car mows down pedestrians in Melbourne.

[bordsilver]

Perhaps it does the first couple of times, but meth dumps 500-1000x more dopamine into the brain than it normally has swishing around in there and you can't put a thousand times more of anything through a system not designed to cope with that volume of stuff without permanently affecting the way it functions.

Forty bucks is cheap enough for people to try it and pretty soon the cost simply doesn't matter any more.

You could offer an ice addict as much free alcohol as they want forever and instead they'll pay the $40 to buy the next hit of ice that'll last them a day.



The uncoordinated drunk who stumbles in front of a bus and dies costs society somewhere between $2.8m-$3 million.

That's not to say the meth head doesn't cause a lot of problems for other people as well, but there's a non-zero cost to everyone in having alcoholics rolling about all over the place.

How does a uncoordinated drunk dying cost "society" $2.8-$3 million ?
Please explain

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/files/report_118.pdf

BITRE's methodology is based on the so-called "Human capital approach". This method essentially asks how much money would you have earned over the rest of your working life if you hadn't died prematurely. BITRE also include the cost to your employer due to the inconvenience your death caused.

This method may have merit for road crashes but remember that for most alcohol-related problems the cost is actually just to the individual and not really to "society". (Whether or not this calculation is of importance to a given health insurer (including via Medicare) is a separate issue, since it is still a cost to the individual.)

By stating that you making a life choice that increases your risk of "premature death" results in a cost to society is actually saying that the core purpose for you living is so that you can work for the benefit of others. In the extreme, it is saying that you exist for the purpose of the state and that you are a slave to its wishes. If an activity increases the risk to your health it will result in a loss of GDP (and tax revenue). Hence, if the cost of regulating (or banning) that activity is cheaper than the loss of the future GDP, BITRE's methodology would say that it should be regulated (or banned). It removes personal choice and personal risk. It is, by definition, pure socialism.

 

[radiobirdman]

How does a uncoordinated drunk dying cost "society" $2.8-$3 million ?
Please explain

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/files/report_118.pdf

BITRE's methodology is based on the so-called "Human capital approach". This method essentially asks how much money would you have earned over the rest of your working life if you hadn't died prematurely. BITRE also include the cost to your employer due to the inconvenience your death caused.

This method may have merit for road crashes but remember that for most alcohol-related problems the cost is actually just to the individual and not really to "society". (Whether or not this calculation is of importance to a given health insurer (including via Medicare) is a separate issue, since it is still a cost to the individual.)

By stating that you making a life choice that increases your risk of "premature death" results in a cost to society is actually saying that the core purpose for you living is so that you can work for the benefit of others. In the extreme, it is saying that you exist for the purpose of the state and that you are a slave to its wishes. If an activity increases the risk to your health it will result in a loss of GDP (and tax revenue). Hence, if the cost of regulating (or banning) that activity is cheaper than the loss of the future GDP, BITRE's methodology would say that it should be regulated (or banned). It removes personal choice and personal risk. It is, by definition, pure socialism.

Thanks Bordie common sense at last
Not all pubic servants are total XXXXwits

 

[bordsilver]

Thanks Bordie common sense at last
Not all pubic servants are total XXXXwits

No they aren't. And thankfully I'm not one (anymore)

 

[millededge]

He was still handcuffed and they knew he was unarmed(as he was in jail and this was just a transfer) and posed little danger to the officers, the officer should have been charged . They could have used the restraint chair or leg restraints to move him is he was uncooperative. Using a firearm on a handcuffed man like that should have never happened and he should ahve been charged as there was no justification / excuse here.

IN QLD a copper was charged (and convicted ) for just pulling his firearm out and pointing it at a motorist.

He was still cuffed true CJ, also unarmed, but this guy was a totally ripped beefcake. Literally bodybuilding champion of El Paso. If you look at his pictures in the DailyMail he is massive.

He was tazed 5x and to no avail. This is why when the copper went for his taser he changed his mind and went for his gun.

Remember, this guy, Lord knows how, managed easily to get his cuffs from behind to in front and then back again not that one before and the copper knew this. I can only imagine this guy's core strength, let alone what it takes to be unfazed by electrocution with a taser five times. I think it usually takes a skinful of stims...

You could argue these two were foolish to take on the guy with just two of them. Logically, there should have been a big show of force with transporting a guy like this. The warnings were there - extremely strong man, already proven resistance to taser, already proven ability to move his cuffs in front of him and therefore use them as a deadly weapon.

I think the death looks like a result of misadventure by self-pwnage although quite bizarre in its way.

A large team to restrain him would have been safer than a firearm deployed but then again, if he had cooperated he wouldn't be dead.

 

[Big A.D.]

How does a uncoordinated drunk dying cost "society" $2.8-$3 million ?
Please explain

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/files/report_118.pdf

BITRE's methodology is based on the so-called "Human capital approach". This method essentially asks how much money would you have earned over the rest of your working life if you hadn't died prematurely. BITRE also include the cost to your employer due to the inconvenience your death caused.

This method may have merit for road crashes but remember that for most alcohol-related problems the cost is actually just to the individual and not really to "society". (Whether or not this calculation is of importance to a given health insurer (including via Medicare) is a separate issue, since it is still a cost to the individual.)

By stating that you making a life choice that increases your risk of "premature death" results in a cost to society is actually saying that the core purpose for you living is so that you can work for the benefit of others. In the extreme, it is saying that you exist for the purpose of the state and that you are a slave to its wishes. If an activity increases the risk to your health it will result in a loss of GDP (and tax revenue). Hence, if the cost of regulating (or banning) that activity is cheaper than the loss of the future GDP, BITRE's methodology would say that it should be regulated (or banned). It removes personal choice and personal risk. It is, by definition, pure socialism.

Okay, let's use the willingness-to-pay model instead.

Double the human capital figure to circa $6 million per road fatality.

 

[radiobirdman]

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/files/report_118.pdf

BITRE's methodology is based on the so-called "Human capital approach". This method essentially asks how much money would you have earned over the rest of your working life if you hadn't died prematurely. BITRE also include the cost to your employer due to the inconvenience your death caused.

This method may have merit for road crashes but remember that for most alcohol-related problems the cost is actually just to the individual and not really to "society". (Whether or not this calculation is of importance to a given health insurer (including via Medicare) is a separate issue, since it is still a cost to the individual.)

By stating that you making a life choice that increases your risk of "premature death" results in a cost to society is actually saying that the core purpose for you living is so that you can work for the benefit of others. In the extreme, it is saying that you exist for the purpose of the state and that you are a slave to its wishes. If an activity increases the risk to your health it will result in a loss of GDP (and tax revenue). Hence, if the cost of regulating (or banning) that activity is cheaper than the loss of the future GDP, BITRE's methodology would say that it should be regulated (or banned). It removes personal choice and personal risk. It is, by definition, pure socialism.

Okay, let's use the willingness-to-pay model instead.

Double the human capital figure to circa $6 million per road fatality.

One dead drunk, hit by a bus.
One funeral
one Repair to the bus
Everybody involved is already being paid, maybe a bit of time off for the bus driver, add a bus drivers wage for a couple of weeks
Total cost in $ terms Sweet FA
+ a lot of Greif for his/her loved ones, that cost nothing

No lost income, someone else will pickup the slack

 

[Big A.D.]

BITRE's methodology is based on the so-called "Human capital approach". This method essentially asks how much money would you have earned over the rest of your working life if you hadn't died prematurely. BITRE also include the cost to your employer due to the inconvenience your death caused.

This method may have merit for road crashes but remember that for most alcohol-related problems the cost is actually just to the individual and not really to "society". (Whether or not this calculation is of importance to a given health insurer (including via Medicare) is a separate issue, since it is still a cost to the individual.)

By stating that you making a life choice that increases your risk of "premature death" results in a cost to society is actually saying that the core purpose for you living is so that you can work for the benefit of others. In the extreme, it is saying that you exist for the purpose of the state and that you are a slave to its wishes. If an activity increases the risk to your health it will result in a loss of GDP (and tax revenue). Hence, if the cost of regulating (or banning) that activity is cheaper than the loss of the future GDP, BITRE's methodology would say that it should be regulated (or banned). It removes personal choice and personal risk. It is, by definition, pure socialism.

Okay, let's use the willingness-to-pay model instead.

Double the human capital figure to circa $6 million per road fatality.

One dead drunk, hit by a bus.
One funeral
one Repair to the bus
Everybody involved is already being paid, maybe a bit of time off for the bus driver, add a bus drivers wage for a couple of weeks
Total cost in $ terms Sweet FA
+ a lot of Greif for his/her loved ones, that cost nothing

No lost income, someone else will pickup the slack

It's perfectly okay to say to you don't know anything about the subject.

Just saying.

 

[radiobirdman]

Okay, let's use the willingness-to-pay model instead.

Double the human capital figure to circa $6 million per road fatality.

One dead drunk, hit by a bus.
One funeral
one Repair to the bus
Everybody involved is already being paid, maybe a bit of time off for the bus driver, add a bus drivers wage for a couple of weeks
Total cost in $ terms Sweet FA
+ a lot of Greif for his/her loved ones, that cost nothing

No lost income, someone else will pickup the slack

It's perfectly okay to say to you don't know anything about the subject.

Just saying.

:lol: same goes for you

You got me though
How about you set out all the costs for me then,
Actual $ costs
Not bullshit society costs

 

[Big A.D.]

:lol: same goes for you

You got me though
How about you set out all the costs for me then,
Actual $ costs
Not bullshit society costs

"Bullshit society costs" are costs.

If you don't think there are people out there measuring and studying this stuff down to the nth degree, you're quite mistaken.

There are a number of different ways you can approach it and the human-capital/people-exist-to-serve-the-state method bordsilver doesn't like has it's flaws. Some people use it it because it focuses more on the direct economic costs and doesn't really try to measure the "how much would you pay to keep your kids safe" factor that is the basis for a willingness-to-pay method, which tends to put values much higher.

You can check out table 3 on this paper if you want to see how other countries value accidents: http://www.econ.mq.edu.au/Econ_docs..._research_seminars/Tooth_Accidents_180311.pdf

 

[bordsilver]

My issue isn't really with how to value a person who's been injured or killed in an accident that is not primarily of their doing. Indeed this is a pretty standard element of compensation for personal injury law. It's applying the same method to injuries or deaths to consequences that arise from actions that are essentially choices made by the individuals themselves and injure the same individuals. Common Law recognised the difference and consequently doesn't assign compensation in such cases (indeed it is nigh on impossible to even raise a case). Using BITRE's methods for the purposes of government policy beyond what Common Law would naturally recognise is the problem (a problem that BITRE and the general literature recognises as well). It is an inappropriate tool when applied badly but plenty of people happily do so (Collins and Lapsley are famous for doing so in the realm of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs for example).