As
an economist and Georgia resident, I have closely followed the
developments in the Sunday alcohol sales debate. In fact, I co-authored
research refuting the New Mexico study cited by Georgia Gov. Sonny
Perdue last week that stated Sunday sales of packaged alcohol led to
increased drunken driving crashes and fatalities in that state ("Sunday
package sales will drive up deaths," @issue, March 28).
The methodology in the New Mexico study was flawed for several reasons.
The study did not account for an increase in the speed limit during
the same period Sunday sales were allowed. Changes occurred in New
Mexico that affected all accidents, not only alcohol-related accidents.
The study also did not control for officer subjectivity over whether
alcohol was a factor in the accidents.
It should also be noted that there were an average of only four more
fatal accidents every Sunday in the five years after the Sunday sales
ban was repealed. An increase so small can hardly be attributable to
Sunday sales and should not be considered sound science in any policy
debate.
Additionally, if the study had been extended past the year 2000, the
authors would have found no relationship between Sunday packaged
alcohol sales and alcohol-related crashes. If Sunday sales truly caused
more accidents, then the relationship would be stable over time.
Aside from my work, there has also been additional research in this
area by Jan Ligon, Bruce A. Thyer and Robert Lund. They found no
evidence for an increase in DUIs when Athens, Ga., allowed restaurants
to serve liquor by the drink and wine by the bottle.
As an educator, I fully agree that policy decisions should be
grounded in evidence based research. In this case, however, poorly done
research is skewing the debate on Sunday alcohol sales.
> Jason C. Rudbeck is a lecturer at the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business.
