Daiquiris and drive-bys

More liquor stores in a neighborhood mean more drinking. They also mean more violence.


Would you go a mile or two out of your way for the neighborhood liquor store? What if it was only half a block away, and there were a couple more like it down the street? Not surprisingly, researchers have found that the number of alcohol outlets in a given area is directly related to how much alcohol that area consumes. “We have a whole body of science,” says Robert Reynolds of the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, “that says if you increase the physical distance between outlets, the amount of drinking in a community goes down.”

And, notably, so may the violence. A soon-to-be-released book by sociologist Robert Nash Parker, “Alcohol and Homicide: A Deadly Combination of Two American Traditions,” cites a 20-year study of 256 U.S. cities demonstrating that alcohol outlet density has a significant effect on that area’s homicide rates, and that the nationwide increase in outlet density from 1960 to 1980 played a major role in the skyrocketing violence during that period.

In his study, Parker was able to factor out other causes of inner-city violence such as poverty, ethnicity, and family structure. He concluded that high alcohol outlet density doesn’t just coincide with a high level of violence in the area, but is in fact a cause of it. Other studies show that almost 50 percent of convicted homicide offenders used alcohol prior to committing their crimes; a Canadian study shows 42 percent of all violent incidents involve alcohol consumption.

Activists working to stem violence are already arming themselves with Parker’s statistics. In Salinas, California, local activists persuaded the city council to deny licensure to a liquor outlet by using Parker’s data, according to activist Linda Padilla-Sanchez, “to back up our emotional outcry against liquor-store saturation.” Parker and his colleagues hope his research empowers other communities to prevent alcohol outlets, and the attendant culture of violence, from overrunning their neighborhoods.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.