Re: Excessive drinking
I made a mistake in my last post. I meant Increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21 not dropping the drinking age to 18. Cheers! 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/01 02:42PM For reference, my original question, and my take below: 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. I reckon that venue counts on this issue. Dropping the legal age to 18 drives drinking underground: out of bars and restaurants, into dorm rooms and frat parties. The unit price is far lower in the latter. So use the law of demand. 2. That ignores the forbidden fruit argument. I have no dispute that 18-20's use drinking as a means of acquiring status. But that's not sufficient to explain an increase in binge drinking. I think forbidden fruit has a rational (in the strict economic sense) component. But I don't think it's sufficient to explain the data here. One of my intermediate micro students actually got #1 this semseter. 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: 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, into dorm rooms and frat parties. The unit price is far lower in the latter. So use the law of demand. [...] One of my intermediate micro students actually got #1 this semseter. You mean, he got #1 as in figured it out on a test or quiz, or got it as in was caught drinking under the legal age in a dorm room / frat party? ;) (No shame either way - drinking underage led me to many valuable conclusions on the economics of age limitations) -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 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 up, there is no legal drinking age, beer is part of everyday culture, and its consumption, even by young teenagers is socially accepted. Comparing the behaviour of Belgian teens to that of American teens seems to support your theory... Some libertarian thinker argued much the same in the early 1990s. I don't recall who he was -- I do recall he was a he:) -- but his reasoning was based on both comparing other, mainly European nations to the US as well as the US over the course of its history. He made the bolder claim that death by alcohol overdose is related to this. He believed that drinking oneself to death occurs so frequently in American colleges because the students have never learned how to drink responsibly. He argued that by starting to drink in the home environment and earlier, people tend to either avoid the heavy drinking phase or to get it over with much more quickly. Of course, against this notion, there is the fact that many Americans do start drinking quite young -- early teens -- anyhow. I don't know how widespread this phenomena is. I'm sure there must be lots of studies on it... Anybody else here recall that study? Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
Re: Excessive drinking
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 drinking age, beer is part of everyday culture, and its consumption, even by young teenagers is socially accepted. Comparing the behaviour of Belgian teens to that of American teens seems to support your theory... Krist
Re: Excessive drinking
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 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 This general principle is correct, but with respect to teenage drinking I suspect it is misapplied. The probability of legal action against teenage drinking is so small, I can't imagine any teenager even thinking drinking is illegal.
Re: Excessive drinking
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 of its being unacceptable. To state the obvious, this might occur if a potential drinker's peer group looked favorably upon such behavior, since acceptance by one's peers is clearly a form of utility. Since some groups of young adults do indeed view rebellious behavior this way, I see no inconsistency between economic rationality and forbidden fruit. I would even go so far as to say that putting forth the appearance of being rebellious is the primary purpose of a large portion of underage drinkers. Because of laws against underage consumption, overall consumption might well decrease in all classes of society, but those who maintained easy access to alcohol would be more likely to binge drink -- after all, if drinking one bottle of beer is rebellious, drinking two bottles is even more so. Thus proportionally more underage drinkers binge drink. I also liked Mr. Parich's argument that underage drinkers do not drink publicly and thus are less likely to know when to quit. Hopefully, these observations help explain why binge drinking has increased even as overall consumption has decreased. --Brian Auriti
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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
