Okay, So Heres How I Would Really Save Lives
The article I posted yesterday has sparked some reactions I didnt expect.
The intention of writing it was mainly to demonstrate three points:
- People tend to want to impose extreme limitations on whatever the bad thing du jour is, in this case gun violence, without looking at the big picture.
- Most folks would read that list and agree with some of the ideas while considering others outlandish, thus demonstrating that what actions are reasonable and what not are very much a function of ones biases and priorities. Or, put another way, people like to ban and limit out of safety concerns those things least likely to affect them personally.
- Its for the kids! is not an automatic valid response to every proposal, because the truth is that we, collectively, do not care as much about saving lives as we claim to. We care about it, but not so much that were willing to do anything for it.
What I didnt anticipate was the power of
Poes Law. I had some liberals who responded to the piece basically saying they thought most of it was a grand idea. And I had some frothing right-wingers who said I was a nefarious, liberty-usurping commie who was serious about every suggestion on the list and eager to take away all of their freedoms. (How they managed to conclude this given the rather obvious sarcastic tone of the first two sentences is left as an exercise for the reader.)
All that aside, it strikes me as fair to ask how I really feel about these issues. So here goes. Note that these are in addition to the ones I recommended about gun violence.
Suicide
The suggestions in this area actually werent unreasonable at all. I couldnt actually think of any ideas to reduce suicide that were extreme without being utterly, totally ridiculous. But I had to include the category because it
is a big problem, and I support increased public funding to combat it.
Smoking
I do not approve of banning smoking, even though it is more dangerous than other things we do ban. At this point it is effectively grandfathered into our society. So if adults want to kill themselves with dangerous crap, thats their business, as long as they do it in such a way that I dont have to breathe any of it. I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace and other public enclosed areas (not parks, give me a break).
But I do think every new smoker is a tragedy. Since smoking is not only dangerous but
addictive, I support ongoing efforts to educate and dissuade young people from starting. Teenagers are very suggestible and not very wise about making decisions, and once hooked, it can be very hard to get them to stop. So the let them make their own decisions argument does not apply here.
Alcohol Use
Of this list, the only measures I really support are the ones in the areas of education and enforcement. Kids need to be taught about alcohol starting at a young age, and due to the prevalence of alcoholism in the human population, anti-drinking campaigns like the anti-smoking campaigns used to great effect should be instituted. Id be fine with a modest increase in alcohol taxes to pay for these programs.
I also think colleges need to get real when it comes to underage drinking on campuses. Its not just in the fraternities, as the stereotype suggests, its everywhere.
I dont think any of the bans and limitations I mentioned many of which liberals actually would do in a heartbeat would really have any significant impact other than making life difficult for reasonable drinkers.
Obesity, Diabetes and Inactivity
Again, I mostly support educational and incentive areas here, not punitive or controlling ones. Trying to limit the sizes of soft drinks or forcing people to exercise is not only nanny-statism, it wouldnt be effective. And the one about TV sets and computer monitors was probably the flatly silliest thing in my entire piece.
We should definitely not be subsidizing the corn or sugar industries. Period.
I also think strong limits, if not outright prohibitions, on the advertising of sugary cereals and junk food to children should be imposed. This is another case of impressionable minors being influenced against their will to want something unhealthful and addictive.
I support laws to require restaurants to put calorie counts on their meals. The usual counterargument to this is that most people will ignore these. My answer is simple fine, let them. Even if 10% of the population use this information to go holy shit! when they contemplate their usual appetizer, see it has 1,500 calories, and decide to have a plain salad instead, its worth it. I use these calorie numbers myself in restaurants. Information is power. And I dont mind some semi-public shaming to discourage restaurants from putting 3,000-calorie entrees on their menus.
Finally, I do support stronger limits on what can be purchased with assistance money, and free lessons for those who need them. The poor dont have to eat substantially less healthfully than the rich, and we can help close the gap in a sensible way.
Accidents
I stand fully by my recommendations for regular full testing of all drivers. The idea that you show you can drive at age 16 and then youre set for life is asinine.
Im especially fed up with the lackadaisical attitude our society takes towards older drivers who clearly no longer have the physical ability to be safe on the road. Many of these people are at least as dangerous as drunks, and yet
nothing is being done about it. Its gotten to the point where I feel in danger whenever I see a car driven by someone with a full set of gray hair.
I understand that losing the ability to drive is a great inconvenience, and that its hard to admit that one has finally reached the point where it is necessary. But it often
does become necessary, and if people wont take these actions on their own, then society has to do it for them.
Daytime headlights have been proven to save lives in other countries and cost basically nothing.
Ignition interlocks should not be put on all cars, but they should be put on all cars owned by anyone who has ever been convicted of any sort of DUI infraction. The first time.
Perhaps the most controversial of the suggestions on my entire list that I actually do support have to do with speeding:
- I would be perfectly happy with a national 55 mph speed limit, for both safety and ecological reasons.
- I wouldnt suggest a speed limiter for all cars set to 60 mph, but what about 70 or 80? Why the hell do we need cars that can drive 120 mph on highways where thats considered reckless driving? I dont care that much when people speed a bit on the interstate, but when some guy blows by me going 50 mph over the limit, so fast that I never even saw him, it royally pisses me off.
- If we arent going to put speed limiters on cars, then we should continue and increase enforcement of speed limits on roads and highways, including automated means if they can be proven reliable.
- Also, all radar detectors and similar devices should be made illegal for use on public roadways. These devices exist solely to enable lawbreaking.
That's it. Fire away.
Facebook
Twitter