This entry is a short follow up to the last. Read that one before reading this!
The first point I must clarify is in regards to the CDC website I quoted. Neil stated that he believed that these stats were skewed in order to persuade the reader that drinking is bad. The facts merely illustrate the problems resulting from drinking. Although the website points out only the negative aspects of drinking, I believe you would be hard pressed to find a credible source providing statistics that illustrate the opposite.
Now to clarify my argument and why I chose the statistics I chose.
One point I wanted to make but now realize that I forgot to include is the following. Drinking and smoking involve inherent risks. The reason I chose these two activities is because they are completely avoidable. As a non-drinker I have nearly eliminated my chances of dieing from chronic liver disease, cancers related to oral-pharyngeal, esophagus (squamous cell type), prostate, and liver. As a non-smoker I have nearly eliminated my chances of dieing from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and stroke. The statistics Neil referenced include data that includes all deaths by heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc. Many times these diseases are unavoidable and may be due to genetics or environment. Again, I chose drinking and smoking because they are completely avoidable risks and yet the death rates attributed to them are extremely significant.
The point I was trying to make by relating meth to drinking and smoking is that the bottom line of both looks the same. Just as not everyone is about to drink and drive, endangering the lives of those around him, not everyone who snorts meth, smokes pot, etc is going to get on the road and drive. A point that Lisa Madigan makes on her website regarding “The Evils of Meth” shows how driving under the influence of meth saps resources:
- Persons driving under the influence of meth cause traffic accidents, imposing costs on insurance companies and – ultimately – their customers, as well as police departments, fire departments, emergency rooms, and other medical providers. (IAG)
With alcohol-related traffice accidents making up 41% of all traffic accidents it’s easy to see that driving while under the influence of alcohol saps the same resources that driving under the influence of meth does. As a result we pay higher taxes and insurance premiums.
Regardless of the fact that alcohol may be a legal drug and meth may not be, the point is that driving after consuming either endangers innocent people and costs everyone money. Other statistics found on the CDC alcohol website illustrate the problems alcohol can create when children are introduced.
- From 1997 through 2002, 2,355 children died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes; 1,588 (68%) of these children were riding with a drinking driver (CDC, MMWR, 2004).
Lisa Madigan argues that meth problems in Illinois endanger the lives of children as well. My question is, why is one drug looked at in our society as unacceptable because it can endanger innocent people and children while alcohol, which is completely legal at 21 and causes the same harm, is prefectly acceptable? I am in no way saying that we should not try to rid Illinois of those producing and consuming meth, but if we are to frown upon the problems brought on by meth, why aren’t we taking the same attitude towards alcohol?
Finally I will relate smoking and it’s problems to some of the problems Lisa Madigan outlines in her fight against meth. As mentioned earlier Madigan’s website states that problems related to the consumption of meth sap resources from insurance companies (their customers) and other medical providers. The same can be said of the 400,000 or so people that die each year from diseases caused by smoking. Although I cannot provide a link to hard facts on this I think that it is easy to believe, given the facts on health insurance from the 2002 census (page 4), that there were quite a few people being treated for diseases attributed to smoking on Medicaid. This saps away resources that other individuals who chose not to smoke who are also on Medicaid. We can take this one step further and look at health care in general. Just as I really would rather not pay to treat someone that destroyed their body using meth, I really would rather not have to pay higher insurance premiums in order to spend money on those that deliberately chose to smoke their entire lives. Again why are we only concerned with meth sapping away medical resources when it is quite clear given 400,000 deaths a year that smoking is doing exactly the same thing? The same attitude should be applied here as well.
Hopefully that clarifies just a bit more.
John
Note: If the links above break please let me know at news at rayray dot org. Thanks!