...and that's just from alcohol related fatalities on our nation's highways. Alcohol's contribution to traffic fatalities has shown some improvement since the early 1980s, now we're down to a trifling 40% chance your killer was a wee tipsy.
Sorry for the ambush, but if 2,000 American deaths in two+ years are provocative, why is it business as usual when alcohol bangs out that many in under two months? Without alcohol's sizable contribution, traffic fatalities wouldn't be the leading cause of death for those under 35.
(Haven't found statistics yet on the typical severity of non-fatal accidents, but I'm not expecting it to be cheery).
As consolation to those injured, the drunk drivers responsible for serious injuries on our nation's highways usually drive without insurance, preventing recovery for the injured or killed. As if this wasn't bad enough, the insurance companies constantly fight for "tort reform" to dodge the costs of this enormous societal problem.
Solutions?
Prohibition is a non-starter: it's unworkable, and tends to punish all those who enjoy alcohol responsibly to stop the paltry millions who cannot. And drunk drivers aren't the most law-abiding citizens anyway, so this might not solve anything. So what else can be done?
Even if we can't easily reduce the fatalities and injuries, is there a way to compensate more justly? To "internalize the costs" of drinking and driving?
Our solution for workers' compensation is illuminating. The sums are far smaller than at court, but the chance of recovery is significantly higher. This means the system pays about the same as a tort system, it's just less of a lottery. We don't have the man who loses his livelihood and gets nothing, nor the man who gets a couple of scratches and becomes a millionaire for pain and sufferring (to whatever extent that actually happened).
So why don't we just have a serious tax on alcohol and allow complete but fair recovery out of this general fund for anyone injured or killed by our favorite deadly national pastime?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take, Josh, I've been trying to come up with reasons to distinguish the two as well, but I've been unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think it's fair to say that the war was the result of one man's decision. Seems like about 51% of America was complicit.
It probably takes a couple thousand in favor of the idea to get us to war these days, even if not much more than that.
But the comparison was definitely just an aside, I don't mean to diminish the one for the other. You can definitely be upset by fatalities in Iraq and on our nation's highways without contradiction.
I'd have to agree with Thomas, even though our president has proven himself inept at managing the war (probably due to his lack of service), it seems our government as a whole was at fault.
ReplyDeleteI currently work in a liquor store, so I feel I have some insight into this issue.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that people abuse alcohol more than any other drug. I don't think the solution is in higher taxation, though. We need to shift people's ideas about alcohol. Most people treat alcohol like its Coca-cola (they have money, they should be able to buy and consume as much of it as they want).
I have people curse me and give me all types of hell if I won't sell to them. People come in with no ID, an ID that has no backing, or been torn in half, and they expect me to sell to them.
Tell me this: if you went into a Walgreen's or Osco without a doctor's prescription or one that's been taped together and smudged all over, would you be angry if the pharmacist didn't sell to you. Of course not. But people have this very expectation when it comes to alcohol.
Parents buy alcohol for their teenagers to drink "safely" at home. Why? We have decided as a society that they 18/19/20 year old brain, on average, is unable to properly analyze the costs and benefits of alcohol. Don't forget the legal drinking age use to be 18, and we didn't like that, so we changed the age to 21.
Maybe (from an economist's standpoint) taxation is the way to go, but it will never happen. I think the second best choice is much harsher penalties for alcohol related offenses. It has a much better chance at political survival than taxation.
My normal harping point:
ReplyDeleteIf we had a greater population density designed to benefit from public transport, we would have fewer drunken drivers. It would be interesting to compare rates from cities with mass transit systems that operate during bar hours or later to those without.
It would also be interesting to see numbers on the ages of the perpatrators.. I could comment on relative maturity levels as well, possibly as a result of the vocational schooling in another debate.