December 31, 2006
Responses on Drunken Driving and Trans Fats--BECKER
Many valuable comments, and I will respond to a few of them.
Maximum penalties are not the right statistic on punishment for drunk driving or other offenses. Actual punishments are the right one. In this regard, some of the calculations posted on actual punishments in the U.S. were interesting, and show how mild some of them are. Studies for Sweden and Norway I believe show clearly that punishments are more severe there. I indicated through my reference to Votey's work, which shows that this greater severity contributes to the lower rates of accidents from drunk driving in Sweden.
In many European cities, such as Stockholm, public transportation is not obviously better than in a city like Chicago, but there is no comparison between the drunk driving rates in these two cities.
I do not agree that decisions whether to drive are necessarily made during or after drunk driving. When drinkers fear punishment, they make them before by not driving if they expect to drink a lot, or by having a designated driver. That is common in Scandinavia and some other countries.
There is an "optimal" level of drunk driving, but markets without punishments exceed that level because of the harm caused by drunk drivers to others. I am not trying to eliminate driving while drunk, but to bring it closer to this optimum. The tort system alone cannot do this partly for the reasons given by Parry in his post, and partly because some drivers who hurt others are judgment proof, especially when they kill or badly injure others. That is most of the basis more generally for criminal laws and punishments beyond torts.
I do not claim that punishment should be a break-even proposition in terms of the costs and benefits to drunk drivers, but rather punishments should be at least as great as the damages caused to others. Even that should be qualified when damages are not in the form of monetary compensation to those harmed. See the working out of these principles in my paper on crime and punishment reprinted in a collection of my essays called The Essence of Becker.
On Trans Fats:
I respond briefly. Heart disease is not common in younger persons unless they are extremely obese, and I do mean extremely. In fact the effect of weight on mortality is not large except at the extremes of the Body Mass index (BMI) distribution. This is shown in the work of my colleague Robert Fogel and his students, and others.
I believe consumer ignorance is Posner's main argument, so I took that on directly, and showed I believe it is of questionable importance. Without consumer ignorance, I presume he would surely allow consumers to decide themselves.
What is remarkable to me is not how slow but how fast the response has been to evidence on the harm from trans fats. Producer after producer are declaring that their products are trans fats free. This is not an isolated instance; I recommend the writings of Pauline Ippolito of the FTC on the rapid response of advertising for products, and for the ingredients that go into different products, in response to evidence on the harm from salt, on which cereals are good for you, on why fats are bad, etc.
On the child car seats evidence, see an article by in the NY Times for July 10, 2005, The Seat-Belt Solution, By Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt.
Posted by Richard Posner at 11:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1442
Comments
We'd have to do a lot more work to compare the US to Norway or Sweden and make a case that severity of penalties THE reason for lower drunk driving fatalities.
First these "nanny states" started long before the US to change attitudes, Norway starting off with a .05 in 1936.
Sweden and Norway are both .02 or a single drink in an hour for 180#..."half a Martini for m'lady?" Apparently they use checkpoints for enforcement.
Such a policy would seem to fit with Becker's claim that "the decision" would made before going out as it's virtually an absolute. While in the social drinking-tolerant US they would be a lot more likely to "stop in for one" or go to friends for dinner and a couple of drinks, but drink more over several hours and then make a highly subjective decision. Has everyone had at least one experience with trying not to "Let friends drive drunk?" Is it easier at a suspected .08 or at .15 or more?
I suspect that both countries having civilized healthcare systems for all that provide some counseling and treatment for depression etc. helps substantially as well.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/s15p2.htm
As the first country in the world Norway introduced a legal BAC limit of 0.05 percent (50 milligrams alcohol per 100 milliliter blood) in 1936. Moreover, Norway has a long tradition of strict enforcement, with three weeks imprisonment as the normal punishment up to 1988. After 1988 fines were the normal punishment for first offense up to BAC of 0.15 percent and imprisonment above BAC of 0.15 percent. In addition the driver�s license is suspended, for one year or more.
Good article on Sweden's policy:
"The first of July 1990 the legal BAC limit in Sweden was lowered from .05% to .02%."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/s15p2.htm
Briefly on transfats: Feeding it to the kiddies is OK because they don't croak on the spot? Did any of the studies relate to health effects on youth?
As for the speed of voluntary change, one thing is sure, the ban in the NYC market of 10 million will speed things along and publicize the problem!
Jack
Posted by Jack at December 31, 2006 01:35 PM | direct link
Dr. Becker,
Thank you for addressing my comments. I did in fact misunderstand the point of your calculation with respect to punishment for drunk driving.
As for the optimal level, while I understand the idea I think that level is likely extremely low. I can think of cases where someone drinking at home, or otherwise not expecting to drive, is suddenly required to do so by an emergency of some sort. Otherwise, the social value of drunk driving seems to me to be small, since many of the costs the would-be driver incurs by not driving are, like parking fees, largely transfers. Rather than factoring these cases into punishment perhaps the best way to allow for them is to permit some sort defense based on unusual circumstances.
A Happy New Year to both you and Judge Posner.
Posted by Bernard Yomtov at December 31, 2006 06:40 PM | direct link
"Heart disease is not common in younger persons unless they are extremely obese, and I do mean extremely. In fact the effect of weight on mortality is not large except at the extremes of the Body Mass index (BMI) distribution. This is shown in the work of my colleague Robert Fogel and his students, and others."
Fair enough Dr. Becker. But I don't see how that is an adequate critique to the point that teenage obesity (or amoung younger human beings in general) causes a whole host of other health problems in a person's youth (ie not far into the future) that would not have been had had the person eaten healthier choices. The AACAP finds that obesity causes marked increased in reduced psychological health of teenagers and young adults. It can cause high blood pressure and /or high cholesterol, which in and of itself can cause a whole host of problems....
And while I agree the latter of these problems tend to happen more at the upper-ends (of weight) in young age compared to when a person is older - the fact is, that it is becoming increasingly less common in young people. And, the notion that a child goes through some ridiculous thought process where they can rationalize becoming obese (and all the potential aforementioned problems listed above that comes with it) because they think the probability of there being a 'cure' when they are older' is high enough, seems in and of itself wholly ridiculous to me.
Kids are taking on real 'current' risks that to me seem far less remote than there being a future 'cure' for all the potential negatives in old age that overeating in young adulthood can cause. Therefore, I think to ignore outright the pscyhological / addictive and potentially temporally irrational properties that food can have on some people, is, with all due respect, a mistake.
Posted by Garth Brazelton at January 2, 2007 07:34 AM | direct link
