Washington Post Claims Beer Tax Will Reduce Rape & STDs
by Katherine Mangu-Ward
The Washington Post claimed near-supernatural powers for a tiny beer tax on Monday. A booze tax, write Lloyd I. Sederer and Eric Goplerud, will pay for health care reform. But that's not all!:
Research indicates that a 10 percent increase in current alcohol excise taxes—that is a penny for a beer—would result in less drinking, especially among underage drinkers, reducing rape, robbery, domestic violence and liver disease. A tax increase of 3 cents per beer would cut youth gonorrhea by 9 percent.
I'm going to pull out that last line one more time in case you, like me, sometime skim over blockquotes too quickly:
A tax increase of 3 cents per beer would cut youth gonorrhea by 9 percent.
Look at the lovely young lady below. If only a three cent tax on that Budweiser could have saved her from the heartbreak of VD.
Messrs. (Drs.?) Sederer and Goplerud have taken the fine art of vaguely claiming that "studies show..." to a new level. Obviously, the argument here is that lots of beer makes people more likely to rape, pillage, etc. and that pricier beer means less consumption. A quick Google reveals that they're pulling from 2000 study that looked at beer taxes and gonorrhea rates in various states. Reason, of course, tore this study a new one back when first made the rounds. Key passage:
[David Murray of the Statistical Assessment Service, a non-profit think tank in D.C.] does yeoman's work pointing out the junk reasoning at the root of so much junk science. This one was a high, hanging curve for Murray, who said the CDC's thinking was on the level of "the sun goes down because we turn on the street lights."
The really interesting thing is that the CDC, in effect, agrees with that criticism. It buries its assent, however, in an editorial note that says the findings "do not prove a causal relation between higher taxes and declining STD [sexually transmitted disease] rates."
There are parallels to the outlandish claims made for a 3 cent soda tax.* It will end obesity! Pay for health care reform! Make dentists obsolete! A handy review of the bad math behind the idea that small soda taxes will take a significant dent out of obesity here.
*corn subsidies are totally bad.
UPDATE: A alert reader writes: "Of course, it's probably safe to say that obese teenagers are less likely to be sexually active and therefore less likely to contract STDs. So really, supporters of 'obesity' taxes are really just supporting the infliction of STDs upon America's youth (which in turn drives up health care costs). That's just common sense."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
how Reason's rebuttals on every study is to just label it "junk science " and move on without addressing the actual statistical data. They equally appeal to so-called "authority" so rather than engaging the argument they just bring in a questionable authority to say "this is bad blah". I googled some of their authorities on health economics since I'd never heard of them, and for good reason! Their influence in the field is minimal at best Not very "Reason"-able, if you ask me! The response to them is petty and shallow and lacks an understanding of both science and statistical studies. One of their articles criticized the CDC study because it said the study doesn't prove that higher taxes imply reduced STD risk.
*bangs head*
Of course it would say that. It's a single study based on theoretical modeling. I would be more concerned if the researchers said "yup, this is 100% how it's gonna work" - now that would be anti-scientific!
I haven't read the studies, I might do it another day, but the argument against the studies are not grounded in fact. They are grounded in ideology and mockery since Reason was unable to actually rebuke any of the claims. They just mocked them.
Anyway, /end rant.
I'd be very surprised if the studies did demonstrate that, but perhaps there are factors I'm not observing. Usually, CDC studies are done quite well so I'm going to have to read it before I dismiss it as being absurd on its face value. What the study is suggesting that because of a higher tax, drinking could be reduced, and so "one night stands" are more likely (which are more likely to cause a contraction of a disease). I'd be interested to see if the study charted drinking rates as well. I presume it likely did because the CDC is usually thorough. Anyway, I'd reserve judgment until we actually look at the study which it's obvious Reason hasn't.
It probably wouldn't convince me that a beer tax is necessary, but it would be interesting for the sake of knowing regardless.
Increasing the price of a beer by a penny will save the world? So it will cost less than a quarter more for a case of beer, but all of a sudden nobody will be able to afford it?
I couldn't really tell for sure, but I sincerely hope your and my tax dollars didn't go to pay for this...this...well, I can't really call it a "study." More like a grab bag of stats. They were just as likely to come up with evidence showing the mating patterns of penguins influence car wrecks in Duluth.
Next thing they will try to tax is sex to stop STDs
If so, it will never pass in congress .
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Good point.Congress wont give up the mistress.O well no tax on sex.