Alcohol supply as a favour for a friend: Scenarios of alcohol supply to younger friends and siblings.

ISSUES ADDRESSED: Adolescents under the legal purchase age primarily source their alcohol through social networks. This study assessed the provision context from the perspective of both underage recipients and their suppliers who were older peers and siblings. METHODS: Interviewer-administered surveys were conducted with 590 risky-drinking (50 g alcohol per session, at least monthly) adolescents. Participants of legal purchase age (18- to 19-year-olds; n = 269) reported their provision to 16- to 17-year-olds under eight scenarios. Those aged 14-17 (n = 321) reported receipt of alcohol under the same scenarios plus two parental supply contexts. RESULTS: Purchase-age participants reported supply: to an underage friend (67%), an acquaintance (44%) or a sibling (16%) to drink at the same party; to a friend (43%) or sibling (20%) to take to another party (20%) and to a stranger near a bottle shop (5%). Supply to a friend at the same party was more likely if money was exchanged (60% vs 40%; P < 0.001). Almost all (98%) 14- to 17-year-olds reported receiving alcohol from an adult (including 36% from a parent for consumption away from the parent), with a similar pattern of receipt scenarios as those reported by the 18- to 19-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of alcohol was more frequent with a friend than a sibling or stranger, in close environmental proximity, and if money was exchanged. SO WHAT?: As supply may be sensitive to monetary considerations, the incidence of underage receipt may be affected by community-wide pricing measures. Traditional alcohol availability regulations should be supplemented by strategies relating to the social nature of supply and demand.

Assessing options for cannabis law reform: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with stakeholders in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: A number of jurisdictions are considering or implementing different options for cannabis law reform, including New Zealand. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) helps facilitate the resolution of complex policy decisions by breaking them down into key criteria and drawing on the combined knowledge of experts from various backgrounds. AIMS: To rank cannabis law reform options by facilitating expert stakeholders to express preferences for projected reform outcomes using MCDA. METHODS: A group of cannabis policy experts projected the outcomes of eight cannabis policy options (i.e., prohibition, decriminalization, social clubs, government monopoly, not-for-profit trusts, strict regulation, light regulation, and unrestricted market) based on five criteria (i.e., health and social harm, illegal market size, arrests, tax income, treatment services). A facilitated workshop of 42 key national stakeholders expressed preferences for different reform outcomes and doing so generated relative weights for each criterion and level. The resulting weights were then used to rank the eight policy options. RESULTS: The relative weighting of the criteria were: "reducing health and social harm" (46%), "reducing arrests" (31%), "reducing the illegal market" (13%), "expanding treatment" (8%) and "earning tax" (2%). The top ranked reform options were: "government monopoly" (81%), "not-for-profit" (73%) and "strict market regulation" (65%). These three received higher scores due to their projected lower impact on health and social harm, medium reduction in arrests, and medium reduction in the illegal market. The "lightly regulated market" option scored lower largely due its projected greater increase in health and social harm. "Prohibition" ranked lowest due to its lack of impact on reducing the number of arrests or size of the illegal market. CONCLUSION: Strictly regulated legal market options were ranked higher than both the current prohibition, and alternatively, more lightly regulated legal market options, as they were projected to minimize health and social harms while substantially reducing arrests and the illegal market.

From eye rolls to punches: experiences of harm from others' drinking among risky-drinking adolescents across Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Exploration of experience of harms due to another person's drinking within a demographic particularly vulnerable to these consequences. Importance of study: Largest sampling of young Australian risky drinkers, who are underrepresented in general population surveys. The range of harms due to others' drinking reported here is more comprehensive than documented elsewhere. STUDY TYPE: Cross-sectional self-report survey. METHODS: Participants were 14-19 years old and screened as being within the riskiest-drinking 25% for their age cohort. The convenience sample of 3465 was recruited primarily by social media advertising. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in all eight Australian capital cities (n = 596), supplemented by online surveys (n = 2869). Past 12-month experience of 13 harms due to others' drinking was assessed by age, gender and perpetrator. RESULTS: Females were more likely to experience seven harms, mainly characterised by fear and harassment, including being harassed or bothered at a party or some other private setting (41% vs 34% of males, p < 0.001), being given unwanted sexual attention (71% vs 47%, p < 0.001) and being put in fear (33% vs 20%, p < 0.001). Males were more likely to experience three harms, characterised by aggression: being yelled at, criticised or verbally abused (38% vs 33% of females, p = 0.002), being pushed or shoved (42% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and being physically hurt (17% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Teenagers of a legal alcohol-purchase age were more likely to experience harassment in public settings (49% vs 32-34%, p < 0.001) and unwanted sexual attention (66% vs 51-59%, p < 0.001) compared with younger teenagers. Seven of the harms studied were more likely (p < 0.01) to be perpetrated by people the respondents knew, and five (those associated with fear and aggression) were more likely to be perpetrated by strangers. CONCLUSION: Young people who are risky drinkers commonly experience multiple harms from others' drinking. Many of these alcohol harms to others are reported here for the first time, as previous studies of adolescent drinking have focused almost exclusively on the harms young people have experienced from their own drinking. This refocusing on the harms caused by the drinking of others may prompt greater community concern and concomitant calls for better alcohol regulation.

Alcohol policy impact on young risky drinkers and their support for proposed measures.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impacts of existing policies on young Australian risky drinkers' access to alcohol and to gauge their support for proposed alcohol measures. METHODS: The 16-19 year old participants were recruited from three Australian states using non-random convenience sampling, for either a face-to-face or online quantitative survey (N=958). The sample was deliberately selected to represent drinkers whose consumption placed them in the riskiest drinking 20-25% of their age bracket. RESULTS: Half (49%) the sample who were younger than the Australian legal purchase age reported it was 'easy' to buy alcohol from bottle stores, and 75% of those who had tried to purchase alcohol, said it was 'easy' the last time they tried. Half of those under 18, who had attempted to enter a licensed venue, reported they did not have their identification checked last time they gained access. Ninety per cent of all respondents drank within a private location at their last risky drinking session. Sixty-five per cent supported 'increasing the price of [alcohol by 20¢] a standard drink if the extra 20¢ was used to support prevention and treatment of alcohol problems'. CONCLUSIONS: Age- or intoxication-based restrictions to alcohol were commonly bypassed. IMPLICATIONS: Point-of-sale alcohol controls require improvement to prevent under age access. Given that a significant proportion of drinking occasions for those under 18 were in private premises, prevention strategies need to target these locations. There were diverse levels of support for strategies to reduce harm, including potential community backing for an evidence-based proposed price policy.