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 but in less quantity (Thus, I have a glass of wine two to three times a week. Even binge teenager drinkers probably binge only once a week.) This idea is the consumer side equivalent to the observation that prohibition increases the incentives of seller's to push harder drugs (more dollar per oz thus reducing the chances 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. > > 1. any takers on why? > 2. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? > > Ed. > > Edward J. López > Assistant Professor > Department of Economics > University of North Texas > P.O. Box 311457 > Denton, TX 76203-1457 > Tel: 940.369.7005 > Fax: 940.565.4426 > NEW EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: www.econ.unt.edu/elopez
Re: Excessive drinking
>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 (1987), total >amount of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking >increased among 18-20 year olds. > >1. any takers on why? 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). The reasoning is that those who drink illegally have a great disincentive to go for professional help - the police, the hospitals, etc. - and will thus try and solve the problem themselves. This frequently leads to fatalities. On to the task at hand, though. Most adults tend to drink in public places - restaurants, bars, etc. - which are inaccessible, or difficult to access, for underage drinkers. As a result, underage drinkers drink in private circumstances - parties, with small groups of friends, at home when their parents are away, etc - where there are fewer "social flags" to indicate when one has "had too much." To put it simply, it's easier to tell if you're making an ass of yourself when there's a crowd around, then when only a few (equally intoxicated) friends are. To rephrase it in the jargon of the profession: drinking-age restrictions encourage drinking in private, where the social cost of excessive drinking (e.g., bad behavior) is lost. This results in higher incentives to drink to excess on those few occasions when drinking without reprisal is possible. >2. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? Not being a fan of the rationality hypothesis, I can't answer this fairly. -JP >Ed. > >Edward J. López >Assistant Professor >Department of Economics >University of North Texas >P.O. Box 311457 >Denton, TX 76203-1457 >Tel: 940.369.7005 >Fax: 940.565.4426 >NEW EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Web: www.econ.unt.edu/elopez > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Excessive drinking
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 > under 21. I know of acquaintainces in my high school that drink, and > they drink to get drunk, not to possibly get caught. I think the forbidden > fruit argument could be a small part of the cause, but that the major > reason is in my answer to #1. Forbidden fruit is not about getting caught. It's about doing stuff that is forbidden, taking risks, living dangerous, and the like. I think, also, there a huge social component involved in drug use and many other activities. Why do people drink? Some people drink to impress others. I've taken part in implicit drinking contests before. It was all about proving one person could outdrink the other. Now combine this last point with youthful inexperience and time preference. I don't think this necessarily provides an argument from economic rationality, but it does fill in some of the gaps. Later! Daniel Ust See "Macroeconomics for the Real World" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Macro.html
RE: Excessive drinking
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? It's an obvious point, but do the Indiana professor's findings control for other factors, such as price of alcohol, price of substitutes & complements (including changes in legal sanctions for consuming other drugs, police enforcement etc), income, and so on? Without knowing about what is being held constant and what isn't, how can we say anything about the effect of a particular law at the margin? Alex Robson Australian National University
Re: Excessive drinking
> 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 you mean that forbidden fruit behavior is consistent with utility maximization and non-transitive preferences, i can easily imagine that it is. if you mean that forbidden fruit behavior reflects some well thought out trade-off between present utility and future health, then that's a quetsion that's up for grabs. Fabio > Ed.
Re: Excessive drinking
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. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? 1. There are some people who, if it was legal, would drink occasionally. They want to drink enough that they will drink even if it is illegal, but not so much that normally they would binge. By making it illegal to drink for these people, it increases the risk and thus the cost of drinking. I would say this increased cost is a cost per time period of drinking. If that is so, then the rational person would drink as little as possible to minimize their cost, their chance of getting caught. But since, for some people, drinking is more important to being caught, they will still drink, just in smaller chunks of time, to reduce the chance of getting caught. In this way the raising of the drinking age could lead to increased binge drinking. The decrease in total alchohol consumed are those who value alchohol less than getting caught. 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 under 21. I know of acquaintainces in my high school that drink, and they drink to get drunk, not to possibly get caught. I think the forbidden fruit argument could be a small part of the cause, but that the major reason is in my answer to #1. Brian Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Excessive drinking message dated "Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:15:40 -0500."
""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 year olds. > > 1. any takers on why? Excessive drinkers are an annoying but small part of the student/teen/young adult population. Their excessive intake does not dent the overall loss of business due to many people of the age group abiding by the new law. > 2. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? Perhaps excessive drinkers drank excessively prior to the new law for reasons like "being cool," and placing legal age restrictions increases the effect. So, they are rational in reaching their irrational objectives. Regards, Sourav (from MIT, the home of smart people doing stupid things in really smart ways) Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
Excessive drinking
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. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? Ed. Edward J. López Assistant Professor Department of Economics University of North Texas P.O. Box 311457 Denton, TX 76203-1457 Tel: 940.369.7005 Fax: 940.565.4426 NEW EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.econ.unt.edu/elopez
