), total
amount of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE
drinking increased among 18-20 year olds.
1. any takers on why?
2. is a forbidden fruit argument consistent with economic rationality?
1. I reckon that venue counts on this issue. Dropping the legal age to 18 drives
drinking
From: Edward Lopez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Excessive drinking
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:42:18 -0500
1. I reckon that venue counts on this issue. Dropping the legal age to 18
drives drinking underground: out of bars and restaurants
On Monday, September 24, 2001 2:27 AM Krist van Besien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My theory on this has always been that the incidence of alcohol
overdosage
goes up as drinking age increases (though I've never seen anything to
support this, it seems logically sound).
In Belgium, where I grew
On 12 Sep 2001 23:04:46 -0400, John Perich wrote:
My theory on this has always been that the incidence of alcohol
overdosage
goes up as drinking age increases (though I've never seen anything to
support this, it seems logically sound).
In Belgium, where I grew up, there is no legal
Subject: Re: Excessive drinking
When a good is made illegal consumers react by squeezing more
consumption into a shorter period of time in order to minimize the chances
of getting caught per unit of pleasure. Thus, it is a common observation
that adults drink more often than teenagers
My understanding of economic rationality is that people act rationally to
maximize what they perceive to be their utility. Thus a forbidden fruit
hypothesis makes sense if and only if people believe they derive utility from
doing something which society at large finds unacceptable, by virtue
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University notes that
since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total amount of alcohol
consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking increased among 18-20 year
olds.
1. any takers on why?
2
Edward Lopez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University no
tes that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total amo
unt of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking incre
ased among 18-20
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University
notes that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total
amount of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking
increased among 18-20 year olds.
1. any takers on why?
2
1. any takers on why?
How about learning? Younger people, by definition have less experience/
knowledge. they probably have less emotional control than older
people.
2. is a forbidden fruit argument consistent with economic rationality?
Depends on definition of economic rationality. if
Ed Lopez wrote:
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University
notes that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total
amount of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking
increased among 18-20 year olds.
1. any takers on why
On Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:49 PM Brian Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The forbidden fruit argument might make sense, but I doubt that most
drinking is about getting caught. People over 21 still drink and binge,
though I would be interested to see how much in comparison to those
From: Edward Lopez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Excessive drinking
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:15:40 -0500
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University
notes that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21
of being caught).
Alex
Edward Lopez wrote:
In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University notes
that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total amount of
alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking increased among
18-20 year olds
14 matches
Mail list logo
