Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
Samwise wrote:

Okay I apologize, I misspoke there. I was more meaning that, I think the government tries to spin that it's like some moralistic angle of the reason for prohibition on it, and that's just ridiculous.

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 7376
Location: Vlaardingen, Netherlands
Gender: Female
Junco Partner wrote:
it should be changed to a lower age.
children raised in us = drinking problems in college
children raised in europe = its not as big of a deal so in the end its not a problem

the fact is that the US lives in a system thats very rooted in puritanical bullshit. various backwards ideals have lead to a lot of unnecessary problems. and for gods sake, if you are made to go off to die in a war, you should be able to drink.


I agree. Besides, forbidding things only makes them more attractive. It's nothing special to turn 21 in the Netherlands, and people don't suddenly start drinking then. They already do. I won't say we're a good example, since the Dutch youth is amongst the world's heaviest drinkers*. But I still agree there should be no age limit above 18. That's the age you're considered to be an adult and act responsibly. The age you can drive a car here and vote in elections. There are generally no age limits for concerts either. Just a limit of 16 to be able to buy alcohol or cigarettes.

groetjes,
Mirella :)

*I blame that on lots of repression in other fields caused by the previous and current 'christian' administrations here, and worse education. Part of our youth is just plain stupid.

_________________
93 Rdm2x 96 D L2x Ber Gro Ams Par Zür 00 L2x D Gla Man Car Par Pin Pra Kat2x Sal Lju Ver Ber Ham Ros L 01 BSB2x Sea2x 06 D Arn Ant Bern Bol Ver Mil Tor Pis Pra Ber Vie Zag 07 L Düs Nij Wer 09 L Rdm Ber Man L 10 D Belf L Ber 12 Am2x EV:Am2x


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
This isn't really on topic, but I didn't feel it warranted its own thread either. Anyway, Nate Silver really hit this one on the head, and it goes along well with my theme of stopping the problems aggravated by alcohol, instead of alcohol itself.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/ ... ts-to.html

Liberal Blogger Matt Yglesias Wants to Tax Your Beer! I Want to Tax Drunk Drivers.
by Nate Silver @ 8:02 AM

Matt Yglesias writes:

Quote:
[E]xcessive alcohol consumption is associated with a lot of health problems, and not only problems for excessive drinkers—drunk driving and the linkage between alcohol and violence impose significant costs on other people. Mark Kleiman estimates that “Doubling the tax on beer (from a dime to twenty cents a can) would reduce the assault rate by at least 5%, and maybe as much as 20%.”

Meanwhile, you could get a healthy chunk of the revenue needed to pay for health care reform. [..] I don’t want my beer to get more expensive. But at the same time, I do want to see comprehensive health care reform. So someone will have to pay something. And this is a pretty good option.


There's pretty good economic evidence to suggest that alcohol consumption is fairly sensitive to price. And there's lots of good economic (and commonsencial) evidence that alcohol consumption is associated with a wide array of undesirable outcomes, from increased highway fatalities, to decreased productivity at work, to increased violence against women, to worsened health outcomes. Increasing alcohol taxes would, therefore, almost certainly save lives.

One problem, however, which is somewhat unique to liquor consumption, is that these behaviors aren't particularly strongly associated with drinking unto itself. They are associated, rather, with drinking to excess and/or engaging in other, particularly stupid sorts of behaviors while doing so. I know the evidence on this is mixed, but many studies have suggested that moderate alcohol consumption is in fact associated with improved health outcomes -- especially if you're drinking red wine and especially if you're a guy. A person who has a couple of drinks a couple of days a week, and who never drives or has the compulsion to engage in violence while doing so, imposes virtually no negative consequences either on himself or on society. Drinking doesn't cause negative externalities in the same way that, say, driving (traffic congestion and pollution) or smoking (second-hand smoke) intrinsically do.

People say it's difficult to tax the undesirable behaviors associated with drinking without taxing drinking itself. But is that necessarily so?

In 2006, there were 1.1 million arrests for drunk driving in the United States (source), not counting Florida which didn't report its statistics. Fine each of those people $8,000, and you'd have almost about $9 billion more to pay for health care every year. Why $8,000? Because that's the figure, according to a 2001 paper (.pdf) by Steve Levitt (the Freakonomics guy) and Jack Porter, that would be required to internalize the negative externalities associated with driving drunk.* By the way, if you're concerned that this tax might be regressive, you could scale it according to a person's income, as they do for traffic fines in Finland.

Of course, if you were actually to fine people $8K every time they got a drunk driving conviction, you wouldn't raise quite as much as $9 billion. Faced with a choice between an $8,000 fine or a $20 taxi fare, a lot more people would have Yellow Cab on speed dial, and you'd have fewer revenue-producing arrests.** But this is a feature of the policy rather than a bug -- you'd be stopping drunk driving. Moreover, it's exactly the same feature/bug problem you'd run into by raising alcohol taxes in general, or any time you were trying to use tax policy to disincentivize an undesirable behavior.

The drunk driver tax would also produce at least as much revenue as the liquor tax. The CBO estimated (.pdf) in December that raising alcohol taxes to $16 per proof-gallon (by about 10 cents a drink over current levels) would raise about $6 billion per year. Even if our $9 billion total were decreased somewhat by deterred drunk driving -- and again, that would be a Good Thing -- we could probably beat that number.

Of course, there are probably some jurisdictional or federalism issues with this. And like Yglesias, I'd be willing to chip in a few extra cents with every beer to help pay for universal health care. (Although as a self-employed person who could probably expect some cost savings from alternatives to employer-based insurance, this is not necessarily a selfless act for me -- though I do drink a lot of beer!).

But a drunk driver tax would be fairer, more efficient, and more Pigovian than a beer tax -- and good luck to the liquor industry in trying to oppose it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
I think that's a great idea.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
i'm saying this as an economist rather than a beer snob: taxing beer to reduce drunk driving is a bad idea. if the goal was to reduce drunk driving, a tax on all alcoholic beverages would need to be instituted in order to prevent substitution. taxing beer and leaving liquor untouched just induces drinkers to substitute liquor for beer, likely increasing incidences of drunk driving (because of the potency of liquor relative to beer).

taxing drunk driving is a much better policy than taxing beer. yglesias should be embarassed to endorse such a crudely sloppy policy.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
NC is introducing a $350 "fee" for processing a drunk driving ticket.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
I've got absolutely no problem with drunk driving tickets costing an $8,000 fine. I actually think people should serve an automatic jail sentence for a first offense, maybe 6-12 months.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
Buffalohed wrote:
I've got absolutely no problem with drunk driving tickets costing an $8,000 fine. I actually think people should serve an automatic jail sentence for a first offense, maybe 6-12 months.
The high fines sound really good and act to prvent drunk driving by some casual drinkers. However, in large part the people drinking and driving today are people with a drinking problem. If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

I think there is more than enough awareness around the ill effects of drinking and driving and the sdentecing is starting to get to a point primarily people with a disease are still driving drunk. The next steps should be finding ways to make the roads safer for all drivers, especially those drunk. It can be as easy as better lighting, better lane markings with newer and more reflective paint.

I also think that the drinking age and driving ages should be switched. It would allow people to learn their drinking tolerances prior to having a license. It would get new generations of young adults used to taking public transit. And it would end the ridiculousness of being old enough to fight for your country but not being able to enjoy a beer.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
tyler wrote:
If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

alcoholics choose to drink. lepers did not choose to contract leprosy.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:10 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
thodoks wrote:
tyler wrote:
If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

alcoholics choose to drink. lepers did not choose to contract leprosy.
People don't choose to become alcoholics or junkies. They initially make the exact same decision you've probably made countless times, "I'll have a drink". It's not like anyone tells them before they take that first drink, "well dude, you're one of the unlucky ones that'll get addicted to the stuff". If you are going to legalize addictive substances then the government has a role in protecting its citizens who do get addicted.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
tyler wrote:
However, in large part the people drinking and driving today are people with a drinking problem. If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

Even if we put aside Kris's legitimate questioning on the decision to drink in and of itself, surely it would be even more questionable to put aside the choice of driving drunk?

However, how about a compromise: the $8,000 fine they pay goes toward the funds of alcohol rehabilitation. That would also be a proper usage of funds from a semi-sin tax, anyway.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:38 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
Green Habit wrote:
tyler wrote:
However, in large part the people drinking and driving today are people with a drinking problem. If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

Even if we put aside Kris's legitimate questioning on the decision to drink in and of itself, surely it would be even more questionable to put aside the choice of driving drunk?

However, how about a compromise: the $8,000 fine they pay goes toward the funds of alcohol rehabilitation. That would also be a proper usage of funds from a semi-sin tax, anyway.
Does the average drunk have $8K? They have drinking issues, not many of them will have well paying jobs. Is evicting their families from homes part of this solution?

Rehab costs should be directly funded through sale of alcohol as a tax on all alcohol. A portion of the tax should also go towards steps making the streets safer and less likely for a drunk driver to have an accident in the first place. The goal is to lessen the carnage and death on the roads, not unfairly punish people for having a disease.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
tyler wrote:
thodoks wrote:
tyler wrote:
If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

alcoholics choose to drink. lepers did not choose to contract leprosy.

People don't choose to become alcoholics or junkies. They initially make the exact same decision you've probably made countless times, "I'll have a drink". It's not like anyone tells them before they take that first drink, "well dude, you're one of the unlucky ones that'll get addicted to the stuff". If you are going to legalize addictive substances then the government has a role in protecting its citizens who do get addicted.

i'm no MD, and not qualified to determine whether "addiction" should be qualified as a disease. but i know this: once the alcoholic/nympho/junkie/compulsive gambler/smoker discovers he is afflicted with this "disease," he is in a position that makes every person with AIDS/cancer/multiple sclerosis/ulcerative colitis ( :wave: )/autism jealous: he can make the decision to not indulge his disease. the addict possesses the unique ability to choose not to be an addict. i have yet to meet the patient for whom overcoming cancer is a matter of will power.

i don't disagree that dealing with issues of addiction are better left to the realm of the medical instead of the realm of the punitive, that the govt's legalization of some but not all addictive substances is at best inconsistent and at worst ruinously hypocritical. but equating the inability to marshal enough will power to overcome addictive tendencies with cancer is to do a disservice to the gravity of the word "disease."

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
I've got absolutely no problem with drunk driving tickets costing an $8,000 fine. I actually think people should serve an automatic jail sentence for a first offense, maybe 6-12 months.
The high fines sound really good and act to prvent drunk driving by some casual drinkers. However, in large part the people drinking and driving today are people with a drinking problem. If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

I think there is more than enough awareness around the ill effects of drinking and driving and the sdentecing is starting to get to a point primarily people with a disease are still driving drunk. The next steps should be finding ways to make the roads safer for all drivers, especially those drunk. It can be as easy as better lighting, better lane markings with newer and more reflective paint.

I also think that the drinking age and driving ages should be switched. It would allow people to learn their drinking tolerances prior to having a license. It would get new generations of young adults used to taking public transit. And it would end the ridiculousness of being old enough to fight for your country but not being able to enjoy a beer.

i would not trade the ability to drive legally for the ability to drink legally. ok, here at college living in dorms i would, but at home, in the suburbs, no way in hell. i would much rather have the freedom to go where i want when i want than have a beer, as much as i love making an ass out of myself.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:44 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
thodoks wrote:
he can make the decision to not indulge his disease. the addict possesses the unique ability to choose not to be an addict.
In the throws of addiction, the addicted cannot make this choice. It would be like asking you to choose not to breathe for a day. You may be able to choose to not breathe for a moment or a minute. But you will breathe. The drunk in the throws of addiction will just as suredly and has the need to drink to the same degree you have to breathe.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
i'll agree with tyler that there should be some sort of govt. funded rehab programs (maybe govt. funding given to private rehab facilities... sounds like a bush policy almost); more for the overall benefits provided society by lessening the prevalence of these addictions than anything else. see portugal's recent overhaul of its drug laws. however, i think a fine imposed upon drunk drivers is preferable to a tax on soda or a tax on alcohol itself(although these already exist in a lot of places).

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
tyler wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
tyler wrote:
However, in large part the people drinking and driving today are people with a drinking problem. If alcoholism is a disease, then it is unfairly punitive to impose such a fine on a person for having a disease. Why not just go back to having leper colonies?

Even if we put aside Kris's legitimate questioning on the decision to drink in and of itself, surely it would be even more questionable to put aside the choice of driving drunk?

However, how about a compromise: the $8,000 fine they pay goes toward the funds of alcohol rehabilitation. That would also be a proper usage of funds from a semi-sin tax, anyway.
Does the average drunk have $8K? They have drinking issues, not many of them will have well paying jobs. Is evicting their families from homes part of this solution?

Rehab costs should be directly funded through sale of alcohol as a tax on all alcohol. A portion of the tax should also go towards steps making the streets safer and less likely for a drunk driver to have an accident in the first place. The goal is to lessen the carnage and death on the roads, not unfairly punish people for having a disease.

but tyler, here's the thing: how would this tax affect the incidence of drunk driving for non-alcoholics and people who do not suffer from alcoholism? an $8,000 fine is a pretty significant disincentive to drive home drunk. IMO, a drunk driving tax would significantly reduce the incidence of drunk driving from recreation drinkers, freeing up resources for the public health effects of legitimate alcoholics.

and let's not lose sight of the choice we want the policy to engender. it's not a matter of drinking vs. not drinking; it's a matter of driving drunk vs. not driving drunk. this tax doesn't punish being under the influence; it punishes operating a vehicle while under the influence. alcoholics need not be punished if they just get a cab.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
by the way, even alcoholics can choose to call a taxi or a friend

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
oh shit, thodoks beat me to it

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Should the U.S. Lower the Drinking Age?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
tyler wrote:
thodoks wrote:
he can make the decision to not indulge his disease. the addict possesses the unique ability to choose not to be an addict.

In the throws of addiction, the addicted cannot make this choice. It would be like asking you to choose not to breathe for a day. You may be able to choose to not breathe for a moment or a minute. But you will breathe. The drunk in the throws of addiction will just as suredly and has the need to drink to the same degree you have to breathe.

unlike cancer patients who are never NOT affected by their disease, addicts are not in the throes of addiction 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. even an addict has moments of clarity; how else would they be able to go about procuring their drug of choice?

addiction is not involuntary. breathing is.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:28 pm