How big a problem is alcoholism in America? Would limiting the serving sizes of beer and liquor make a difference in the habits of either the casual or excessive drinker? If it would, should the government then step in and legislate the issue?

For President Medvedev of Russia, the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” As TIME reported over the summer, the President “said at a government meeting on Aug. 12 that alcoholism has become a ‘national calamity,’ with every man, woman and child consuming the equivalent of 4.8 gallons (18 liters) of pure rubbing alcohol per year, according to the National Institute of Health. “Imagine how many bottles of vodka that comes to — it takes your breath away,” Medvedev said. He then proposed a mixture of higher taxes and tougher laws aimed at curbing Russia’s drinking.” These tougher laws include limiting the size of beer from the normal 1-liter bottles and 5-liter kegs to 0.3-liter servings.

Before even broaching the idea of a similar strategy in the U.S., one has to ask if America’s drinking problem is even remotely as significant as the “national calamity” of Russia’s. Doctors James E. Royce and David Scratchley note that despite the difficulties in trying to compare the nations’ rate of alcoholism in per capita, America – along with France – is consistently at the top position.  In their paper, “Alcoholism and Other Drug Problems,” Royce and Scratchley detail how this high rate of alcoholism translates into a very real public danger. Roughly 73% of all felonies are alcohol-related and “in about 67 percent of child-beating cases, 41 percent of forcible rape cases, 80 percent of wife-battering, 72 percent of stabbings, and 83 percent of homicides, either the attacker or the victim had been drinking.”

In addition to the obvious human suffering related to abusive drinking, there is also a steep economic price:

“$60 billion more goes to pick up the pieces [related to alcohol abuse]: health care, motor vehicle accident losses, fire losses, losses caused by violent crime, social programs responding to the problems created by alcoholism, and loss to business and industry. Total losses to the nation from alcohol problems and alcoholism were estimated at $116.7 billion in 1982 by Research Triangle Institute, $120 billion in 1983 by the U.S. General Accounting Office, $142 billion in 1986 by the University of California at Berkeley School of Health, 136 billion in 1990 by NIAAA, and $148 billion in 1993 by MADD.”

There can be little doubt that, like Russia, America should be deeply concerned about alcoholism. Also like Russia, several states are proposing new taxes on drinks, both to recoup some of the losses related to alcohol-related crimes and to attempt to steer people away from buying one too many. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA) argue, “researchers have estimated that even a small increase in the price of beer […] would reduce the number of 16- to 21-year-olds who drink by approximately 11 percent, the number who drink two or three times per week by 8 percent, and the number who consume three to five cans of beer on a typical drinking day by 15 percent.” Arguably more importantly, the NIAA also found that “states that had relatively high excise taxes on beer were found to have lower death rates in alcohol-related crashes for 15- to 24-year-olds.”

Yet  what about Russia’s other tactic? Would limiting the actual serving size of drinks have any appreciable effect? It’s one thing to try to price the cost of a 12-pack out of the budget of a teenager, but to essentially shrink serving sizes in the hope that alcoholics will think that asking the bartender for a few more drinks will suddenly be too heavy a burden? It’s also hard to imagine that this policy would be the most effective one if the goal is to create a safer society. If someone is addicted to alcohol and already morally depraved enough to beat his wife, abuse his or her child, or rape his date, will having to buy ten drinks instead of five really make any difference?