Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

225 | 226 | 227

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Rahodeb

Rahodeb

Los Angeles, CA
March 2006

MAR 21, 2006 12:39 PM

How about this for a show of social-scientific genius: a report in this month's issue of The Journal of Studies on Alcohol hinges on the argument that fewer ads and higher taxes would diminish youth drinking.

A team at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (HIPRC) and the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed literature on the subject and discussed the issue with experts to determine the most effective methods of reducing youth drinking. They compared strategies such as increasing taxation, restricting advertising, family-based interventions, programs to prevent drinking and driving, and school-, community-, and college-based anti-drinking programs.

The Seattle group found the price of alcohol has a real impact in reducing harmful drinking by youth. They projected that a tax increase of $1 per six-pack of beer would reduce harmful drinking and prevent an estimated 1,490 U.S. deaths per year.

A ban on alcohol advertising would be even more effective, saving an estimated 7,610 lives a year (which would represent a 13.8 percent decrease in alcohol-related deaths), the researchers said.



One can't help but wonder how much time and money went into (read: was wasted on) this study. One also might wonder what (if any) cultural context this study considered. There's a contingent in the U.S. that argues America's high drinking age is to blame for the mystique of underage consumption. Rather than banning ads or raising taxes, a savvy social scientist might consider how America's high drinking age has led way to a cottage industry of fake I.D. cards (I fondly remember my own personal visit to 7th and Alvarado in Los Angeles as a teenager). Internationally, the average drinking age is about 18—which is, it's relevant to note, the age at which young Americans can vote, marry without parental consent, and enlist in the military—but the U.S. joins only a handful of countries like Malaysia, South Korea, and Ukraine in its Puritanical ideology about drinking age.

Perhaps America's cultural relationship with alcohol will have to change before social scientists like those who authored "Prevention of Deaths From Harmful Drinking in the United States: The Potential Effects of Tax Increases and Advertising Bans on Young Drinkers" see the kind of responsible drinking they desire. They might take a lesson from certain southern European countries like Italy, Spain, France and Greece, where "alcohol is traditionally an accepted, unremarkable and morally neutral element of everyday life." I nominate Jenna Bush to author the next report for The Journal of Studies on Alcohol.

alpha_hazard

alpha_hazard

Fort Collins, CO
April 2004

MAR 21, 2006 12:43 PM

The alcohol taxes aren't higher enough already?

ANd I'm sorry to say it, but I can't think of the last time I saw a keystone or mickey's ad, and that's all I drank when I was underage.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

MAR 21, 2006 12:47 PM

This is the most retarded study.



Ever.

SignalNoise

SignalNoise

USA
February 2004

MAR 21, 2006 12:56 PM

i always dig when people make stupid jabs at articles without doing cool things like looking at the actual data or models.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

MAR 21, 2006 01:00 PM

SignalNoise said:
i always dig when people make stupid jabs at articles without doing cool things like looking at the actual data or models.


All you need to do is think about it logically.

People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.

Advertising doesn't get them to drink alcohol in the first place, the best it can do is sway them to choose a particular brand. No kid needs an ad to remind them of the existence of alcohol.

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

MAR 21, 2006 01:05 PM

StarBelliedBoy said:

SignalNoise said:
i always dig when people make stupid jabs at articles without doing cool things like looking at the actual data or models.


All you need to do is think about it logically.

People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.

Advertising doesn't get them to drink alcohol in the first place, the best it can do is sway them to choose a particular brand. No kid needs an ad to remind them of the existence of alcohol.



smart boy

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

MAR 21, 2006 01:05 PM

A team of whats?

I actually heard that the people who are most likely to drink less as taxes increase are responsible, legal drinkers while the people who are least likely to have their drinking habits affected are underaged drinkers. Do we really expect kids who drink a lot to be responsible spenders?

TheFly

TheFly

Eagle Springs, NC
November 2003

MAR 21, 2006 01:08 PM

Aaaaaaggggghhhhhhh!!!!

The Irish are fucked!!


blush Sorry, overreacting blush

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 21, 2006 01:10 PM

StarBelliedBoy said:

SignalNoise said:
i always dig when people make stupid jabs at articles without doing cool things like looking at the actual data or models.


All you need to do is think about it logically.


In which case who needs researchers ever, eh?

We just need to "think about it logically", whatever it is.

SN's point stands. You can snark about the "logica" of this study all you like, but until we know the actual reasoning, data and methodology behind statements like "The Seattle group found the price of alcohol has a real impact in reducing harmful drinking by youth.", then we can't say how dumb or otherwise it is.

I reacl lots and lots and lots of snarking of the "think about it logically" kind regarding Steve Levitt's argument about a link between legal abortions and declining crime. Now his book's a bestseller and his argument has received wide acceptance.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

MAR 21, 2006 01:11 PM

Holy shit, I'm astonished to learn that South Korea and Ukraine have a drinking age of 21. Both countries have a pretty well-entrenched drinking culture, if I'm not mistaken.

As for Malaysia, that also comes as a shock - next door in Singapore the age is 18.

ResidentLune

ResidentLune

Columbus, OH
January 2006

MAR 21, 2006 02:07 PM

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

MAR 21, 2006 02:11 PM

ResidentLune said:

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.



And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

MAR 21, 2006 02:15 PM

ResidentLune said:

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.


That doesn't really apply to this situation because most teen drinkers aren't habitual users so much as recreational. For the most part, they aren't drinking out of compulsion like they might be smoking, and so they're not likely to feel a need to quit that might be aided by saving money.

Kindle

Kindle

Houston, TX
March 2006

MAR 21, 2006 02:17 PM

MrStitches said:

ResidentLune said:

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.



And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.



Yet they do.. think seat belt law..

Not_a_sicko

Not_a_sicko

Netherlands
September 2005

MAR 21, 2006 02:25 PM

MrStitches said:
And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.


I think most of the alochol-related deaths that are mentioned have to do with drunk driving. And drunk drivers quite often hurt other people.

PhotoBeatsFilm

PhotoBeatsFilm

Jamaica
February 2006

MAR 21, 2006 02:35 PM

MrStitches said:

ResidentLune said:

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.



And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.






But it is the governments job to stop people from doing things that hurt others.

The only way that we'll ever know if raising taxes and cutting down ads would slow down youth drinking is by making it happen.

Do I THINK it'll change anything? Absolutely not. Kids have a dollar to spare. When I was a broke teenager, I looked older than everyone else and I had a fake ID. People used to give me way more money than I needed to buy alcohal, and they didn't care if I kept the change (that's how I'd pay for my MD 20/20s and cigarettes). Also... 40s cost like what? a dollar fifty?

I sitll have my collection of fake IDs. They're great.

ResidentLune

ResidentLune

Columbus, OH
January 2006

MAR 21, 2006 02:39 PM


MrStitches said:
And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.



I never said it was good or bad. Just making an observation that the particular initiative of taxing or raising something's price has worked in the past with other things.



StarBelliedBoy said:
That doesn't really apply to this situation because most teen drinkers aren't habitual users so much as recreational. For the most part, they aren't drinking out of compulsion like they might be smoking, and so they're not likely to feel a need to quit that might be aided by saving money.



You're right. Most teenage drinks aren't of the habitual kind, and their drinking is less compulsion and more recreational (though the effects of peer pressure could be debated concerning mental/emotional compulsion but not physical compulsion).

But again, higher prices is a proven deterrent. Regardless of the legitimacy of whether or not it should happen, it can work when done right.

ZPO

ZPO

Roy, WA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2006 02:43 PM

According to the article, the researches did a literature review and discussed the issue with experts. Unless there is a double-blind experiment buried somewhere in the article - no abstract available - then its just another mishmash of opinions.

Want to curb DUI? - mandatory jail sentence for a first offense. How many people who get pulled over on a DUI stop are really doing DUI for the first time? It is just the first time they got caught. How about 1 year for a first and 5 years for a second? Throw in suspension of drivers licenses for twice the above and we're getting somewhere.

DUI Deaths? - first degree murder - you drank by choice, you drove by choice knowing the risks - you killed somebody - that sounds like premeditation to me.

djbenvolio

djbenvolio

Westerville, OH
January 2004

MAR 21, 2006 02:51 PM

first, i work in a beer distributor.

that said, i card anyone who looks under 30. you'd better have a damn fine looking fake id to get out the door with a case if i'm on the clock.

making people pay more for something they can legaly buy to deter the illegal purchase of someone who can't is bullshit. would there be a grey area barrier set up? example- if you're between the ages of 21 and 31 you have to pay a higher tax because you're still young and might be buying it for some kid. however once you're 32 no higer tax for you because you've been in and out of that store for years and we know it's just yourself that you're buying that busch light for.

either way, it comes down to good parenting. knowing what your kids are doing instead of handing them 20 dollars and saying be home by midnight.

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

MAR 21, 2006 03:28 PM

PhotoBeatsFilm said:

MrStitches said:

ResidentLune said:

StarBelliedBoy said:
People don't drink alcohol because it's cheap. Making it more expensive will just force kids to choose a cheaper brand than usual.



While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.



And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.






But it is the governments job to stop people from doing things that hurt others.

The only way that we'll ever know if raising taxes and cutting down ads would slow down youth drinking is by making it happen.

Do I THINK it'll change anything? Absolutely not. Kids have a dollar to spare. When I was a broke teenager, I looked older than everyone else and I had a fake ID. People used to give me way more money than I needed to buy alcohal, and they didn't care if I kept the change (that's how I'd pay for my MD 20/20s and cigarettes). Also... 40s cost like what? a dollar fifty?

I sitll have my collection of fake IDs. They're great.



Raising taxes doesn't qualify as stopping people from hurting kids. It's supposed to make it so kids can't afford to hurt themselves. Which is their parents' job, not the governments. As for the advertising, I don't understand why first amendment rights shouldn't apply there.

sairaj

sairaj

Portland, OR
August 2004

MAR 21, 2006 09:00 PM

All you need is a 3 gallon jug, some fresh fruit, some sugar, some water, some yeast and about 24 hours of patience, the most difficult ingredient. Oh, and a piece of tubing...1/2" diameter...anyway, you and your buddies will be getting drunk, no problem. Alchohol is the easiest drug to manufacture that I know of. Kids are making meth, why wouldn't they make alchohol.

mitchclem

mitchclem

San Antonio, TX
August 2005

MAR 21, 2006 09:25 PM

Hey, let's just make it illegal altogether, right?

Anyhow, I hear all this stuff about "Oh, France let's ten year-olds drink and THEY don't have alcohol problems! Heroin is legal in Amsterdam and THEY don't have drug addicts!" (or whatever) as reasoning to lax on our laws here. Now, I'm not in any way defending the way we do things here (I personally believe we should legalize all drugs and drop the drinking age to 18), but one has to consider America as a nation of excess.

Think about it: they have McDonalds in France and Amsterdam too, right? But those guys aren't eating it for every meal like a lot of us here, and they don't have the problems with obesity like we do. I think looking at random laws other countries have as an example of how to do things over here fails to take into account that we're pretty much fucked here no matter what we do. Will letting ten year-olds in America go into a store and buy beer without issue really curb kids drinking alcohol? All the alcoholics I know are legal.

themilkman

themilkman

Penticton, BC
October 2005

MAR 21, 2006 09:33 PM

MrStitches said:

ResidentLune said:

While no one may drink alcohol because it is cheap, raising the price of something has always been a rather powerful deterrant.

Just look at the heavy taxing of cigarettes. It's true that other powers and initiatives against the use of cigarettes come into play when considering the decline of their use, however the over-the-top taxation has certainly deterred people from using them as much.

Why do you think people keep track of money they have saved by kicking the habit? Because it's quite the noticable financial return.



And just because it deters people doesn't mean it is okay. It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that only hurts themselves.


well said MrStitches

naulite

naulite

Kingman, AZ
June 2005

MAR 21, 2006 10:08 PM

TheFly said:
Aaaaaaggggghhhhhhh!!!!

The Irish are fucked!!


blush Sorry, overreacting blush



Why did God create whiskey?

To keep the Irish from ruling the world!!

It's a no win situation really.

witchhunter

witchhunter

Jackson, TN
February 2003

MAR 21, 2006 10:59 PM

sairaj said:
All you need is a 3 gallon jug, some fresh fruit, some sugar, some water, some yeast and about 24 hours of patience, the most difficult ingredient. Oh, and a piece of tubing...1/2" diameter...anyway, you and your buddies will be getting drunk, no problem. Alchohol is the easiest drug to manufacture that I know of. Kids are making meth, why wouldn't they make alchohol.



Agreed. Governmnet increases taxes? I'll increase production.
Five dollars a gallon, just srand in line. Drink more than you should and you might go blind.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next