Alcohol taxation policy in Thailand: implications for other low‐ to middle‐income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Prevention of drinking initiation is a significant challenge in low- and middle-income countries that have a high prevalence of abstainers, including life-time abstainers. This paper aims to encourage a debate on an alternative alcohol taxation approach used currently in Thailand, which aims specifically to prevent drinking initiation in addition to reduce alcohol-attributable harms. METHODS: Theoretical evaluation, simulation and empirical analysis. RESULT: The taxation method of Thailand, 'Two-Chosen-One' (2C1) combines specific taxation (as a function of the alcohol content) and ad valorem taxation (as a function of the price), resulting in an effective tax rate that puts a higher tax both on beverages which are preferred by heavy drinkers and on beverages which are preferred by potential alcohol consumption neophytes, compared to either taxation system alone. As a result of these unique properties of the 2C1 taxation system, our simulations indicate that 2C1 taxation leads to a lower overall consumption than ad valorem or specific taxation alone. In addition, it puts a relatively high tax on beverages attractive to young people, the majority of whom are currently abstaining. Currently, the abstention rates in Thailand are higher than expected based on its economic wealth, which could be taken as an indication that the taxation strategy is successful. CONCLUSION: 'Two-chosen-one' (2C1) taxation has the potential to simultaneously reduce alcohol consumption and prevent drinking initiation among youth; however, additional empirical evidence is needed to assess its effectiveness in terms of the public health impact in low- and middle-income countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".