Posted on 10/18/2005 1:04:41 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Studies of teenagers suggest that heavy drinkers are more likely to be sexually active, more likely to have multiple partners, and less likely to use condoms. This risky behavior increases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). A new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that reducing heavy drinking among youth may slow the spread of STDs.
The authors analyzed the relationship between incidences of gonorrhea and the price of alcohol. Because beer is the most popular alcoholic beverage among youth, the authors used state excise taxes on beer to represent the price of alcohol. Their models also included the presence (or absence) of 0.08 and 0.10 blood alcohol concentration laws. The authors found that:
A 10 percent increase in the average state excise tax on beer will reduce the gonorrhea rate by 4.4 percent for boys ages 15 to 19 and by 3.7 percent for men aged 20 to 24. Zero tolerance laws -- which typically set the maximum blood alcohol percentage at 0.02 for underage drinkers -- also reduce gonorrhea incidence by an estimated 7 to 8 percent in 15-19 year-old boys. Other drunk-driving laws appear to have no effect; nor does living in a dry county. Nevertheless, the authors believe that increasing the excise tax on beer is effective in combating the transmission of STDs, including AIDS. They estimate that:
A 10 percent increase in the average state excise tax on beer will reduce AIDS rates by a range of 5.1 to 8.5 percent among young males. The magnitude of the effect falls to a range of 3.2 to 6.4 percent for older males. The opposite pattern holds true for female AIDS rates, where a bigger response is expected for older females. Source: Linda Gorman, "Alcohol Policies and Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Youth," NBER Digest, July 2005; based upon: Michael Grossman, Robert Kaestner and Sara Markowitz, "An Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol Policies on Youth STDs," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10949, December 2004.
For article:
http://www.nber.org/digest/jul05/w10949.html
For abstract:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10949
For more on Health Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/
This crap came out last year in almost the same form as this posting. Accept it for what it really is
neo-prohibitionism.
Agree completely.
Maybe increasing gasoline taxes would help, too. It would make it much more expensive to drive to party hotspots where risky activity is more likely.
/sarc.
This would cut down on the romance (and therefore sexual encounters) of the group that is most responsible for the spread of AIDS in the first place. Another solution could be a ban on anything with rainbows on it, as it may keep the above mentioned group from congregating.
So has anybody actually paid to see the paper to find out if there was any serious causation analysis?
Since the tax rates and laws have changed over time presumably you could do a regression that took changes in the STD rates based upon previous changes to tax rates and laws.
How about a $2 tax per sixpack? Sounds about right to me. I think they'll shut up and take it--they did with cigarettes, after all.
Better yet, a class action suit by MADD or somebody, to demand information about marketing beer to children, you know, the commercials with the lizards and sexy girls, etc. That's clearly selling a product to the underage market. And I'll just BET those executives know it.
And there's a general statistic they can use--one in ten of those underage drinkers is going to be an alcoholic later on in life, just like one in 10 smokers will get lung cancer....How long must society bear the cost of alcoholism? Wonder how many billions we all spend on their medical care, law enforcement, court costs, etc.?
I bet we can get Busch into court to explain the Budweiser commercials...why, it's just like Joe Camel, isn't it?
Sue the beer makers in the aggregate, and win, then there's billions for the lawyers, and about a bucko five for the victims. Then, after winning against the manufacturers in court, start REALLY raising taxes on beer. It could go toward...education...yeah, that's the ticket. Education.
Enforcement of drinking age laws has become a paranoid obsession in some areas: even people who traditionally allow their kids to have a glass of wine with their meals are now subject to criminal sanctions. A better real solution would be to LOWER the drinking age to 18, which happens to be the same age that one can vote, serve in the military, enter into a contract, or be convicted of crimes in adult courts.
What do wanna argue potential facts when this just FEELS like the right thing to do. Are you in favor of CHEAPER beer?
Why do you hate kids?
Well, let the brew drinkers shell out a little more money. Maybe then they will appreciate some of OUR pain!
I take it you're being sarcastic ... anyone who espouses that as a means of limiting alcohol consumption among a certain class of adult American citizens is truly 'stuck on stupid'.
Oh, no...if beer was illegal, that wouldn't work. No cash cow from taxes. See, it's just like cigarettes. They won't ban them altogether, because then, that might interfere with somebody's freedom to smoke. They'll just tax them to the skies. That way, everybody's happy. See?
If faggots would stop being ass monkeys, that would help stop aids.
>>anyone who espouses that as a means of limiting alcohol consumption among a certain class of adult American citizens is truly 'stuck on stupid'.
Why does the WOD come to mind.
Low beer tax rates cause AIDS. Who knew?
Perhaps the use of Trinoasitol would be much more cost effective..
Keeping it zipped is much more effective.
And how many bratty suburban kids get AIDS, anyway? How many of the kids who get AIDS come from lower-income brackets with other, more pressing problems than the price of beer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.