Government Options to Reduce the Impact of Alcohol on Human Health: Obstacles to Effective Policy Implementation. Nutrients 2021;13:2846. [Crossref] [PubMed]
39. Snyder LB, Milici FF, Slater M, et al. Effects of alcohol advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:18-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Hollingworth W, Ebel BE, McCarty CA, et al. Prevention of deaths from harmful drinking in the United States: the potential effects of tax increases and advertising bans on young drinkers. J Stud Alcohol 2006;67:300-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
41. Ngqangashe Y, Heenan M, Pescud M. Regulating Alcohol: Strategies Used by Actors to Influence COVID-19 Related Alcohol Bans in South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:11494. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Moultrie TA, Dorrington RE, Laubscher R, et al. Unnatural deaths, alcohol bans and curfews: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment during COVID-19. S Afr Med J 2021;111:834-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Hackbarth DP, Schnopp-Wyatt D, Katz D, et al. Collaborative research and action to control the geographic placement of outdoor advertising of alcohol and tobacco products in Chicago. Public Health Rep 2001;116:558-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Lee JP, Ponicki W, Mair C, et al. What explains the concentration of off-premise alcohol outlets in Black neighborhoods? SSM Popul Health 2020;12:100669. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Interfaith Public Health Network. Building alcohol-ad free transit (BAAFT) 2019 [cited 2022 November 30]. Available online: https://www.iphnetwork.org/baaft
46. Alaniz ML. Alcohol availability and targeted advertising in racial/ethnic minority communities. Alcohol Health Res World 1998;22:286-9. [PubMed]
47. Mello E, Tuazon E, Kunins HV, et al. Measuring alcohol outlet density and its associations with alcohol-related morbidity in New York City. NYC, New York: NYC Health; 2019.
48. American Safety Council Inc. New York Alcohol Laws NYC, New York 2022 [cited 2022 October 13]. Available online: https://www.newyorkalcoholtraining.com/ny-alcohol-laws/
49. The New York Senate. Blue Laws updates NYC, New York2022 [cited 2022 October 13]. Available online: https://www.nysenate.gov/issues/blue-laws
50. Grøtting MW, Bergsvik D, Rossow I. Effect of extended trading hours on alcohol sales in Norway: study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial. Addiction 2022;117:826-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Babor TF, Caetano R, Casswell S, et al. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy: Oxford University Press; 2010. Available online: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199551149.001.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780199551149.001.0001
52. Kehoe T, Gmel G, Shield KD, et al. Determining the best population-level alcohol consumption model and its impact on estimates of alcohol-attributable harms. Popul Health Metr 2012;10:6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
53. Holmes J, Meier PS, Booth A, et al. The temporal relationship between per capita alcohol consumption and harm: a systematic review of time lag specifications in aggregate time series analyses. Drug Alcohol Depend 2012;123:7-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Rossow I, Mäkelä P. Public Health Thinking Around Alcohol-Related Harm: Why Does Per Capita Consumption Matter? J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2021;82:9-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
55. Recommendations on maintaining limits on days and hours of sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Am J Prev Med 2010;39:605-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
56. Hahn RA, Middleton JC, Elder R, et al. Effects of alcohol retail privatization on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: a community guide systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2012;42:418-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
57. National Research Council (US) Panel on Alternative Policies Affecting the Prevention of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical Overview. In: Moore MH, Gerstein DR. editors. Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition. Washington (DC); 1981.
58. New York State Liquor Authority. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law NYC, New York [cited 2022 October 13]. Available online: https://sla.ny.gov/alcoholic-beverage-control-law
59. Overproof. Launching Your Alcohol Brand in Control States Vs. Open States Miami, Florida2022 [cited 2022 November 3]. Available online: https://overproof.com/2022/03/07/control-states-vs-open-states/#
60. World Health Organization. ‘Best buys’ and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases Geneva, Switzerland2017 [August 15, 2024]. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/259232/WHO-NMH-NVI-17.9-eng.pdf
61. Wagenaar AC, Tobler AL, Komro KA. Effects of alcohol tax and price policies on morbidity and mortality: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 2010;100:2270-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
62. Subbaraman MS, Mulia N, Kerr WC, et al. Relationships between US state alcohol policies and alcohol outcomes: differences by gender and race/ethnicity. Addiction 2020;115:1285-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
63. University of Hawaii. Dime-a-drink alcohol tax increase could cut alcohol consumption, raise $58M Honolulu, Hawaii: 2022; 2022 [cited 2022 November 2]. Available online: https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2022/02/07/dime-a-drink-alcohol-tax/
64. Scottish government. Alcohol sales fall to 25 year low 2019 [cited 2022 November 29]. Available online: https://www.gov.scot/news/alcohol-sales-fall-to-25-year-low/
65. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. TED: The economics daily Washington, DC2023 [August 15, 2024]. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/consumer-prices-up-3-2-percent-from-july-2022-to-july-2023.htm
66. Padwa H, Urada D, Antonini VP, et al. Integrating substance use disorder services with primary care: the experience in California. J Psychoactive Drugs 2012;44:299-306. [Crossref] [PubMed]
67. Bobb JF, Lee AK, Lapham GT, et al. Evaluation of a Pilot Implementation to Integrate Alcohol-Related Care within Primary Care. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;14:1030. [Crossref] [PubMed]
68. Neighbors CJ, Hussain S, O'Grady M, et al. Predictive validity of the New York State Level of Care for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referral (LOCADTR) for continuous engagement in treatment among individuals recommended for outpatient care. J Subst Abuse Treat 2021;131:108559. [Crossref] [PubMed]