Study: Drink Specials Encourage Heavy Drinking

Study: Drink Specials Encourage Heavy Drinking
September 3, 2009

Research Summary

Researchers who studied the relationship between alcohol cost and intoxication concluded that drink specials encourage high levels of consumption, rather than just attracting customers to bars as some in the hospitality industry contend.

The New York Times reported Sept. 2 that researchers who studied male and female drinkers at bars near college campuses found that those who paid the most money per gram of alcohol consumed were the least intoxicated when given breath tests upon exiting. The least intoxicated patrons paid an average of $4.44 for 14 grams of alcohol (in the form of beer, wine or liquor), while those found to be the drunkest had paid $1.81 for the same amount of alcohol.

Bars in the areas studied offered "all you can drink" specials for $5 to $7, and researchers from the University of Florida and San Diego State University found that most of the young patrons had tight budgets and were seeking the most "bang for their buck."

"These findings do warrant a discussion about the unintended consequences of cheap alcohol, especially among the price-sensitive college student population, which has a well-documented history of alcohol-related problems," said researcher Ryan J. O'Mara of the University of Florida.

The study is published online and slated to appear in the November 2009 issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Robert on 04 Sep 09 09:25 AM EDT

I cannot believe they had to use tax dollars to do research on this! Let's see a show of hands: How many of you, along with myself, used to do the same thing? Of course people are going to look for drink specials. And, this person want to have discussion about cheap alcohol? Here's something for you, researchers, get out of your labs and walk through college towns and see it yourself. Stop spending money on this type of research and give it to treatment and prevention, preferably not in that order. Tell us something we don't know.

Posted by Joshua on 04 Sep 09 10:07 AM EDT

even if researchers are unwilling to step into the real world for a minute to observe this, they could at least read page 1 of any book on economics and come to the same conclusion

Posted by Vetanalyst on 04 Sep 09 11:32 AM EDT

What Robert and Joshua fail to recognize is that the "hospitality industry," to which one could add a multitude of others who profit from beverage alcohol in some way,have argued that drink specials are harmless and do not contribute to alcohol-related problems. And who listens to those industry folks intently and ignores common-sense economic consideration? Why legislators, policymakers, of course. Failure to accept the basic economic premise tells us much about the industry and its apologists. Robert's and Joshua's critiques would be better aimed at them than at researchers.

Posted by Rufus B on 04 Sep 09 03:44 PM EDT

Vetanaylist you are right on it! And I have this add. We need this type of established data because it provides a rationale for our prevention strategies - i.e. demonstrates to elected officials why certain policies are necessary. Common sense assumptions are one thing, having QUANTITATIVE data to support them is another. Data makes it harder for Industry lobbyists to discredit policy initiatives. Look how much money had to spent on research before we could get folks to recognize that inhaling hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and ammonia (all common cigarette additives) are detrimental to human health. DUH

Posted by Michael Sheehan on 08 Sep 09 11:55 AM EDT

Excellent piece of research. Take home message:Get rid of "specials", and maintain an appropriate price point for alcohol, as we know for years that the higher the price, the less alcohol is consumed, and the less problematic alcohol becomes. I really dislike the way alcohol "specials" are "pushed" in restaurants.

Posted by Joshua on 08 Sep 09 12:05 PM EDT

No, we don't need quantitative peer reviewed scientific data published in well respected journals to tell us simple and obvious things. we need elected officials who arent morons, or at least arent being bribed by special interests to be morons. Every time a study like this is published it is proof positive that the people running our government are corrupt. that is why i object to this kind of "research" so strongly.

Posted by Jim on 08 Sep 09 03:37 PM EDT

Vetanalysist makes a point. Instead of annually spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the prevention and research industries while the problem of alcohol and/or drug addiction only gets worse, do as the “hospitality industry” does, spend money on influencing legislators and policymakers to do something about the problem. The issue - singleness of purpose should be recovery, not preservation of the hospitality, prevention and research industries.

Posted by Joshua on 08 Sep 09 06:00 PM EDT

the other side of the coin here is that every time a "researcher" publishes an article saying that they "discovered" something stupid like "injecting drugs into your eye may cause vision problems" it makes all the rest of us look just a little bit stupider. then when you say something like "we should spend more money on treatment than punishment" it gets ignored or ridiculed.

Drinking Games, Themed Parties Increase Alcohol Consumption, Report Finds

Raising Alcohol Taxes Reduces Drinking, Study Says

Schedule Friday Morning Classes to Cut Students Drinking, Colleges Urged

Docs Call for Ban on Alcohol Ads in College Sports

Effects of Beverage Alcohol Price and Tax Levels on Drinking

Drinking By the Numbers: An Interactive U.S. Map