NEWS: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Drink No Evil

CULTURE: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Drink No Evil

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.

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.

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.

This is the most retarded study.



Ever.

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

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?

Aaaaaaggggghhhhhhh!!!!

The Irish are fucked!!


Sorry, overreacting

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet they do.. think seat belt law..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

well said MrStitches

Why did God create whiskey?

To keep the Irish from ruling the world!!

It's a no win situation really.

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.