On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:03:29 -0600, John Knight wrote
(in message <BBxH9.22622$K64.676887 at news2.west.cox.net>):
> Obviously you missed the point, so let's put it another way.
>> Even IF the reduction in the rate of alcohol-induced deaths since MADD went
> mad was due 100% to a reduction in drinking and driving, and even IF none of
> the putative 4,420 lives "saved" were due to a reduction in supposed
> alcohol-related cirrhosis deaths (from which more people die from the
> non-alcohol-related variety than from the alcohol-related variety), and even
> IF none of them were due to a reduction in alcohol-related heart disease
> deaths (which by itself, according to some claims, exceed 100,000 lives
> "saved"), and even IF none of them were due to a reduction in the number of
> alcohol-related cancer deaths (which is another group which claims to have
> saved hundreds of thousands of lives as the *rate* of NON-ALCOHOL-related
> cancer deaths more than tripled), then IS $5.4 million per life saved a wise
> investment, OR would there be better uses for those dollars?
>> You did NOT answer that question, under the pretense that this was a "switch
> of topics", so let's phrase it differently.
>> If ALL of the 4,420 alcohol-induced deaths were traffic fatalities CAUSED by
> drinking drivers, and if all of the other 37,580 traffic fatalities were
> caused by NON-drinking drivers, then:
>> A) Who causes the most traffic fatalities?
>> B) By how much?
>> John Knight
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Sonny, I don't play when only you get to cut the deck.
And you mark the cards.
Sonny, I play the Big Game; you, Sonny, play chickenfeed games.
You even cheat at penny-ante.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
