« What Makes a Terrorist? | Main | Discover Your Inner Playboy »
Paying the Tab
The subtitle is The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control, and the book (here is its home page) has more on the latter than the former. The author, economist Philip J. Cook, produces a wide range of reasonable arguments that alcohol is too cheap on the supply side, given its social costs.
The quality of the argumentation is high, but perhaps I have too much of a libertarian closed mind (more or less) on the issue. I hold the following views:
1. I don't have an a priori belief in uniform rates of taxation, and if you twist my arm I'll admit bad things should be taxed at higher rates than good things, at least provided we can avoid slippery slopes of ever-encroaching government paternalism.
2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter.
3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped. Admittedly drink cross-subsidizes quality food, so if there is any loser it might be me.
4. For reasons of ethics and morality, I don't think governments should regulate adult substance consumption.
5. I see some role for governments to regulate substance consumption to prevent spillover effects onto minors.
I do understand that #1, #4, and #5 are not fully consistent, but this mix of views still seems right to me. And unless I see the world coming to an end through booze -- and I don't -- I'm still stuck on #4, no matter how good Cook's evidence and arguments. Alcohol is but one issue in the age-old battle between liberty and tyranny, a fight which I see as more important in the longer run than sobriety vs. stimulants.
I do worry about more powerful drugs or neurostimulators. I am struck at how weak a temptation alcohol is, relative to what the future will bring. In the meantime, if alcohol restrictions fail on the grounds of liberty, I guess I am back to my closed libertarian mind.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 16, 2007 at 07:40 AM in Food and Drink | Permalink
Comments
The arguments for #4 should include the consequential costs of making the delivery of alchohol illegal - those contracts then are only enforceable by violence. The number of contracts may go down, but the spillover costs of enforcing them -usually by nasty little people- is too high.
Posted by: michael webster at Aug 16, 2007 8:02:23 AM
The world would be a better place if people /stopped/ drinking? Au contraire, what the world needs is for more of the puritans and losers to lighten up and have a drink. Alcohol is a vital part of the life of any civilised person.
Posted by: Harry Rice at Aug 16, 2007 8:10:18 AM
Great. You just made me buy another book I probably don't need. I haven't even finished reading the other books you blogged about months ago!
Posted by: jason voorhees at Aug 16, 2007 8:11:53 AM
I have slightly strange views on reducing alcohol consumption. Recently, a few studies have pointed out the fact that some currently illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol. I feel that we should legalise these drugs, so that people will drink less.
This may sound insane, but in the UK at least, during the 90s, when ecstasy was popular, both in clubs and even at football matches, alcohol consumption in these places dropped dramatically.
Personally, I'd far rather believe that people were smoking cannabis or taking ecstasy of a weekend, rather than getting tanked up on alcohol where they're more likely to be violent and dangerous.
Just a thought.
Posted by: minifig at Aug 16, 2007 8:14:54 AM
There's a substantial literature on the social costs of alcohol consumption, btw. Sara Markowitz, Michael Grossman, Henry Saffer, Thomas Dee, Bill Evans, Harrell Chesson, Robert Kaestner, and many others whose names I'm immediately forgetting, have papers in the AER, Journal of Public Economics, Journal of Health Economics, JLE and other such publications finding a causal relationship between beer taxes, drunk driving legislation, underage drinking legislation and other factors believed to reduce alcohol consumption, and many negative outcomes, such as child abuse, domestic violence, gonorrhea and syphilis, traffic fatalities, etc. Bill Evans even has an article arguing that the most effective way of reducing alcohol related traffic fatalities is beer taxes and seatbelt legislation, as opposed to higher penalties for drunk driving. All said, the problem is there, but the solutions proposed are somewhat blunt and fall upon individuals who are not imposing externalities on the rest of the population. Beer taxes affect everyone, and the deadweight loss compared to the increased social welfare is not known, to my knowledge. But until we come up with a better solution, higher taxes on alcohol combined with hefty restrictions on drunk driving seems to be a good second best solution to the problem.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Aug 16, 2007 8:18:05 AM
I'm the editor of Econ Journal Watch, and we would welcome scholarly critical commentary on research about costs/benefits of alcohol etc.
The upcoming issue (Sept 07) will feature an exchange on smoking bans in restaurants.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Aug 16, 2007 8:27:04 AM
We should legalize marijuana. Marijuana is not connected with as many negative social consequences as alcohol and thus the substitution for alcohol would be a net social improvement.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 16, 2007 8:30:14 AM
In addition to good food, booze also subsidizes live music.
Also, drunkards make the world more interesting. Thats just the way it is. ;)
Posted by: steveintheknow at Aug 16, 2007 9:00:48 AM
> We should legalize marijuana. Marijuana is not connected with as many negative social consequences as alcohol and thus the substitution for alcohol would be a net social improvement.
If only people were so rational...
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Aug 16, 2007 9:19:34 AM
"3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped. Admittedly drink cross-subsidizes quality food, so if there is any loser it might be me."
If there is a loser? All the people who like to drink wouldn't be losers? There would be winners of course as well, like fewer road deaths, but I wonder how many people would choose to live in this kind of world from behind a Rawlsian curtain. I know, I wouldn't; but I can walk to the bar.
Posted by: josh at Aug 16, 2007 9:20:59 AM
"2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter."
Are you combining this proposal with the same penalties for cell phone use, which produces the same impairment in studies, or is alcohol somehow magic?
Or are you going to separate the current cough-syrup-will-trigger BAC levels from some higher levels to be instituted?
Posted by: Richard Campbell at Aug 16, 2007 9:22:53 AM
"2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter."
Don't we already have laws against every crime committed while driving drunk? If you kill someone, you get vehicular manslaughter. If you speed, you get a speeding ticket. If you hit someone and they're ok, you get reckless driving. Just because something makes you more likely to commit a crime is not a reason to criminalize it. Or else wives/girlfriends nagging in the passenger seat should be outlawed as well.
"3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped. Admittedly drink cross-subsidizes quality food, so if there is any loser it might be me."
You must know a lot of very content, sober people to make this statement. Most people I know look for outlets to the stress of their daily lives through one of three ways: sex, athletics, and drinking/drugs. There's only so much sex one can have a day (unfortunately) and not everyone is genetically or motivationally inclined to participate in athletics. So many people turn to drugs/booze for the stress release. Is it healthy? No. But why is that anyone else's business? If drinking stopped 100% outright, there would be a huge breakdown in society as stress and irritability would build up in the system and cause huge outbursts over small inconveniences. This doesn't say a lot for the state of the human animal, but in my experience, it is the truth.
"4. For reasons of ethics and morality, I don't think governments should regulate adult substance consumption."
I absolutely agree. And this extends not just to alcohol, but to marijuana, opium, heroine, ecstasy, meth, etc... Let people do what they want to do. If they commit a crime while intoxicated, charge them with the crime.
"5. I see some role for governments to regulate substance consumption to prevent spillover effects onto minors."
I see some role for parents to instill discipline and character into minors so as to give them the tools to evaluate the costs and benefits of taking intoxicating substances
Posted by: joe at Aug 16, 2007 9:33:54 AM
I think that drunk driving punishments should increase drastically with each additional drink. The punishments aren't that different for driving after 5 drinks and driving after 15. but that guy with 15 drinks is much more dangerous. Once you have 5 drinks, might as well have 10 more, you'll have more fun and you're going to jail anyway. It's a bit like rapists not getting the same punishments as murderers because we want to give the rapist an incentive to not murder the witness.
I think we punish the social drinkers who drive too much and the double vision stinking drunks too little.
Posted by: Pat at Aug 16, 2007 9:40:31 AM
"I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped."
As life under the Taliban amptly demonstrated...
Posted by: vanya at Aug 16, 2007 9:43:26 AM
If everyone stopped drinking, the birth rate would almost certainly fall.
The western world needs all the children it can get.
Posted by: bastiat at Aug 16, 2007 9:45:11 AM
"As life under the Taliban amptly demonstrated..."
hmmm... I don't they have much choice under the Taliban. Cowen does not say "The world would be a better place if people were forced to stop drinking" The distinction is rather important.
Posted by: stuart at Aug 16, 2007 9:59:08 AM
I was under the impression that most recreational drugs were complements to alcohol, namely. People tend to consume beer in conjunction with marijuana, cocaine and a host of drugs as opposed to substituting them. But minifig brings up a good point about ecstacy, what if people started substituting alcohol for a host for safer, non-complementary drugs. Furthermore, what if we allowed our pharma companies to create designer drugs? IE, a drug like marijuana without the memory effects. Or a drug like ethanol without the hangover / liver proplems.
Posted by: John El at Aug 16, 2007 10:03:36 AM
To all what are your opinions on the chances that easier wider assess to anti-depressants would decrease alcohol abuse.
Posted by: Floccina at Aug 16, 2007 10:06:56 AM
Nice to meet you last night, Professor.
To follow up on what we briefly discussed last night,
1) I am surprised that someone as ADDICTED to culture (both high and pop) as yourself hardly drinks. One would thing that the sheer variety of alcoholic drinks around the world (and the culture associated with them) would interest your voracious mind.
2) This may be getting a bit personal, but have you ever drank more regularly than you do now?
3) Shouldn't the aspiring Cultural Billionaire WANT to experience many different forms of altered consciousness, specifically through alcohol and drug use?
Posted by: Erik at Aug 16, 2007 10:08:16 AM
Also any opinions on costs of safer cars through electronics. Rumor is that Nisson is working on a car that goes pretty far to avaoid crashes. Any ideas on other ways to avoid domestic violence.
Posted by: Floccina at Aug 16, 2007 10:14:35 AM
Tyler_Cowen: people should stop drinking alcohol? Wouldn't that include, you know, WINE?
How are people supposed to unscientifically show off their exquisite taste if they can't drink wine, huh?
Posted by: Person at Aug 16, 2007 10:27:51 AM
2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter.
Not only are all the bad things you can do while driving drunk already illegal, as someone already pointed out, but drunk driving laws make those bad things more likely. Consider, you get in a car, you've had a few and you're buzzing. And you know it. What's the natural reaction when you get behind the wheel? Slow down, of course, to make up for the blurred vision and slower reaction time. But you can't do that, because you'll immediately get pulled and punished for driving drunk. So the drunk driver tries to act like a sober driver, even though he or she no longer has the proper senses and reflexes. The result? More drunken accidents.
If they're driving recklessly, pull them and arrest them like we do now. If they're drunk, but going slow, the cops ought to watch them for a bit to see if they're okay, then go on their merry way. It's time to end the idea that drunk driving laws save lives.
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Aug 16, 2007 10:46:07 AM
Tyler, It would be interesting to know if you feel that the smoking ban for bars (CA, NYC) is also paternalistic. Seems to fit point 3. Some people say the ban is necessary because smoking affects customers and workers.
Posted by: Mark H at Aug 16, 2007 10:50:04 AM
You call yourself a Libertarian?
Thinking of alcohol as a temptation whose strength can be objectively quantified by the degree to which you yourself are tempted is a fatuous notion.
Your post is a fairly blatant attempt to provoke a response, I'm pretty sure. What the hell, it drew me in.... Debases your credibility I think though...
Posted by: Tom at Aug 16, 2007 10:51:19 AM
There are over 40,000 auto deaths each year. By some estimates half of all accidents involve alcohol consumption. So, leaving aside the much bigger figure of injuries we can estimate 20,000 people killed because of alcohol. This also leaves out all those who die or are impaired because of alcohol from other causes.
Now the number of people killed from one of the recently withdrawn arthritis pain medications is thought to be in the hundreds.
Obviously the way health and safety decisions are made is only partially related to rational cost-benefit analysis. So perhaps libertarians should focus more on getting existing procedures to be made more uniform and less on impossible to achieve ideas of "do what you will".
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 16, 2007 10:56:12 AM
