Crampton on Health doomsayers
A great column in the Herald by Eric Crampton:
Sometime soon, we’ll see a report showing that the social costs of skiing are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It wouldn’t be hard to produce a number that large. First, show frequent skiers are more likely to have accidents than recreational skiers.
Then, make the critical assumption that nobody could ever rationally decide to take risks – health is all that matters. Frequent skiers then are by definition irrational, and irrational people enjoy no benefits from their ski outings, no matter how happy they appear.
With this “zero benefits” assumption, every dollar spent on skiing by these harmful skiers is a social cost, as is the time these folks spend skiing. Add the realised costs from those folks who do have skiing accidents and you’d quickly have a number in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.
Such a good analogy.
Any time we make a decision that lets us enjoy a bit of fun but with some risk to our health, that decision is considered irrational and cannot generate any real enjoyment.
Consequently, benefits are either assumed equal to zero or set to an arbitrarily low level.
But is it really irrational to trade off health against other goals? I have a hard time imagining somebody for whom health isn’t a good.
But I similarly cannot imagine anybody for whom health is the only good. We all trade off risks to our health against other goals we seek, all the time.
If you saved a few dollars by not buying the most expensive baby car seat on the market, you decided that the very small extra increase in safety for your child isn’t worth the money.
If health and safety were our only goal, the world would look very different. We would all buy cars made of padded foam rubber and drive very slowly. That we don’t is strong evidence that we have pluralistic sets of values – we are not monomaniacal healthists in our daily lives.
Absolutely. You want a zero road toll. Set the speed limit to 30 km/hr.
If we tally up the social costs of driving with a cellphone, we ought to recognise that accident costs need to be weighed up against all of the benefits that drivers enjoy from being able to take the occasional call while on the road – we oughtn’t have our thumb on the scales by assuming the benefits away.
And this is why I am critical of the Government for their moves here. Nowhere have I seen measurement of the benefits vs the costs of cellphone use in cars.
For every skier who dies in an avalanche, tens of thousands of others took no fewer risks but enjoyed a great time out on the slopes. Their enjoyment ought to count for something.
And, for every drinker who dies in an accident that could have been avoided were he sober, there are countless others who simply enjoyed a good night out.
Yes. And forcing bars to close early (for example) will stop many having a good night out.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“You want a zero road toll. Set the speed limit to 30 km/hr.”
Not sure if that would work – people might not die of boredom but being board might make a driver careless and low speed accidents can cause injury.
Life is fatal and there is a point where trying to save us from ourselves costs more than its worth That cost isn’t just a financial one, it’s also one of freedom.
Ele Ludemann.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
1. there are hands free.
2. you can have a great night out without getting drunk.
In both these cases the danger to others is the criteria.
sking down a hill at speed is your problem not the general public’s.
more to the point when you are drunk you don’t make rational decisions, in fact you behave like a cunt to other people.
In the past I was a police officer for 7 years and I’ve seen the bits of bodies and picked them up. I’ve arrested scores of people who’ve done the most stupidest and viscous things whilst drunk.
I’ve attended hundred of MVA’s and also called on the families to tell them their loved ones are in hospital or dead.
So admittedly I am biased on this issue possibly unlike some of you.
Lets make it illegal to be in public and drunk.
Write a law “Drunk in public”
Then lets nick thousands of you of you and spend millions on public education so that people don’t get legless and cause mayhem and break the laws.
sounds fine doesn’t it?
I mean it’s what reasonable people would do isn’t it?
October 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
So DPF, what’s your view on France’s proposal to include happiness in GDP calculations?
October 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
>For every skier who dies in an avalanche, tens of thousands of others took no fewer risks but enjoyed a great time out on the slopes. Their enjoyment ought to count for something.
I suspect that regular skiers (and cyclists, rugby players, etc) will be fitter and healthier than non-skiers and that the resulting increase in life expectancy will more than compensate for accidental death.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I am annoyed the Government is listening to the bossy “kill joy” crowd in Wellington who dominated the last Labour Government. There should be a proper cost benefit analysis of this stuff. Too often it is based on some sort of prejudice like the cell-phone ban. Stephen Joyce is capable of demanding rigorous analysis but on that he seems to be listening to the flat out prejudices of lightweight officials who have nothing productive to do except stare into tealeaves, suck in some air and come up with a bossy regulation. As if that will work. I hope it doesn’t.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Talking about social costs to the taxpayer – is Clayton Weatherston dead yet?
October 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
In the kingdom of the health professionals, the only reputable sport is golf. Skiing, hiking, bungee jumping, and all those other reckless outdoor pursuits are completely irrational.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Will: don’t forget that folks occasionally die from lightning strikes on golf courses; all clubs ought be made of non-conductive materials.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I’m not sure that’s the underlying objective – even if it’s the stated one. The real reason for all these so-called safety laws is liability transfer. It all starts when individuals reject the notion of them taking responsibility for how they treat others, and instead look to transfer any blame for harm they cause (or could be accused of causing) onto other third parties.
The result is a cascade of responsibility transfers with each party protecting themselves from some/all, and then transferring the rest. That this process limits the freedom and/or enjoyment of others is just lost in the ass covering.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
MikeNZ – Remember that just about any decision you make could effect others if other people are around. Thats why we should ban the act, not the so called “cause”. The vast majority of people who get drunk still will not adversely effect others around them. The idea that people commit a crime because they are drunk is a fallacy, people commit a crime because they want to. So the cost of banning people getting drunk in a public place far outweighs the cost society has to forgo.
The same can be said for pseudoephedrine.. well any drug in fact.
Getstaffed, I totally agree. If governments limited themselves to protecting people from theft, violence, fraud, injury from others stupidity and opened themselves to the idea of individual liability/responsibility then we would be much better of.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Not just lightning storms. Flying golf balls create a dangerous hazard too. Golfers should wear helmets.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Good article Eric.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
October 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well said getstaffed – I think that sums things up nicely. It’s become all about blame and liability, and the ‘cost’ of things… and that’s at the heart of lots of short-sighted measures that are apparently made to ‘protect’ people, but could have other, detrimental downstream effects that aren’t talked about or considered by those looking to restrict everything…
an unrelated example is things like the regulations put in place for school swimming pools. I grew up learning to swim in my primary school’s pool during the 1980s – we’d buy a key for the summer, and that would mean that we could go and use the pool between certain hours (daytime), supervised by parents or other adults. So I learned to swim, had fun with friends, was active and outside, all good things, etc…
Now I understand that over the past 10 years or so, regulations on school swimming pools have been ramped up and up and up to the point where many no longer provide such a service, because it is simply too costly to have their school swimmig pools operating, due to the constant pH testing of the water and other things that must be done (several times a day, apparently, in some cases) to ensure the water is ’safe’ to swim in. Now each of the ’safety’ changes brought in was probably completely good-intentioned, and in some ways inarguable at the time (how could anyone argue against testing the water regularly to ensure a kid isn’t going to get some nasty bug?? they would have said)…
But the thing is, I don’t remember a tonne (or really any) of my classmates getting sick or dying from the swimming pool water. And without the swimming pool, we would have been less active, less healthy, less social, and at more risk of drowning and plenty of other negative things as we got older… there are tonnes of detrimental flow-on effects, but these seem to often be overlooked (or left unmeasured, because they may be hard to measure) when such restrictive safety practices are brought in…
October 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Agree with HP 30 kph wont do it, geez three died in New Brighton after hitting a pole at 40kph. Assuming the pole was stationary what damage from two vehicles at 30 kph = total MOI of 60kph. BTW remember the Advt with a fit AB captain ( Fitzy) holding a mannequin baby in his arms in a simulated, I think 30kph crash and the “baby” flew out of his grasp, and he was expecting it.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I my younger days I got hit in the eye while playing squash.
The ambulance driver
The admissions nurse
The orderly
The registrar
The specialist
The night nurse
all berated me on the dangers of squash.
Didnt they understand I kept them employed!
The ‘Health’ industry is actually a sickness industry.
If they were successful at keeping everyone healthly they would be out of their highly paid jobs!
October 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I just read the new WHO position document on alcohol. There is terrifying stuff in there. And all the healthists will cite the “neutral” recommendations of the WHO when they make their proposals here based on it.
Read it. http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/10/whos-war-on-alcohol.html . Be ready.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Crampton said “Will: don’t forget that folks occasionally die from lightning strikes on golf courses; all clubs ought be made of non-conductive materials.”
Crampton – the old joke around golf is that if a storm comes over, pull out a 1-iron and hold it up, because even God can’t hit a 1-iron
October 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“And, for every drinker who dies in an accident that could have been avoided were he sober, there are countless others who simply enjoyed a good night out.”
If you want to measure the emotional benefits of drinking, how do you measure the emotional detriments of drinking? How many nights of “good times” do you have to have in order to counter for the emotional impact on a women you got raped while walking home from the pub.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Charliebrown you make a good point.
Being drunk takes the brake off of their heart wishes, it doesn’t make them break the law or act abnoxiously towards others.
However in Mr Keys thinking and actions it is that a small % of parents who bash their kids, so what does he do, he nails all parents without dealing to the offenders.
By that same thinking most domestic violence involves alcohol and being drunk so it makes sense according to National and Mr Key to ban everyone being drunk to protect the few who are being attacked and help deal to the offenders.
yes?
That said how do you quantify what a drunk does to those around them in public, to be abnoxious and rude isn’t a crime but it sure can ruin someone’s evening.
It would also directly deal to drunk driving too so we get double benefits. (personally think limit should be 0).
Nah I’m for nanny state on this one, no drunk in public. simple and it fits National rationale and means we deal to the druken binging attitude prevelant in society and assisted by media and celebrity.
It is easy to check to, breath and blood tests after you’ve been arrested for disorderly or offensive behaviour.
1st time overnight in cells and go before the magistrate the next weekday morning with fine and alcohol counseling.
2nd time overnight and go before magistrate next day, have to reapply for firearms and driving licences.
3rd time overnight, then automatic 21 days in jail suspended, alcohol counseling and on probation for 3yrs, lose liscences fully not just reapply.
thereafter straight to jail.
Drink driving should be
1st time – come before magistrate next day license suspended and resit driving and firearm licences and counseling.
2nd time – jail 21 days immediate then alcohol counseling, lose liscences.
3rd time – 3 months in jail immediate, banned from driving.
Honestly do you think if society treated drink driving and being drunk in public like this, people might take it seriously?
They don’t right now, all I see is excuses and damage needlessly caused.
if anything it is lauded and laughed at, so I totally understand the frustration of alcoholics anonymous and alac and others.
binge drinking is but a pointer to a greater public malaise.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Not are great arguement there really. If a crime is committed against someone walking home from a library should we close libraries early?
October 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Megan said
If you want to measure the emotional benefits of drinking, how do you measure the emotional detriments of drinking? How many nights of “good times” do you have to have in order to counter for the emotional impact on a women you got raped while walking home from the pub.
Getstaffed said
Not are great arguement there really. If a crime is committed against someone walking home from a library should we close libraries early?
O.K. Looks like I need to spell it out….
Before you make an objective decision you have to cost it out – what are the profits, what are the losses. The arguement in the editorial is that emotional benefits should be considered a profit (i.e. that not all alcohol consumption is a loss because it can make you feel good). My two points were that
a) emotional detriments should be considered a loss if we are going to include emotional benefits as a profit and
b) how do you objectively measure emotional benefits and emotional detriments anyway.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
mpledger – re (a) and (b), this is not an situation of profit/loss offset. Someone else’s decision to commit a crime against a person near a pub (or library, or cafe, or church, or …) should have zero bearing on my ability to use a pub (or library, or cafe, or church, or …) because these events are not in the same domain. That is unless one argues that pubs have a causative relationship with crime, which most would agree is nonsense. It is people – who have a free will – that cause crime.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
mpledger: please go and read my CIS piece on the topic, or my more thorough work on the BERL report, all of which is reported on at my blog. You’ll there find that social cost reports already count the costs of crime as a social cost of alcohol. I argue that they overestimate these costs by being too quick to assume that crime would disappear if criminals drank less. They certainly don’t err on the side of underestimating costs.
If you start adding in that alcohol made the crime victim more vulnerable (with a sober assailant), how far are you from also adding in the “social costs” of dressing too provocatively? All kinds of factors make a victim more attractive to an assailant; being drunk is only one. How about the “social costs” of walking down dark alleys at night alone? It gets a bit absurd.