Government "safety" regulations are killing our children

[shanek]

Hmmm...there's just GOT to be one example of a harmess and effective government safety regulation, right? It's just a matter of looking hard and long enough, right?

I've got it—child safety caps! You don't want the little kiddies taking too much medicine, and the only way to make sure that happens is to have the parents dispense it. So, you have child safety caps, where you have to squeeze in the sides of the cap after lining up the arrows while pushing down and turning, or some sort of gymnastics like that just to get the fargin' thing open. The idea is that only parents will be able to get into the bottles and the children will be safe.

Government mandates of child safety caps must have saved the lives of countless children, right?

Well, not according to W. Kip Viscusi, et al in Economics of Regulation and Antitrust.

As anyone with kids knows, kids are smart. They can figure things out. They can work computers, DVD players, and other technological devices, often much more easily than their parents. They can find and get to the cookies no matter where or how high you hide them. And they can get into those little pill bottles. Safety caps DO NOT give you additional safety measures—in fact, they give parents a false sense of safety, which is worse than no safety at all. So the children get into the pill bottles when the parents think they can't. The net result of all of this is (from page 738):

The overall implication of this analysis is that there have been 3500 additional poisonings annually of children under five that resulted from the decreased safety precautions after the advent of safety caps.

(emphasis mine)

As I recently said in another thread, that which does not kill us...probably wasn't a government program!

[Boo]

Well, I'm past the maniacal laughter, now I'm just stunned.
I'm still trying to figure out wheter you're serious or not.

So, based on one (possibly questionable) study, saftey caps are bad?

Examples of "a harmess and effective government safety regulation"?
How about:
Seat Belts
Child safety seats
Speed Limits
Drunk Driving legislation
Just off the top of my head.

This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh claiming that ALL government programs were failures and challenging anyone to come up with federal programs that actually work.

Faugh!

[michaellee]

And here I was struggling to find just one government program to blast and Walla....

So where does big brother step next? A War on Safety caps?
Or a conflict over final instruction resolution? No need for help in this area, as I have a simple solution for keeping the children out of medicine bottles and pill containers.

Package or store all pharmaceuticals, medicines and anything we don't want the children to get their hands on or show any interest about...... to look like a school textbook; a book on US History or the Constitution would work just fine.

Problem solved, unless book burning regains popularity.

[CFLarsen]

Unfortunately, I think shanek is serious.

Tell me something, shanek, what is the alternative? No safety caps? What other solution can you suggest?

[svero]

I don't know if the study is correct or not, but let's just say hypotethically that it is correct. Then the alternative of no safety caps and less poisoning would be the correct thing to do. One might try another 3rd solution... like forcing medicine manufacturors to make all the pills have a very bitter coating or something... but anway... certainly you wouldn't mandate safety caps any longer. Everyone here is wise cracking and saying one study and so on.. well it's more hard evidence then the lot of you have come up with. I don't find it so unbelievable that child safety caps could cause more poisonings than they stop. Lots of things in life are counterintuitive. Is it so hard to believe that parents are lulled into a false sense of safety and don't store medicine appropriately? Why?

[Troll]

If I read this correctly the problem is really that of the parents not being responsible since they feel the safety caps are enough. In other words they feel the government has stepped in and saved them so they can relax.

I see it more of a parental thing than a government thing.
*edited to add the following*

I'm a little thrown here by this post. I've always seen Shanek make posts talking about personal responsibility. In this case it's the parents who are slacking on the responsibility because they put too much trust in a cap, mandated or not, and yet, and I really hate to say this, you're actually taking the liberal viewpoint of trying to find someone else to blame?:confused:

[Pyrrho]

Is there evidence of decreased safety precautions? Also, has the use of such drugs increased since the advent of safety caps? Where can we find the data to support the claim of increased poisonings?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

An overview of studies on the effectiveness of child-resistant packaging:
Poisoning Interventions Child-Resistant Packaging and the Posion Prevention Packaging Act (http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm)

The declines in incidents and fatalities is pretty dramatic.

[svero]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
An overview of studies on the effectiveness of child-resistant packaging:
Poisoning Interventions Child-Resistant Packaging and the Posion Prevention Packaging Act (http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm)

The declines in incidents and fatalities is pretty dramatic.

Hmmmm.. well this link contradicts what Shanek posted and boasts many studies. It's pretty convincing. Many of these studies are confined to certain age groups etc... Not sure if that's relevant. So is the other study in "Economics of Regulation and Antitrust" simply wrong? I'd like to see why the data contradicts. Obviously something's amiss somewhere.

[CFLarsen]

Let's dig a little more into this:

Source: W. Kip Viscusi, "The Lulling Effect: The Impact of Child-Resistant Packaging on Aspirin and Analgesic Ingestion," American Economic Review (May, 1984): 324-27.)

From 1984. Almost 20 years ago. Yet, it is uncritically repeated in:

"Rock a bye baby" (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/21130)
Author: Beth Skinner
Published on: June 4, 1999

Viscusi repeats himself - apparently without doing any follow-up whatsoever - in 1992. Which is where shanek got his info from.

shanek, let me take a wild guess here: You didn't read the actual study, did you? You merely picked up this info-bit (which I haven't seen confirmed, but maybe you could help us there?), right?

I note that the quote says "implication". I wonder why the data wasn't strong to indicate something that looks like evidence.

I see that others beat me to it, coming up with contrary evidence.

This should be good.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Boo
So, based on one (possibly questionable) study, saftey caps are bad?

No, but once again we see that government forcing people to use safety caps has the opposite effect of the one intended.

Examples of "a harmess and effective government safety regulation"?
How about:
Seat Belts
Child safety seats
Speed Limits
Drunk Driving legislation
Just off the top of my head.

These have all been covered in the other threads here. if that's the best you can do, you need to try harder.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Tell me something, shanek, what is the alternative? No safety caps? What other solution can you suggest?

Once again, we see your narrow, black/white mentality at work. I'm no more for banning safety caps than I am for requiring them.

What am I for? Oh, how about letting parents have the leeway to decide for themselves how many safety precautions are necessary to protect their own children? That's bound to be a lot more effective than government programs which promise to be completely safe but that just lull people into a false sense of security. It's the same effect as with speed limits that I mentioned in another thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Troll
If I read this correctly the problem is really that of the parents not being responsible since they feel the safety caps are enough.

The problem is that the government, through the process of regulation, tells them that safety caps are enough; that if you put safety caps on the medicine, your children can't get in them.

I see it more of a parental thing than a government thing.

Well, what parent wants their child to die of a drug overdose?

I'm a little thrown here by this post. I've always seen Shanek make posts talking about personal responsibility.

What you just don't understand is that government regulations like this inhibit responsibility. The reason why the parents aren't taking responsible precautions is that the government has lulled them into a false sense of security.

Come on, people! If this were some private corporation making the same claim, you would all be clamoring to sue them for false advertising and using it as an example of why the free market is so evil! And don't sit there and pretend you wouldn't! And in that case the manufacturer wouldn't even be forcing people to use their product the way the government is!

[shanek]

Originally posted by svero
Many of these studies are confined to certain age groups etc... Not sure if that's relevant.

The study in my quoted source was confined to children under the age of five. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that children over that age would be able to get in, and so it seems reasonable that the parents start to take additional precautions again.

But most people just don't realize what a 2-year-old can actually do...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Viscusi repeats himself - apparently without doing any follow-up whatsoever - in 1992. Which is where shanek got his info from.

No, it isn't. In fact, I've never even heard of that web site before. This is jsut another example of the pathetic lengths you will go to in order to avoid even considering that you may actually be wrong.

I, OTOH, am more than willing to do so, and may actually do that after I have a chance to read MKJ's source.

shanek, let me take a wild guess here: You didn't read the actual study, did you?

I'm sure it comforts you no end to believe that, so I'll let you have your little delusion...

I note that the quote says "implication".

Well, how many studies have you seen that claim to be definitive? Usually the ones who make absolute claims like that are laughed at, since hardly anything in a scientific study is definitive.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Once again, we see your narrow, black/white mentality at work. I'm no more for banning safety caps than I am for requiring them.

What am I for? Oh, how about letting parents have the leeway to decide for themselves how many safety precautions are necessary to protect their own children? That's bound to be a lot more effective than government programs which promise to be completely safe but that just lull people into a false sense of security. It's the same effect as with speed limits that I mentioned in another thread.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

You would rather have no safety caps and let parents take the "precautions" they so desire, than to have safety caps and let parents take the "precautions" they so desire.

You are blaming the deaths of these children (a number which is highly questionable, considering the contrary evidence) on the government instead of the sloppy parents? Parents are sloppy after safety caps and not before?

Are you completely insane, shanek?? I'm sorry, but I have to ask.

Why do you think the safety caps are there in the first place? Do you deny the contrary numbers?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it isn't. In fact, I've never even heard of that web site before. This is jsut another example of the pathetic lengths you will go to in order to avoid even considering that you may actually be wrong.

I will go to "pathetic" lengths to seek evidence.

Originally posted by shanek
I, OTOH, am more than willing to do so, and may actually do that after I have a chance to read MKJ's source.

Perhaps you should have found and read the source before you started this thread. Do your homework.

Originally posted by shanek
I'm sure it comforts you no end to believe that, so I'll let you have your little delusion...

I notice you didn't answer.

Originally posted by shanek
Well, how many studies have you seen that claim to be definitive? Usually the ones who make absolute claims like that are laughed at, since hardly anything in a scientific study is definitive.

I didn't claim that the study had to be definitive, only that it implied something. Has the findings been replicated, or is this a one-time only?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You would rather have no safety caps

When did I ever say no safety caps? You're putting words in my mouth again. Saying no government mandate of safety caps is NOT the same thing as saying no safety caps at all! In fact, I just got through saying that I DIDN'T want a ban on safety caps either!

As a parent, I would certainly choose to have safety caps on any medicine I had in the house. But I also appreciate it when it is represented as a supplement to the other precautions, not a replacement.

It's just like what the government did with air bags. Air bags were supposed to be a supplement to seat belts. The government tried to make it where it would protect people who weren't wearing seat belts, too, and as a direct result of that they ended up killing people.

Parents are sloppy after safety caps and not before?

That's what the data in the study showed.

Why do you think the safety caps are there in the first place? Do you deny the contrary numbers?

Having not had a chance to read the studies referenced in the site that MKJ posted, I'm not in a position to confirm or deny anything. THAT is the difference between you and me: I don't automatically dismiss data just because it seems to contradict what I think I know.

[shanek]

By the way, for everyone other than Claus:

[WARNING: CLAUS, DO NOT READ THIS NEXT SENTENCE, OR YOUR BRAIN MIGHT EXPLODE.]

In case people are wondering whether or not I actually did read the study: Yes, I did. In fact, I've been going over it for some time before I posted it here.

[CLAUS: IT IS NOW SAFE FOR YOU TO READ AGAIN. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
When did I ever say no safety caps? You're putting words in my mouth again. Saying no government mandate of safety caps is NOT the same thing as saying no safety caps at all! In fact, I just got through saying that I DIDN'T want a ban on safety caps either!

Who decides, then?

Originally posted by shanek
As a parent, I would certainly choose to have safety caps on any medicine I had in the house. But I also appreciate it when it is represented as a supplement to the other precautions, not a replacement.

Who decides to put the caps on?

Originally posted by shanek
It's just like what the government did with air bags. Air bags were supposed to be a supplement to seat belts. The government tried to make it where it would protect people who weren't wearing seat belts, too, and as a direct result of that they ended up killing people.

Huh??? Sorry, not in Denmark.

Originally posted by shanek
That's what the data in the study showed.

Yes, but the data in other studies showed the opposite. Why should we believe your single study?

Originally posted by shanek
Having not had a chance to read the studies referenced in the site that MKJ posted, I'm not in a position to confirm or deny anything. THAT is the difference between you and me: I don't automatically dismiss data just because it seems to contradict what I think I know.

Actually, I am. I looked at the results.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by shanek


The problem is that the government, through the process of regulation, tells them that safety caps are enough; that if you put safety caps on the medicine, your children can't get in them.
(snip)

Some less educated people may want to believe that safety caps prevent their children form getting in them, but most people understand, I think, that safety caps merely reduce the risk of very young children from getting into the drugs.

I think you are exaggerating Shane.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek


The problem is that the government, through the process of regulation, tells them that safety caps are enough; that if you put safety caps on the medicine, your children can't get in them.



Well, what parent wants their child to die of a drug overdose?



What you just don't understand is that government regulations like this inhibit responsibility. The reason why the parents aren't taking responsible precautions is that the government has lulled them into a false sense of security.

Come on, people! If this were some private corporation making the same claim, you would all be clamoring to sue them for false advertising and using it as an example of why the free market is so evil! And don't sit there and pretend you wouldn't! And in that case the manufacturer wouldn't even be forcing people to use their product the way the government is!

Some may go that route, but not me. I'm against suing companies because people misuse their product, and against people using the company to blame for their desire to smoke and get cancer or eat too much and excersise too little and get fat. If the government mandated helmets I wouldn't be blaming them if I was doing 110 and suffered brain damage from an accident I had while wearing a helmet. Child safety caps are usually found on bottles that have lables saying "Keep out of reach of children". It's just bad and lazy parenting skills

[Reginald]

In the UK we have safety caps.

We also have big words on all our medicines that says..

KEEP ALL MEDICINES OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN

Gov legislation...erm yep.

Stating the obvious.....erm yep.

A useful reminder....I think so.

What we have is a safety cap you must have and a reminder not to leave the medicines where children can even get at the bottle, let alone undo the cap.

Just because those who make the laws in a country do something it doesn't excuse the population from having to think.

[Boo]

Originally posted by shanek


When did I ever say no safety caps? You're putting words in my mouth again. Saying no government mandate of safety caps is NOT the same thing as saying no safety caps at all! In fact, I just got through saying that I DIDN'T want a ban on safety caps either!

As a parent, I would certainly choose to have safety caps on any medicine I had in the house. But I also appreciate it when it is represented as a supplement to the other precautions, not a replacement.
I'm not sure where you got the opinion that the government decided child saftey caps are a replacement for common sense precautions. I've never seen anything that supports this. Perhaps you can provide a link? I'd like to read something where the government tells me I don't have to practice medicinal saftey because my drugs have child-proof caps.

It's just like what the government did with air bags. Air bags were supposed to be a supplement to seat belts. The government tried to make it where it would protect people who weren't wearing seat belts, too, and as a direct result of that they ended up killing people.
Again, please show me where the government stated that people didn't need to wear saftey belts, because they had created air bags that were sufficient. Air bags work. Period. Yes, they have injured and killed some people, but there is a larger body of studies and statistic that prove airbags save lives than prove they do not.
These have all been covered in the other threads here. if that's the best you can do, you need to try harder.
I'm so glad that you have pre-argued and dismissed the other saftey regs I brought up, but again, the body of research that suggests they work is much greater than the studies that show they don't.
Wanna play show the studies on these? I'll post the "pro" studies and data, you can post the "cons", and we'll see which is more convincing.

[Skeptic]

You are blaming the deaths of these children (a number which is highly questionable, considering the contrary evidence) on the government instead of the sloppy parents? Parents are sloppy after safety caps and not before?

Shanek, as usual, is comparing apples and oranges: the "bad" reality, with safety caps and sometimes careless parents, to a hypothetical situation where a). safety caps didn't exist, and b). due to their disappearance, all parents become 100% careful and competent while dealing with medicine.

Comparing the imperfect reality with a perfect, hypothetical world (one that would instantly come into being the moment those nasty government safety programs are discontinued) is Shanek's trademark. He did the same, most recently, with the "social security" thread, complaining that if a certain woman would invest her money succesfuly instead of giving it to social security, she would have more money now. True, but not to the point at all--the whole point of SS is to help those who invested badly as a safety net.

The same is the case here: saying that safety caps and negligent parents are worse than no safety caps and careful parents is true, but of course, not to the point; the whole point of safety caps is to save kids when the parent is negligent--or simply human and therefore imperfect--and mistakenly allows the child get to the medicine cabinet.

Using Shanek's methods of comparing the real world to a hypothetical one can, of course, be used to "prove" any absurd conclusion one wants. For exmaple, it can "prove" giving kids dynamite to play with is a good idea: after all, thousands of kids die in accidents every years. But surely, if they all had to carry dynamite with them, their parents would take better care of them, and prevent many of those accidents! This will save lives!

Stupid government--not allowing the sale of explosives to minors, the direct cause of all those lost lives! Don't they care???

Are you completely insane, shanek?? I'm sorry, but I have to ask.

If he is, it's surely the government's fault.

[Mike B.]

BTW,
Did you know body odor was on its way to being eradicated by the free market until as usual BIG GOVERNMENT came in and caused more of it?

:p :p :p

[a_unique_person]

Shane is once again showing he is thinking as an ideologue, that is, a person who has a pre-concieved notion of what is the state of the world, and then proceeds to act on the assumption that the ideology is correct. Much the same as Marxists fell into the same trap.

[Mike B.]

WOW...
AUP said something I agree with.
:)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who decides, then?

Why not the parents?

Who decides to put the caps on?

Again, parents maybe?

Huh??? Sorry, not in Denmark.

I was speaking of the US.

Yes, but the data in other studies showed the opposite.

From what little I've had a chance to glance at the other studies, they don't seem to have looked at this age group or the effects mentioned in the study I cited.

Actually, I am. I looked at the results.

Ah...So YOU only have to look at the results to have a credible opinion, but I have to have read the whole study. Makes a lot of sense...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Some less educated people may want to believe that safety caps prevent their children form getting in them, but most people understand, I think, that safety caps merely reduce the risk of very young children from getting into the drugs.

I think you are exaggerating Shane.

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's what the study found.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Troll
Some may go that route, but not me.

Many of the posters in this thread (not you, though) have done exactly that. And it's a clear double-standard.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Boo

I'm not sure where you got the opinion that the government decided child saftey caps are a replacement for common sense precautions.

I didn't get that opinion. That's what the study found!

Again, please show me where the government stated that people didn't need to wear saftey belts, because they had created air bags that were sufficient.

That wasn't the point at all. The point was that the government, wanting to protect people who weren't wearing seat belts anyway, mandated a level of deployment force that the car companies warned at the time would be lethal!

Air bags work. Period. Yes, they have injured and killed some people, but there is a larger body of studies and statistic that prove airbags save lives than prove they do not.


But they didn't have to have killed the people that they did! They would have been much safer if the car companies had implemented them at their original level of force. Not only that, but the government mandate delayed the implementation of airbags 5-10 years, and thus is responsible for kiling all the people who would have been saved by airbags during that time.

I'm so glad that you have pre-argued and dismissed the other saftey regs I brought up,

Well, I'm sorry that I don't have the massive amounts of personal time to keep reiterating subjects I've already discussed at length in other threads. I'm willing to do some of that (the airbag example is something I've pointed out numerous times) but there are limits on how much time I have to do this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Shanek, as usual, is comparing apples and oranges: the "bad" reality, with safety caps and sometimes careless parents, to a hypothetical situation where a). safety caps didn't exist, and b). due to their disappearance, all parents become 100% careful and competent while dealing with medicine.

NO I AM NOT!!!! AND I HAVE RESPONSED TO THIS PATHETIC STRAWMAN SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY!!!!! :mad:

Comparing the imperfect reality with a perfect, hypothetical world (one that would instantly come into being the moment those nasty government safety programs are discontinued) is Shanek's trademark. He did the same, most recently, with the "social security" thread, complaining that if a certain woman would invest her money succesfuly instead of giving it to social security, she would have more money now. True, but not to the point at all--the whole point of SS is to help those who invested badly as a safety net.

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I said in the SS thread! And I corrected you on that at the time! QUIT LYING!!!!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[tedly]

For more on this topic, see Edward Tenner's Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences

He gives further examples of safety measures that don't work, some of which are not mandated by the state. For example compare the level of injury suffered by top level American footballers, protected by body armour, and international Rugby players, protected by coloured jerseys.

Now this one isn't safety related, just a personal observation. Driving into town on fresh snow one morning I spotted 7 vehicles in the ditch. Six were four wheel drive, whose owners, made confident by their extra traction, forgot that with the brakes on they were back in a pick-up.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tedly
For more on this topic, see Edward Tenner's Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences

I haven't read that; I'll check it out. Thanks!

He gives further examples of safety measures that don't work, some of which are not mandated by the state. For example compare the level of injury suffered by top level American footballers, protected by body armour, and international Rugby players, protected by coloured jerseys.

Not knowing much about rugby, I'd hate to make such a comparison. How comparable are the types of injuries and contact between these two sports?

Driving into town on fresh snow one morning I spotted 7 vehicles in the ditch. Six were four wheel drive, whose owners, made confident by their extra traction, forgot that with the brakes on they were back in a pick-up.

Lemme guess: They were trying to pull the 7th guy out, right?

[tedly]

Touché.
No, in fact they were distributed over 10 miles of road. They'd all spun out.

[Wolverine]

[tangental gripe]

Ugh, those damned "childproof" caps. Why don't I even have a choice anymore when it comes to purchasing aspirin or related items with normal ones? I'm a bachelor, live alone, and find the whole thing quite a nuisance.

Ah yes, I sleep so much better at night knowing that just in case a horde of renegade 7-year-olds break into my house when I'm away... they won't be able to accidentally ingest any of my mouthwash.

[/tangental gripe]

Neal Boortz is right. Most Americans are afraid to be truly free.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek Originally posted by BooI'm not sure where you got the opinion that the government decided child saftey caps are a replacement for common sense precautions.I didn't get that opinion. That's what the study found!Are you actually claiming that the study documented a government decision that child safety caps on medications were a sufficient replacement for all other precautions against children getting hold of them? Please quote the specific section of the study that provides this documentation. Better yet, simply cite the government publication that documents this remarkable claim.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by tedly
For more on this topic, see Edward Tenner's Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences

He gives further examples of safety measures that don't work, some of which are not mandated by the state. For example compare the level of injury suffered by top level American footballers, protected by body armour, and international Rugby players, protected by coloured jerseys.

Now this one isn't safety related, just a personal observation. Driving into town on fresh snow one morning I spotted 7 vehicles in the ditch. Six were four wheel drive, whose owners, made confident by their extra traction, forgot that with the brakes on they were back in a pick-up.

Rugby players also have rules about how hard they can tackle. The spear tackle, for example, is severely disciplined. In American football, helmets are used as weapons. In rugby, a player plays the whole game, not just one aspect of it. In American football, specialist players, whose only attribute is the ability to attack someone hard and hurt them are picked.

Australian rules football also has a lot of problems with injuries, like many elite sports. Once again, no armour, but very strictly enforced rules about what is a reasonable amount of force that can be used and what tackling techniques are banned.

At the same time, some padding is starting to appear, and soft helmets are optional. Why not give american footballers soft helmets. They cannot then be used as weapons.

What you are really complaining about here is the problem of an 'arms race'. Better to 'regulate' at an early stage, and avoid all the implications of better armed people attacking each other. As you point out, no one wins. This has also been demonstrated with the 4WD issue. They cause more fatalities in a collision, give people a false sense of security and compel everyone else to buy a light truck. Now, when we are all driving light trucks around, we are once again no safer than the other guy, and in fact, with the increased mass of the vehicles involved, more liable to injury.

[tedly]

Wolverine. can't you get your pharmacist to give you non child-proofed caps? I know they're available for seniors meds, many of whom have arthritis in their hands.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Neal Boortz is right. Most Americans are afraid to be truly free.

Of course. Because "true freedom" is anarchy, no?

[tedly]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Rugby players also have rules about how hard they can tackle. The spear tackle, for example, is severely disciplined.
....
What you are really complaining about here is the problem of an 'arms race'.
Exactly. American football IS Rugby, except that when a Montreal team couldn't raise 15 for a trip in New York they, in accordance with the best traditions of coarse rugby, played with 11. In the late 18's there was a dispute over passing forward, the colonies said 'yea', the mother country said nay, and divergence was born.

Tackling , too, is not a matter of regulation, but of the 'arms race'. In rugby you can't put your head in front of the runner's knees because his knees will land on your head when he falls like a smitten oak. Put on a nice protective helmet, and you can clean out his knees. Then when your spearing tackles cause you to sprain your neck you can put a roll between the helmet and the neck pads. And so it goes. But none of this is regulated, just permitted and evolved. And so you see 35 year old football players with no functioning joints, and Rugby players still playing in their 50's ( even 80's I'm told)

'The result of protecting people from the consequences of their own folly is to populate the world with fools." I hope I got that right, and I'm fairly sure it's Benjamin Franklin

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wolverine
[tangental gripe]

Ugh, those damned "childproof" caps. Why don't I even have a choice anymore when it comes to purchasing aspirin or related items with normal ones? I'm a bachelor, live alone, and find the whole thing quite a nuisance.

Ah yes, I sleep so much better at night knowing that just in case a horde of renegade 7-year-olds break into my house when I'm away... they won't be able to accidentally ingest any of my mouthwash.

[/tangental gripe]

Neal Boortz is right. Most Americans are afraid to be truly free.

Yes, it is such an imposition on you, so that kids lives are saved.

[Boo]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, I'm sorry that I don't have the massive amounts of personal time to keep reiterating subjects I've already discussed at length in other threads. I'm willing to do some of that (the airbag example is something I've pointed out numerous times) but there are limits on how much time I have to do this.

Again Shanek, you needen't take the time to reiterate anything. Simply post the studies you have that support your position, and I'll post the studies that support mine, and we'll see where the preponderance of evidence lies. Easy enough.

You do HAVE those studies that support your position ... right?

We'll let the research do the talking.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Boo-

Before you start doing alot of research, check out this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21824

Alot of information was posted on state and federal involvement in car safety regulations, especially with regard to seatbelts. It should be a good starting point if you want to carry it further.

[Reginald]

7 year olds everywhere, please head to Austen, TX.

Wolverine needs help opening his meds.

(If he asks you to do any heavy manual work or wash his truck....politely say no and leave)


:D

[shanek]

Here's another thread on the issue (although you'd never know it from the subject line; it kind of digressed):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6445&highlight=seat+belts

In particular, on the second page I post highlights from the NTSB's timeline regarding seat belts, showing that they were standard equipment in cars before government regulations required them. To this date, that has gone completely unrefuted. Note also that most of the seatbelt technology was developed by Volvo, completely independent of any government pressure.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
To this date, that has gone completely unrefuted.

The information in the other thread refutes your claim. The federal standard issued was for lap and shoulder belts. Car companies were only providing lap belts as standard equipment. State governments were issuing requirements for belts before the Federal standards.

[shanek]

Well, my digging around found this information from the National Safety Council's 1994 statistics, compared to 1980:

http://www.mcdl.org/Stats/accidentdeaths.htm

Whereas most other types of accidents went down, and those that did go up (falls and medical complications) didn't go up by much (1% and 12%, respectively) the number of poisonings went up by 108%! And it went from 5% of all accidental deaths to 11%! Granted, this is all poisonings, not just the kind I opened this thread with, but it still does seem to put a lid on the claims of poisonings dropping dramatically.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, my digging around found this information from the National Safety Council's 1994 statistics, compared to 1980:

http://www.mcdl.org/Stats/accidentdeaths.htm

Whereas most other types of accidents went down, and those that did go up (falls and medical complications) didn't go up by much (1% and 12%, respectively) the number of poisonings went up by 108%! And it went from 5% of all accidental deaths to 11%! Granted, this is all poisonings, not just the kind I opened this thread with, but it still does seem to put a lid on the claims of poisonings dropping dramatically.

Except that is doesn't, because, as you point out, you cannot tell what proportion was caused by medicines. Wishful thinking on your part.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

This data is from the CDC WISQARS system which generates tables of fatality statistics (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html)
Keep in mind, this is for ages 0-9. The numbers from 0-5 are undoubtedly lower. From 1981 to 2000, the number of deaths dropped from 122 to 63.

1981 - 1998, United States
Unintentional Poisoning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 9
ICD-9 Codes: E850-E869

Year -- # of Deaths--Population***--Crude Rate
1981 -- 122 -------- 32,952,814 --------- 0.37
1982 -- 125 -------- 33,185,833 --------- 0.38
1983 -- 107 -------- 33,600,151 --------- 0.32
1984 -- 120 -------- 34,032,789 --------- 0.35
1985 -- 101 -------- 34,506,491 --------- 0.29
1986 -- 117 -------- 35,060,913 --------- 0.33
1987 -- 74 -------- 35,482,410 --------- 0.21
1988 -- 99 -------- 35,954,734 --------- 0.28
1989 -- 94 -------- 36,424,823 --------- 0.26
1990 -- 81 -------- 36,914,694 --------- 0.22
1991 -- 90 -------- 37,394,032 --------- 0.24
1992 -- 68 -------- 37,784,527 --------- 0.18
1993 -- 101 -------- 38,116,133 --------- 0.26
1994 -- 72 -------- 38,452,449 --------- 0.19
1995 -- 52 -------- 38,628,392 --------- 0.13
1996 -- 75 -------- 38,730,537 --------- 0.19
1997 -- 58 -------- 38,853,456 --------- 0.15
1998 -- 47 -------- 38,918,104 --------- 0.12
Total -- 1,603 ------ 654,993,282 ------- 0.24


1999 - 2000, United States
Unintentional Poisoning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 9
ICD-10 Codes: X40-X49

Year -- # of Deaths -- Population*** -- Crude Rate
1999 -- 58 ------------- 38,888,888 --------- 0.15
2000 -- 63 ------------- 38,775,887 --------- 0.16
Total -- 121 ------------ 77,664,775 --------- 0.16

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Why not the parents?

But isn't your complaint that the parents are irresponsible??

Originally posted by shanek
Again, parents maybe?

How do you suggest those caps are designed? Parents buy separate caps, put them on the bottles...wait, that would require the bottles to be standardized!! Who enforces this? The.....government? :D


Originally posted by shanek
I was speaking of the US.

But how do you know, then, without comparing your "parents-get-stupider-when-government-controlled"-claim to anything? You take two data points (one that is dubious and the other speculative) and demand that there is a connection.

Aren't you saying that parents in the US, when government-controlled, get stupider, while parents in Denmark, when government-controlled, get less so? Denmark, which is far more "government-controlled" than the US?

Either American parents are inherently more susceptible to government-control, or America needs a lot more government control. Which is it, shanek?

Originally posted by shanek
From what little I've had a chance to glance at the other studies, they don't seem to have looked at this age group or the effects mentioned in the study I cited.

"From what little I've had a chance to glance at the other studies".... I rest my case.

Originally posted by shanek
Ah...So YOU only have to look at the results to have a credible opinion, but I have to have read the whole study. Makes a lot of sense...

No, look at the results if you want. BUT LOOK AT THEM!

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by tedly
Wolverine. can't you get your pharmacist to give you non child-proofed caps? I know they're available for seniors meds, many of whom have arthritis in their hands.

If I were taking any prescription medication, I'm sure the option would exist. My comments applied to over-the-counter products, which mostly seem to be packaged in some sort of 'child-proof' manner.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Keep in mind, this is for ages 0-9. The numbers from 0-5 are undoubtedly lower.

Why? Isn't that just the kind of assumption people here are accusing me of making?

And again, these numbers appear to be all poisonings, not just medicine overdose. So the same caveat I mentioned in my above figures applies as well.

So far, the only figures I've found that match the elements of the study I cited is the study I cited.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Of course. Because "true freedom" is anarchy, no?

Apologies, my comment was quite vague.

Boortz (http://www.boortz.com) (to paraphrase) voiced on a recent broadcast that most Americans seem quite comfortable with the government playing a large role in their individual lives, and would rather be subjected to the intrusion than undertake a greater level of personal responsibility for themselves.

From this context, he was not suggesting anarchy as a more plausible solution. If you're curious to better understand his position, tune in to his program sometime.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But isn't your complaint that the parents are irresponsible??

My complaint is that the parents are acting out of a false sense of security due to government regulations...just like you see in pretty much every aspect of government regulation.

How do you suggest those caps are designed?

It's simple: Design the caps the way they are now. Manufacturers decide whether or not to use a safety cap, parents and other consumers decide which they're going to buy. Manufacturers may even include non-safety caps with their medicine for the benefit of people who don't have children (and thus don't need the caps) but don't want to fool with them, or have trouble doing so because of arthritis or whatever.

wait, that would require the bottles to be standardized!! Who enforces this? The.....government? :D

Since when do we need the government to enforce standards?

You take two data points (one that is dubious and the other speculative) and demand that there is a connection.

Look...the textbook I took it from is one of the most highly regarded textbooks in the country. It has consistently gotten rave reviews; that's why I read the friggin' thing in the first place. In fact, I've done extensive searches on the Internet and have yet to find one single bad review about it! How often does that happen?

But, I guess we should just take your word for it that its "dubious" and "speculative"? Let me turn the tables on your earlier question to me: Have you read it? Have you even seen the cover???

No, look at the results if you want. BUT LOOK AT THEM!

That's gonna take some time. Apparently, most of them aren't available over the internet, so it'll mean a trip to the library for me...which, actually, in the small amount of time it's been since MKJ posted them leaves me in serious doubt that you've checked out these other studies, too!

So, here YOU sit, apparently having read NEITHER of them, vociferously passing judgement on which one is true and which one is "dubious" and "speculative." At least I, to some measure, am reserving judgement until I have a chance to check it out properly.

I repeat again: YOU ARE NO SKEPTIC!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wolverine
If I were taking any prescription medication, I'm sure the option would exist.

It does. And you don't have to prove anything to anybody to get it; all you have to do is ask for it.

So, what sense does this make that this option does not exist for OTC medicine?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yes, it is such an imposition on you, so that kids lives are saved.

I never suggested that 'child-proof' packaging should be done away with. It would be nice for those without children in the home to have the option of purchasing over-the-counter products without said packaging. Is that so unreasonable?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Reginald
7 year olds everywhere, please head to Austen, TX.

Wolverine needs help opening his meds.

(If he asks you to do any heavy manual work or wash his truck....politely say no and leave)


:D

:D

Actually, I don't have any difficulty opening the container in question. My gripe in this case is that, due to the design, the thing leaks if it's not kept upright. Quite annoying.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by shanek
So, what sense does this make that this option does not exist for OTC medicine?

My point exactly. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
My complaint is that the parents are acting out of a false sense of security due to government regulations...just like you see in pretty much every aspect of government regulation.

Really? Why? Are American parents just dumber than Danish parents? Your argument that more government regulation = false sense of security = more accidents does not hold water, until you explain that one. Unless you take just two data points and insist there is a correlation, without any comparison whatsoever.

Originally posted by shanek
It's simple: Design the caps the way they are now. Manufacturers decide whether or not to use a safety cap, parents and other consumers decide which they're going to buy. Manufacturers may even include non-safety caps with their medicine for the benefit of people who don't have children (and thus don't need the caps) but don't want to fool with them, or have trouble doing so because of arthritis or whatever.

So, you would have at least two sets of designs, probably one for each manufacturer. That increases production prices, which means more expensive products.

Originally posted by shanek
Since when do we need the government to enforce standards?

Answer the question. Who should enforce these standards? The manufacturers? Do you have any idea how many different designs there is on basically the same products? Which manufacturer "wins"?

We don't need the government to enforce standards of currency, justice, measurements, etc?

Originally posted by shanek
Look...the textbook I took it from is one of the most highly regarded textbooks in the country. It has consistently gotten rave reviews; that's why I read the friggin' thing in the first place. In fact, I've done extensive searches on the Internet and have yet to find one single bad review about it! How often does that happen?

That a publication only gets positive reviews raises a very large, unfurling flag of a reddish color: Not one single person disagrees with it? No flaws are found? I can't believe that.

Originally posted by shanek
But, I guess we should just take your word for it that its "dubious" and "speculative"? Let me turn the tables on your earlier question to me: Have you read it? Have you even seen the cover???

It is dubious and speculative because it is both almost 20 years old as well as in direct conflict with other data.

Originally posted by shanek
That's gonna take some time. Apparently, most of them aren't available over the internet, so it'll mean a trip to the library for me...which, actually, in the small amount of time it's been since MKJ posted them leaves me in serious doubt that you've checked out these other studies, too!

Have fun at the library. You should go more often.

Originally posted by shanek
So, here YOU sit, apparently having read NEITHER of them, vociferously passing judgement on which one is true and which one is "dubious" and "speculative." At least I, to some measure, am reserving judgement until I have a chance to check it out properly.

Really? You seem to have made up your mind by now.

Originally posted by shanek
I repeat again: YOU ARE NO SKEPTIC!

Yes, I am. Just because I point out very serious flaws in your argument does not make me a non-skeptic. Quite contrary.

(And when you "repeat" something, it is implied that you do it "again"....)

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
And again, these numbers appear to be all poisonings, not just medicine overdose. So the same caveat I mentioned in my above figures applies as well.
True, but it does put a lid on claims that poisonings for this age group didn't drop dramatically.

Originally posted by shanek
So far, the only figures I've found that match the elements of the study I cited is the study I cited.

The results from the original page I posted measure the rate of poisonings before and after the passsage of the act. They are directly on point; many of the studies are on children age 0-5. No one is asking you to look up the original studies--the results are summarized right there on the web page.

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm
Reported accidental ingestions among children less than 5 years, from National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) between 1973 and 1978.

Overall ingestion rate for regulated products decreased significantly from 5.7/1000 children in 1973 to 3.4/1000 children in 1978 (p<0.05).
Reported accidental ingestions among children less than 5 years in United States between 1965 and 1974.

Adjusted incidence of baby aspirin poisoning declined overall from 1965 to 1974. Decline in pre-PPPA years (1965-1969) averages about 4%, while post-PPPA declines average about 32% each year.
Reduction in accidental ingestion of baby aspirin of about 50%. Reduction of about 42% for regular aspirin.

Overall decrease of baby aspirin poisoning by about 70% from 1969 to 1972.

Death rate (per million children) drops from 3.4 in 1968 to 1.5 in 1974.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek
Hmmm...there's just GOT to be one example of a harmess and effective government safety regulation, right? It's just a matter of looking hard and long enough, right?

I've got it&mdash;child safety caps! You don't want the little kiddies taking too much medicine, and the only way to make sure that happens is to have the parents dispense it. So, you have child safety caps, where you have to squeeze in the sides of the cap after lining up the arrows while pushing down and turning, or some sort of gymnastics like that just to get the fargin' thing open. The idea is that only parents will be able to get into the bottles and the children will be safe.

Government mandates of child safety caps must have saved the lives of countless children, right?

Well, not according to W. Kip Viscusi, et al in Economics of Regulation and Antitrust.

As anyone with kids knows, kids are smart. They can figure things out. They can work computers, DVD players, and other technological devices, often much more easily than their parents. They can find and get to the cookies no matter where or how high you hide them. And they can get into those little pill bottles. Safety caps DO NOT give you additional safety measures&mdash;in fact, they give parents a false sense of safety, which is worse than no safety at all. So the children get into the pill bottles when the parents think they can't. The net result of all of this is (from page 738):



(emphasis mine)

As I recently said in another thread, that which does not kill us...probably wasn't a government program!

This makes as much sense as saying that there are additional car fatalities each year because seat belts and airbags give people more confidence so they drive more recklessly. (which I have actually seen people claim)

Give me a break. Bascially what you are saying is that PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID to run their own lives!

Would you prefer now that the government also make behavior regulations and have behavior police come around and make sure you put your pills up safely?

The study does not even make sense eve if it had any merit, which it does not, because it does not account for the times that lives are saved by the caps, and there is no way too account for it because there is no way to know exactly how many times someone was unable to ope a bottel because of the cap.

So now, you want to blame "the governent" for the actions of people? I have also seen government sponcered ads instructing people to put these thigns up where children cannot get them, in addition to packages saying that as well, "Keep out of reach of children".

What more could be done?

I like your brilliant idea, make everything more dangerous so that people will be more mindful of the safety risks and be more careful and more responsible. :rolleyes:

LoL, what a joke :roll:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
This makes as much sense as saying that there are additional car fatalities each year because seat belts and airbags give people more confidence so they drive more recklessly. (which I have actually seen people claim)

And there is some truth to that. It's particularly true of speed limits, as Montana found out.

Give me a break. Bascially what you are saying is that PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID to run their own lives!

No, I am saying the EXACT OPPOSITE!!! Those who mandate safety caps, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. are the ones saying we're too stupid to run our own lives! Otherwise, why wouldn't they give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what the proper safety measures are?

Would you prefer now that the government also make behavior regulations and have behavior police come around and make sure you put your pills up safely?

No, and in fact I am arguing for the exact opposite! Those who passed the regulations about safety caps are the ones doing that kind of thing.

I believe that people are more apt to be responsible when they aren't regulated. And this is just one more example of why.

What more could be done?

Set people free and let them be responsible. Regulation is the antithesis of responsibility.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really? Why?

I have answered that question several times already! And the answer is NOT what you're ascribing to me!

The answer is simply that government has taken over the safety decisions for the parents, and in doing so has actually had a detrimental effect because it can't make decisions on where medicines are stored etc. (at least, not without installing cameras in our homes). So, just like the same effect that's been noted in practically every thread where regulations are discussed, people use the regulations as safety guidelines when they are, in fact, inherently inadequate for doing so.

If you GET RID of the inadequate safety guidelines, then you put people in the position of deciding it for themselves.

So, you would have at least two sets of designs, probably one for each manufacturer.

I wouldn't "have" anything. It would be up to manufacturers and consumers.

That increases production prices, which means more expensive products.

Maybe, but first of all, lids don't cost that much, certainly it's a drop in the bucket compared to the fantastic costs of the medicines. And second, maybe people are willing to pay the extra costs. We don't know, because the government won't allow anyone to find out!

Answer the question.

Already have. I'm tired of you playing this game with me.

Do you have any idea how many different designs there is on basically the same products?

Yes, and it's like that today. Different packaging, labelling, bottles, styles of pills...

Which manufacturer "wins"?

It isn't about "winning" or "losing." This isn't the freakin' Oscars. It's about delivering a product that people want.

We don't need the government to enforce standards of currency, justice, measurements, etc?

No, we don't. Just like we don't need the government to enforce the HTTP standards that deliver this very site to your computer.

That a publication only gets positive reviews raises a very large, unfurling flag of a reddish color: Not one single person disagrees with it? No flaws are found? I can't believe that.

You're perfectly welcome to try and find any on your own. But from all accounts I've read, this is fairly universally regarded as one of the best texts on the issue.

And I never said that no one found any flaws; you can point out flaws in a review and it still be positive. But this cite, from what I've found, isn't one of them.

Have fun at the library. You should go more often.

I go all the time, you presumptive snob.

Really? You seem to have made up your mind by now.

Do I? I have expressed far more doubt about this subject than you have!

Yes, I am. Just because I point out very serious flaws in your argument does not make me a non-skeptic. Quite contrary.

No, you are a non-skeptic because you are making definitive statements about a subject you haven't taken the time to properly check out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
True, but it does put a lid on claims that poisonings for this age group didn't drop dramatically.

Touch&eacute;.

The results from the original page I posted measure the rate of poisonings before and after the passsage of the act. They are directly on point; many of the studies are on children age 0-5. No one is asking you to look up the original studies--the results are summarized right there on the web page.

How can you properly evaluate a study from the summary? How can you examine things like methodology, sample size, and all of the more important aspects that show whether or not the results of a study are valid?

There are other things about the summarized results that don't make sense, but I haven't brought up because doubtlessly seeing the study would clear them up. Things like: how valid is it to compare straight poisoning rates between a time with virtually no safety caps and a time with mandated safety caps, that is anywhere near the level of certainty of direct poisoning due to medicines we know have safety caps? Why is there an apparently slow decline in the rates and not the sudden drop we should expect after the mandate of safety caps? Am I really the only one asking these questions?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


And there is some truth to that. It's particularly true of speed limits, as Montana found out.



No, I am saying the EXACT OPPOSITE!!! Those who mandate safety caps, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. are the ones saying we're too stupid to run our own lives! Otherwise, why wouldn't they give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what the proper safety measures are?



No, and in fact I am arguing for the exact opposite! Those who passed the regulations about safety caps are the ones doing that kind of thing.

I believe that people are more apt to be responsible when they aren't regulated. And this is just one more example of why.



Set people free and let them be responsible. Regulation is the antithesis of responsibility.

But what you so obviously fail to recognize is that PEOPEL ARE FREE to act responsibly. Putting a safetly lid on a bottle is not restrictng people from being responsible in any way shape or form, and as has been pointed out the numbers of fatalities has gone down. In addition it is impossibel to prove that someone who was irrisponsible with there they put bottles with safety lids would have been more responsible if the bottles were unsafe.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

You advocate that safety caps are not mandatory anymore.

You claim that people make the wrong decisions because of safety caps being mandatory.

You think that the market is all we need. No risk of monopolies, etc. No risk of companies sending faulty products on the market.

Why do you think the safety caps are there for? They don't save lives?

Safety belts don't save lives?

Street lights don't save lives?

You don't have much faith in people's ability to make the right decision, do you?

I can see a lot of "maybe's" and "perhaps"es in your argument. There is also a tremendous lack of faith in people unless they think the way you do. You have a very inflexible idea of the world, shanek.

And no, I am not a "presumptive snob" because I encourage you to learn. You, on the other hand, abuse the skeptic label to further your political agenda. An agenda which states that government is bad, and that those who disagrees with you are dumber than yourself.

[Skeptic]

Franlky, it seems to me that for Shanek "government is evil" is the same dogma as "God is good" for some people.

Those who believe in an omnibenevolent God claim that everything good that happens is to God's credit, but anything bad is simply due to "human choices" or "turning away from God" or"free will", etc., and therefore, not God's fault. For Shanek, similarly, everything bad that happens is due to government regulations "intefering", while anything bad that happens is merely due to "human error", people "not using the freedom and responsibility correctly", etc.

For example, in the case of the safety caps, the fact that some kids are poisoned even with such caps, because their parents were neglignet, is the government's fault, because (mysteriously) the addition of a plastic thingy on the end of a medicine bottle robbed the parents of their free will, causing them to become irtresponsible and stupidly conclude that as long as something has a safety cap the kid can play with it unsupervised. THOSE deaths are never due to the parent's fault.

On the other hand, deaths from poisoning before the safety caps were instituted, are not due the government not putting safety standards in place, not due to (say) drug companies not wanting to spend money on safety features just to save a few lousy kids, bue totally due to "parents' negligence", etc. It is all the parent's fault, not the company's or anybody else's.

It is no wonder that, in such a situation, every government interference is "proven" to be "bad" and "dangerous"--Shanek blames the government for every bad things that happened after it interfered, but blames nobody for the bad things that happened before it interfered.

One can easily imagine how outraged Shanek would be if the government FORBADE child safety caps on bottled. His tune would, of course, instantly change: how dare the government step in and intefere with this wonderful safety features the benevolent free market created! Look at all these poisoned children, each and every one of them due to the government's interference! Look how wonderful things were before, when all the children who were poisoned despite safety caps were clearly only poisoned due to parent's negligence, not due to the caps themselves!

I shall no longer argue with Shanek, for it is clear that his view isn't (despite what he tells himself) a "rational" view, but merely a preconcieved dogma; he picks and chooses the data he thinks supports his view (it usually doesn't, for reasons I discussed in a post above.) His point is not to find the truth, but to convert as many people as possible to the one true faith of "government is evil".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I shall no longer argue with Shanek, for it is clear that his view isn't (despite what he tells himself) a "rational" view, but merely a preconcieved dogma; he picks and chooses the data he thinks supports his view (it usually doesn't, for reasons I discussed in a post above.) His point is not to find the truth, but to convert as many people as possible to the one true faith of "government is evil".

Well said.

[Aoidoi]

In case anybody cares, I got some prescription antibiotics a couple months back. So far as I could tell they were not "child-proofed" in any way, shape or form. As mentioned before, this matters to me not at all since I'm a bachelor living alone. According to my parents child-proofing is now optional (due to pressure from elderly prescription drug users), which seems to be what shanek wants.

At the same time I bought some aspirin. The lid is opened by turning until the little arrows line up and then popping it off. I don't believe this would be considered "child-proof" either.

So I'm simply confused as to why it's even an issue. Maybe Walgreens is just unusual? Or is my expectation of "child-proof" somehow off base?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
But what you so obviously fail to recognize is that PEOPEL ARE FREE to act responsibly.

NOT when they're regulated! Regulations are the antithesis of freedom, and thje antithesis of responsibility. And I have already explained why. If you've got a problem with that explanation, present it, but don't just go spouting the same thing over and over and over again!

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
sWhy do you think the safety caps are there for? They don't save lives?

Safety belts don't save lives?

Street lights don't save lives?

I NEVER SAID THIS!!!! AND I'VE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS THREAD THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING!!!

Why do you insist with this PATHETIC and DISHONEST strawman?

You don't have much faith in people's ability to make the right decision, do you?

Quite the contrary: It's government regulators that don't. And again, I've already explained why.

There is also a tremendous lack of faith in people unless they think the way you do.

Demonstrate that with what I've actually said to support you. If not, then admit you were being dishonest and apologize.

And no, I am not a "presumptive snob"

Yes, you are. Because you ASSUME and ASSERT that I don't go to the library solely because I don't agree with you. That is both presumptuous and snobbish.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
NOT when they're regulated!

At what point in history has people not been "regulated", shanek?

Originally posted by shanek
Regulations are the antithesis of freedom, and thje antithesis of responsibility. And I have already explained why. If you've got a problem with that explanation, present it, but don't just go spouting the same thing over and over and over again!

:rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I shall no longer argue with Shanek,

You never argued with me before. You just spouted out strawman and lies. Good frelling riddance.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
In case anybody cares, I got some prescription antibiotics a couple months back. So far as I could tell they were not "child-proofed" in any way, shape or form. As mentioned before, this matters to me not at all since I'm a bachelor living alone. According to my parents child-proofing is now optional (due to pressure from elderly prescription drug users), which seems to be what shanek wants.

It may be a state thing, but in NC they have to give you a childproof cap unless you specifically request otherwise. But on OTC medication, I haven't noticed there being any choice at all.

At the same time I bought some aspirin. The lid is opened by turning until the little arrows line up and then popping it off. I don't believe this would be considered "child-proof" either.

According to the government, it is. As I said in my initial post, people underestimate what a 2-year-old can figure out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
At what point in history has people not been "regulated", shanek?

Well, in the US, there were hardly any regulations at all until you got into the 20th Century. And despite the easily refuted claims of the historical revisionists, we were doing just fine.

[Grammatron]

I don't see how you can blame the government for this. The child-proof caps are there as an EXTRA precaution. No one ever suggested it was an end all be all safety measure to prevent children from getting their hand on the medication. In fact, there were (and I think still are) government and industry campaigns on how to keep the drugs out of children's reach in addition to the child-proof caps.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, in the US, there were hardly any regulations at all until you got into the 20th Century. And despite the easily refuted claims of the historical revisionists, we were doing just fine.

Hardly any regulations? The US was basically anarchistic until well into the 20th Century?? Hardly any laws, hardly any legislature?

You're kidding, right??

Originally posted by shanek
It may be a state thing, but in NC they have to give you a childproof cap unless you specifically request otherwise. But on OTC medication, I haven't noticed there being any choice at all.

What, you haven't investigated this at all??? "It may be a state thing"???

Originally posted by shanek
According to the government, it is. As I said in my initial post, people underestimate what a 2-year-old can figure out.

This is something that has evolved in human nature (apparently only among Americans) since the 20th century?

[Malachi151]

shanek needs to read the Anti-Federalist Papers:

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hardly any regulations? The US was basically anarchistic until well into the 20th Century?? Hardly any laws, hardly any legislature?

You didn't say laws. You said regulations.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
shanek needs to read the Anti-Federalist Papers:

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/

I have, thank you very much. And I'd wager I know a lot more about them than you do.

You do realize that the main crux of the Anti-Federalist papers was that the Constitution gave government too much power, don't you? And that the Bill of Rights largely came about because of these criticisms?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You didn't say laws. You said regulations.

shanek,

Laws are most often codified (expressed and arranged in a systematic collection or code) and referred to as "statutes." The two terms are frequently used interchangeably. Laws are implemented through regulations. So let`s move to the regulatory process, but first take deep, cleansing breaths!

Regulations are rules adopted by state regulatory agencies to implement, interpret and state with specificity the law enforced or administered by that agency. The difference between a law and a regulation is that a regulation is adopted by a state regulatory agency, approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), signed by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State. A law (or statute) is passed by the Legislature, as indicated previously. Regulations do, however, have the force of law and penalties for failure to comply with regulations can be very severe. The Office of Administrative Law is an independent office within the Executive Branch of the government of the State of California. The office reviews proposed regulations and ensures that the public has an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and that the appropriate agency considers the comments during the development of the regulations.
Source: A Law is Born (http://www.hazweb.com/hazweb/hnewfeat/aug2000nalinialawisborn.htm)

Is this correct?

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
My complaint is that the parents are acting out of a false sense of security due to government regulations... Your specific complaint was that "the government, through the process of regulation, tells [parents] that safety caps are enough". You still have not documented this claim.
Look...the textbook I took it from is one of the most highly regarded textbooks in the country. Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm): one of the classic logical fallacies. Surely you know better than to use that tactic in this forum.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I have, thank you very much. And I'd wager I know a lot more about them than you do.

Do you understand them? That is the question...

Originally posted by shanek
You do realize that the main crux of the Anti-Federalist papers was that the Constitution gave government too much power, don't you? And that the Bill of Rights largely came about because of these criticisms?

But the 12 amendments (The Bill of Rights) came about in 1789, way before the 20th Century, when everything - according to you - went to hell.

It seems that you are very confused on this, shanek...

[CFLarsen]

The packaging required by the PPPA must be designed or constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open within a reasonable time, and not difficult for normal adults to use properly. For the sake of the elderly and handicapped who might have difficulty opening such containers, the Act provides that a regulated product available for purchase on store shelves may be packaged in one non-complying size provided it carries a warning that it is not recommended for use in households with children, and provided that the product is also supplied in complying popular size packages. Regulated prescription drugs may be dispensed in non-child-resistant packaging upon the specific request of the prescribing doctor or the patient.
Source: "Poison Prevention Packaging Act", U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/pppa.html)

It would seem that everything you wanted, you already got.

Since the regulation has been in effect, there have been remarkable declines in reported deaths from ingestions by children of toxic household products including medications.
Source: "Poison Prevention Packaging Act", U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/pppa.html)

So, the CPSC lie about the number of poisoned children, don't they?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
How can you properly evaluate a study from the summary? How can you examine things like methodology, sample size, and all of the more important aspects that show whether or not the results of a study are valid?
If you want to go the extra mile, more power to you. However, since you have the Viscusi book, maybe you could fill us in on his methodology.

There are other things about the summarized results that don't make sense, but I haven't brought up because doubtlessly seeing the study would clear them up. Things like: how valid is it to compare straight poisoning rates between a time with virtually no safety caps and a time with mandated safety caps, that is anywhere near the level of certainty of direct poisoning due to medicines we know have safety caps?
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here, but isn't that one of the things Viscusi would have to measure as part of his study as well? You need to know the rate of poisonings both before and after the mandate. If anything, the other studies would underestimate the decline in poisonings for the reason you mention.
Why is there an apparently slow decline in the rates and not the sudden drop we should expect after the mandate of safety caps? Am I really the only one asking these questions?
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm
The first product to fall under this law was aspirin, on August 8, 1972, with the law gradually encompassing more and more hazardous substances, including some prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. [my emphasis]

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Do you understand them? That is the question...



But the 12 amendments (The Bill of Rights) came about in 1789, way before the 20th Century, when everything - according to you - went to hell.

It seems that you are very confused on this, shanek...

Exactly. You (shanek) claim that it was all good "back then", yet even people back then said that the Federal Govenrment had to much power. Hmm... so what is it?

People back then were saying that the Federalsits were just a bunch of wealthy elitists that were writing the Constitution and other Federal Laws to serve their own economic interests and that they were betraying the Revolution.

So what is it? Did the Federalists and the Framers of the American Consitution betray the common man when they formed the United States, as many of these people claimed?

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Those who mandate safety caps, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. are the ones saying we're too stupid to run our own lives! Otherwise, why wouldn't they give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what the proper safety measures are?Speaking to the case at hand: How does the fact that safety caps are mandated prevent any parent from taking any safety precaution that he/she may choose? What precise "freedom" is being suppressed in this instance?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is this correct?

Yes, but it's incomplete. Laws that set up regulations work that way. But there are many laws that don't result in regulations at all. Murder isn't a regulation. Neither is rape or any other sort of violent act.

Regulations work against people who are not causing any problems for anyone else. Instead of focusing on the ones who are causing the problems, like crimes, regulations assume everyone is guilty, and that's why they don't work.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Your specific complaint was that "the government, through the process of regulation, tells [parents] that safety caps are enough". You still have not documented this claim.

The claim is made in the original source, so it was documented by me.

Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)[/url]:

No, it isn't. It was a response to Claus insulting the source. I showed that he had no basis whatsoever for his insult.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But the 12 amendments (The Bill of Rights) came about in 1789, way before the 20th Century,

What does THAT have to do with anything?

BTW, did you even know that, of the 11 articles in the Bill of Rights ratified in the Constitution, the last one was ratified in 1993? As originally worded? Kind of makes the whole "out of date" argument quite specious...

[Skeptic]

You know, I am beginning to think Shanek is literally insane. True insanity, as G. K. Chesterton said, is usually not some guy foaming at the mouth: It is in parenthesis.

To paraphrase Chesterton, suppose someone who comes to you in the street corner in New York City and tells you that God told him the end is near. Granted, such a person might be insane--but he might be only temporarily insane, under a passing delusion; or he might be a fraud, or under the influence of drugs, etc.

On the other hand, suppose you ask somebody how to get to Lincoln center, and he says: "Well, you take the 'N' train to Times Square. Then, you take the '1' square past Columbus circle (where I ate ninety virgins) and the next stop, 66th street, is Lincoln center".

Someone like that, who sees the utterly absurd as commonplace, as a trivial fact, is surely far more insane than someone who is all excited about the world ending (although they might be only insane on this particular point). He is unlikely to be faking it, or under the influence of drugs. He really does believe it.

There's an old joke that illustrates this point. A patient is judged cured, and thus to be released from a mental hospital. In the exit interview he says: "Well, I don't want to come back here. I shall avoid stress, since that helped my nervous breakdown. I shall try a less demanding job, a more quiet one... besides, if all else fails, I can always go back to being a teakettle".

I cannot help but think that Shanek, if asked for directions, would fit this description. Suppose that we ask him how to get to a certain address. He would say something like: "Well, you take the 'N' train, get out next to the phramacy on 14th street (where the government is killing our children by putting safety caps on bottles), turn left, and then right at the next light".

For Shanek, it seems, the fact govenrment trying to kill us all through evil and incompetence is not something worth getting excited about; it's a trivial fact, an axiom not to be argued with, an unassailable dogma. It's just true, period.

Granted, Shanek is not psychotic; he is merely a monomaniac. It is not that all of his reality disintigrated; he is only insane, as it is, on this particular point of "the government is evil". But on that particular point, he is TOTALLY insane.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
The claim is made in the original source, so it was documented by me.What exactly does the original source say with respect to what the government is telling parents? Please provide a direct quote to support your claim.
No, it isn't. It was a response to Claus insulting the source.Incorrect. Claus commented on the data points you used. He did not refer to the source. Your statement remains an appeal to authority. It could, of course, also be interpreted as an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here, but isn't that one of the things Viscusi would have to measure as part of his study as well?

No, he didn't have to. He looked directly at the incidents of poisoning due to the pill bottles being accessible. He did, however, compare the behavor of parents with the medicine bottles to their behavior before the legislation. Most of them declined to take precautions to keep them out of reach of their children, relying on the safety caps for protection. Some of them, having difficulty getting the caps off, simple left them off.

It's part of a whole; he looks at how safety regulations have this effect all the time. When people grow up in an environment where the government regulates safety, they depend on it for their safety. I've mentioned some of the other aspects here; like how drivers will drive less safely with speed limits and other safety regulations.

He also covers this in another book, Rational Risk Policy. He performed an analysis and determined that any policy that spent more than $35 million per life saved was problematic in that it tended to do more damage by stifling the economy and thus preventing the progress that has lengthened life.

He advocates running government regulations like a business, by running cost/benefit analyses, which he says would result in better, cheaper regulations. Where I part ways from him is that I don't understand how a government can be relied on to do that. Government is always going to do what's best politically; and that is inevitably going to result in an exhorbitant amount of money being paid out to save a handful of lives, when there are many greater threats that need attending to.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Exactly. You (shanek) claim that it was all good "back then", yet even people back then said that the Federal Govenrment had to much power.

In some cases, it did, like with slavery. But both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were ultimately satisfied by the Constitution as it was adopted (with the Bill of Rights), with certain caveats that would eventually be taken care of.

America was never freer than it was between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Spanish-American war. During that time, our economy and our quality of life for everybody increased at a pace unmatched before or since. I've posted data in other threads showing this. We would be much better off today if we allowed the economy to grow naturally.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Speaking to the case at hand: How does the fact that safety caps are mandated prevent any parent from taking any safety precaution that he/she may choose?

I never claimed that they did.

What precise "freedom" is being suppressed in this instance?

The freedom to choose for oneself what safety measures are necessary in one's life.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
What exactly does the original source say with respect to what the government is telling parents?

Why don't you listen to me? It's not about what the government is telling anybody&mdash;it's about the direct behavioral effects of regulation!

Incorrect. Claus commented on the data points you used. He did not refer to the source.

Oh, that is just a bald-faced lie!!! He called the source "dubious" and "speculative"&mdash;apparently without having even read it! In response to that, it is perfectly within the bounds of rational debate to point out how few if any people who studied the data found it to be either dubious or speculative!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek

The freedom to choose for oneself what safety measures are necessary in one's life.

No one took that choice away from you. You can request medication without the child-proof caps. Where's the problem, exactly?

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
I never claimed that they did.Your exact words were:Those who mandate safety caps, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. are the ones saying we're too stupid to run our own lives! Otherwise, why wouldn't they give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what the proper safety measures are?
If "those who mandate safety caps" are not preventing parents from taking whatever safety precautions said parents see fit to take, then what parental freedoms are being infringed?
The freedom to choose for oneself what safety measures are necessary in one's life. Please explain how this freedom is being suppressed in the case of child safety caps on medications. What, for instance, is to stop any parent from discarding the child safety cap once the medication has been brought home from the store?

[Malachi151]

You know, I am beginning to think Shanek is literally insane. True insanity, as G. K. Chesterton said, is usually not some guy foaming at the mouth: It is in parenthesis.

Agreed. I said this a few weeks ago and people said I was being a jerk :p

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Why don't you listen to me? It's not about what the government is telling anybody&mdash;it's about the direct behavioral effects of regulation!I did listen to you -- and you yourself stated that:The problem is that the government, through the process of regulation, tells them that safety caps are enough...Please resolve the apparent contradiction in your statements. Either the problem is what the government is telling parents (as you claimed) or it is not (as you have also claimed). Which is it?Originally posted by shanek
Oh, that is just a bald-faced lie!!! He called the source "dubious" and "speculative"...Still incorrect. The exact statement was:Originally posted by CFLarsen
You take two data points (one that is dubious and the other speculative) and demand that there is a connection.As you can see, the source textbook (which you immediately undertook to defend with a shopworn fallacy) was not being commented upon -- merely the data.

You should, perhaps, have a better grasp of the facts before accusing someone of being a liar.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek


No, he didn't have to. He looked directly at the incidents of poisoning due to the pill bottles being accessible. He did, however, compare the behavor of parents with the medicine bottles to their behavior before the legislation. Most of them declined to take precautions to keep them out of reach of their children, relying on the safety caps for protection. Some of them, having difficulty getting the caps off, simple left them off.

That doesn't answer my question: what was his actual methodology--how did he measure these things? Does the book contain the actual study or is there just a reference? He only looked at specific cases?

I found this critique of Viscusi's methodology:
Product Safety Regulation, Alessandra Arcuri, LL M (http://encyclo.findlaw.com/5130book.pdf) [PDF file]
Nevertheless, Kelman (1988) casts some doubts on the reliability of Viscusi’s analysis. He objects to Viscusi not taking into account the sharp drop in the absolute number of deaths from open bottles and he is also highly critical of Viscusi’s methodology, particularly of the econometric model. Therefore, Kelman seriously challenges the conclusions drawn by Viscusi that the regulation was counterproductive.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
If "those who mandate safety caps" are not preventing parents from taking whatever safety precautions said parents see fit to take, then what parental freedoms are being infringed?

Do you even have the slightest idea what "freedom" means?

Freedom has everything to do with choice. By limiting our choices, regulations limit our freedom! It's as simple as that!

What, for instance, is to stop any parent from discarding the child safety cap once the medication has been brought home from the store?

The parent is still being forced to pay for not only the safety cap, but for the enormous cost of regulatory compliance. Every year corporations are forced to spend more in regulatory compliance than the sum total of all corporate profits for the entire year! Do you REALLY think that doesn't affect the consumer? Do you REALLY think it doesn't result in higher prices, fewer sales, lower profits, lower wages, and fewer jobs?

That's the problem with the big government types...they never want to look at the consequences beyond what they're trying to do. So we saved some lives...but at what cost? They never seem to want to ask that question.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Agreed. I said this a few weeks ago and people said I was being a jerk :p

You are, and he is, too. I'm sorry, but if you can't debate an issue without resorting to personal attacks, in my book that makes you a jerk...and I don't care how ironic that statement is!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Please resolve the apparent contradiction in your statements. Either the problem is what the government is telling parents (as you claimed) or it is not (as you have also claimed). Which is it?

It's not a problem at all for people who actually know the English language. "Tell" doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication. It can mean a representation, even an unintended one.

Is this pathetic semantic argument the best you can do?

As you can see, the source textbook (which you immediately undertook to defend with a shopworn fallacy) was not being commented upon -- merely the data.

No, that is clearly not what he was saying. He didn't mention any of the source's findings or methodology at all. He was referring to the source itself. And any reasonable person would conclude that.

I'm becoming increasingly appalled at the levels of dishonesty in this forum...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I found this critique of Viscusi's methodology:
Product Safety Regulation, Alessandra Arcuri, LL M (http://encyclo.findlaw.com/5130book.pdf) [PDF file]


The main critique there that I found was that Viscusi didn't take into account the drop in all poisonings. But as I pointed out earlier, why should he? He was looking at a very specific effect. Also, it expresses doubts about Viscusi's econometric model, but doesn't say why.

Of course, that was really nothing more than a citation of another source, as cited:

Kelman, Mark (1988), ‘On Democracy-Bashing’, 74 Vanderbilt Law Review 199.

So we might have to look there for the real details.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Freedom has everything to do with choice. By limiting our choices, regulations limit our freedom! It's as simple as that! Yet you still have not enumerated precisely which "freedoms" are being limited. Please do so.
The parent is still being forced to pay for not only the safety cap, but for the enormous cost of regulatory compliance. I note that you have carefully avoided answering the question: What is to stop any parent from discarding the child safety cap once the medication has been brought home from the store? If the parent is in fact free to do so, then what specific freedom is being "limited"?
Every year corporations are forced to spend more in regulatory compliance than the sum total of all corporate profits for the entire year! Please provide documentary evidence of your claim.
Do you REALLY think that doesn't affect the consumer? Do you REALLY think it doesn't result in higher prices, fewer sales, lower profits, lower wages, and fewer jobs? We were discussing freedoms. Do you now intend to divert the discussion to economics, since your claims of "limited" freedoms seem to be unsupportable?
So we saved some lives...but at what cost? Which specific lives are not worth the (thus far unspecified and undocumented) cost of safety caps?

Also, please explain why you are now claiming that safety caps do indeed save lives, when your initial claim was that the regulations that require safety caps were in fact killing children.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
"Tell" doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication. Yet that was your claim:
...the government, through the process of regulation, tells [parents] that safety caps are enough...(Emphasis yours.) Are you now renouncing that claim?
He didn't mention any of the source's findings or methodology at all.True. He mentioned only the data points.
He was referring to the source itself.You are still incorrect:Originally posted by CFLarsen
You take two data points (one that is dubious and the other speculative) and demand that there is a connection.CFLarsen referred to the data points -- period. Your claim is not supported by the facts.
And any reasonable person would conclude that.Reasonable people would deal with what was actually said. You, however, continue to make a claim that is not supported by the facts.
I'm becoming increasingly appalled at the levels of dishonesty in this forum... As am I. You are, of course, free to stop misrepresenting the words of others at any time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Yet you still have not enumerated precisely which "freedoms" are being limited. Please do so.

YES I HAVE!!! HOW MANY TIMES CAN I BLOODY WELL SAY IT???

Your freedom NOT to pay for something you don't want! Your freedom to decide for YOURSELF what safety measures you're going to use!

I note that you have carefully avoided answering the question: What is to stop any parent from discarding the child safety cap once the medication has been brought home from the store?

I HAVE ADDRESSED THIS SEVERAL TIMES!!!! QUIT LYING!!!!!

Most recently, just above in a post to Mahatma Kane Jeeves, I said that many people were simply leaving off the caps! Geez...

:mad:

Please provide documentary evidence of your claim.

I HAVE!!!! I started TWO OTHER THREADS documenting this so I wouldn't have to keep repeating it over and over in threads like these! Not that it worked...

Here's one of them:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8953

Notice that my arguments were called "strange," or they retorted with, "Well, surely the regulations are worth it?" Man, it's like beating your head against a wall sometimes. You argue one, they counter with the other. So you argue the other, they counter with the one again....

We were discussing freedoms. Do you now intend to divert the discussion to economics,

Economic freedoms are no less freedoms than other kinds.

Also, please explain why you are now claiming that safety caps do indeed save lives, when your initial claim was that the regulations that require safety caps were in fact killing children.

Surely, even YOU can see that there's a difference between making an argument about safety caps and an argument about the regulations surrounding them!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Yet that was your claim:

The word "tell," as I pointed out, has more than one meaning! Why do you insist on making it one meaning when I have already clarified that I meant another just as valid meaning?

You are still incorrect:CFLarsen referred to the data points -- period.

He referred to my data points&mdash;which is the source I cited.

As am I. You are, of course, free to stop misrepresenting the words of others at any time.

I'm not misrepresenting anybody. I've been trying to clear up these misrepresentations, but it's so hard with people like you twisting them all up again! :mad:

[Denise]

Shane, I consider you an internet/message board friend. But, seriously, you have gone off the deep end here. I would appreciate if you would reread this thread and try to surmise why I think this way.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


You are, and he is, too. I'm sorry, but if you can't debate an issue without resorting to personal attacks, in my book that makes you a jerk...and I don't care how ironic that statement is!

Shane,

I tried complaining when you first attacked me in a debate and was told to stop crying like a baby. Don't be surprised when people fight back.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Your freedom NOT to pay for something you don't want! That freedom is easily exercised: Simply do not buy the item in question.Your freedom to decide for YOURSELF what safety measures you're going to use!Please describe in detail the specific regulations that prevent any parent from taking any safety measure they may choose.Most recently, just above in a post to Mahatma Kane Jeeves, I said that many people were simply leaving off the caps! In other words, nothing is stopping parents from choosing which safety precautions they will take -- including whether or not to use safety caps. Thank you.http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8953Nothing in that thread supports your claim that "corporations are forced to spend more in regulatory compliance than the sum total of all corporate profits for the entire year". Please provide the data that supports that claim.Surely, even YOU can see that there's a difference between making an argument about safety caps and an argument about the regulations surrounding them!It would seem that you are now advancing the argument that the safety caps do save lives, but the regulations themselves kill children. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your argument.)

Please describe the mechanism by which the regulations themselves are directly responsible for the deaths of children.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
The word "tell," as I pointed out, has more than one meaning!I see. Is this an example of a tactic that falls into the category of "pathetic semantic argument"? If not, why not?Why do you insist on making it one meaning when I have already clarified that I meant another just as valid meaning?What second "just as valid meaning" are you ascribing to the verb "tell"?He referred to my data points&mdash;which is the source I cited.The source is not the same thing as the data it contains.I'm not misrepresenting anybody.You do exactly that when you claim that a comment regarding data is an "insult" to the textbook in which the data is contained.

[shanek]

Okay, on the advice of my good friend Denise, I've stopped to take a deep breath. I really hate it when I get all bent out of shape like that...but I just can't take it when people resort to those kind of tactics, seemingly for no other purpose than to avoid discussing the actual data. It's the one button I have, and there are people here who love to press it. Nonetheless, it is a very bad reflection on myself when I let this get to me.

My friend Diezel told me awhile back that I need to remember that I'm arguing to the lurkers, too, something I keep forgetting. I get so frustrated with having to refute the same strawman over and over again that I lose perspective. It reflects poorly not only on me, but on the JREF, and for that I apologize.

With that said...my evaluation of the thread so far is that just about the only positive contributions (I'm including mine here) have come from Mahatma Kane Jeeves. As he can testify, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the data and admit when I'm wrong about something. Likewise, I think it's no coincidence that he's the one I've responded most civilly to. Although I have so little time to go and check out this new research, which is why I don't much mind that people haven't checked out mine (except when they pass judgement on it without having read it), I have backed off of the original claim (although, having not seen all the data, I'm not ready to denounce it yet). What puzzles me is that so many of you seem to think that's a bad thing for me to do. The posts I've had with MKJ are exactly what I come to this board looking for. That's what gets me excited and rejuvinated, and I feel robbed when others try to make it into a more miserable experience.

So, let's get several things straight right here and now:

I am not claiming, and have never claimed, that safety caps are a bad thing. I would without a doubt make sure I had such a cap on all of my medicine because I have my kids all weekend and sometimes one or two weeknights as well. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is, I don't want others telling me I HAVE to do this, and I think that that can cause more problems than it solves.

I am not claiming, and have never claimed, that government has directly told people that safety caps were sufficient measures. The claim was and is that people can become conditioned to believe that government regulations provide safety, and so when the government employs such a measure they tend to regard it as the final word on the subject and ignore other aspects which may be just as if not more dangerous.

I am arguing nothing "parenthetically." All of my arguments have been up front and out in the open. I'm not someone who holds back or comes at things sideways. I make my claims straight out, where they should be wide open for discussion and dissection.

I have most certainly never said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And I'm really having a hard time discerning where this misrepresentation comes from. I submit that I have more confidence in the ability of people to do the right thing, as long as they aren't lulled into a false sense of security, than just about anyone here. In fact, my whole point of arguing this is that people can be responsible and can make their own decisions, as long as they're left alone to do so. When they become conditioned to accept the decision of government in one aspect of safety (in this case, safety caps) then it's too easy for them to think the decisions on other aspects (like putting the medicine where the children can't get at it) don't need to be made. I made this point in the very, very, very first post here.

Well, I'll probably just skip over the posts that continue to proffer these strawmen, as I think I've made myself more than clear and I'd just get all inflamed again. But if anyone wishes to discuss the actual data, I assure you you will find me a most reasonable debator.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
That freedom is easily exercised: Simply do not buy the item in question.

That would be a good point, were there allowed to be alternatives. But try buying a simple bottle of aspirin without a safety cap.

That freedom you mention would exist in the scenario I'm advocating: Many, if not most, manufacturers would provide safety caps while some would offer alternatives that you can buy.

Please describe in detail the specific regulations that prevent any parent from taking any safety measure they may choose.

The problem is not that they're prevented from taking them...the problem is that they're prevented from not taking them.

In other words, nothing is stopping parents from choosing which safety precautions they will take -- including whether or not to use safety caps.

Again, they still have to pay for it. Being forced to pay for something you don't want is hardly a choice.

Nothing in that thread supports your claim that "corporations are forced to spend more in regulatory compliance than the sum total of all corporate profits for the entire year".

Regulatory costs rival the $946 billion in corporate pre-tax profits, and they exceed Canada's gross domestic product ($689 billion).

The other thread stated it more directly, but I can't locate it at the moment.

It would seem that you are now advancing the argument that the safety caps do save lives, but the regulations themselves kill children. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your argument.)

That is actually what I have been arguing all along.

Please describe the mechanism by which the regulations themselves are directly responsible for the deaths of children.

I think I did so in the post immediately above this one.

[Denise]

Shane, I hope the point that you are trying to make is that safety caps lull parents into a false sense of security. With that, I agree.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
I see. Is this an example of a tactic that falls into the category of "pathetic semantic argument"?

No, it is clarifying what I meant when I made the original statement. And I don't understand why I'm getting such resistance from you on this. Why can't you just accept my clarification and continue on?

What second "just as valid meaning" are you ascribing to the verb "tell"?

As I explained above, "tell" does not need to mean a direct verbal exposition. How many times have you heard someone say something like, "You're saying to them xxxx, but what you're really telling them is yyyy"?

The source is not the same thing as the data it contains.

Then why didn't he say Viscusi's data? Why did he say mine? Why didn't he make any representation at all as to why he thought the data was specious?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Denise
Shane, I hope the point that you are trying to make is that safety caps lull parents into a false sense of security. With that, I agree.

:eek: Somebody gets it!

:clap:

I must be doing something right... :D

Yes, this from my very first post here:

[Safety caps] give parents a false sense of safety, which is worse than no safety at all. So the children get into the pill bottles when the parents think they can't.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
I am not claiming, and have never claimed, that government has directly told people that safety caps were sufficient measures.Your own words contradict that statement. You are attempting to dismiss that contradiction by saying that your earlier statement did not mean what it said.The claim was and is that people can become conditioned to believe that government regulations provide safety, and so when the government employs such a measure they tend to regard it as the final word on the subject and ignore other aspects which may be just as if not more dangerous.In fact, your original claim was that 'Government "safety" regulations are killing our children'. You have not yet explained how the safety caps can save lives while the regulations that mandate those caps are responsible for the deaths of children.When they become conditioned to accept the decision of government in one aspect of safety (in this case, safety caps) then it's too easy for them to think the decisions on other aspects (like putting the medicine where the children can't get at it) don't need to be made.What evidence can you present that parents do become "conditioned" in the manner you have described? Where is the evidence that the mandate leads to poor descisions on the part of these "conditioned" parents?

[shanek]

Unas, I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. I have addressed these points more than once, and have clarified myself more than sufficiently. If you can't add anything new to what you've been saying, don't count on any more replies from me.

[Valmorian]

Somebody gets it!

I must be doing something right...

Yes, this from my very first post here:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Safety caps] give parents a false sense of safety, which is worse than no safety at all. So the children get into the pill bottles when the parents think they can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm confused about your argument here. On the one hand, you say you are not claiming that safety caps are a bad thing. On the other, the quote you have above seems to suggest that you think the 'false sense of security' makes them a bad thing.

Are they good, or bad?

Suppose you have two situations:
-----------
1. Government A mandates safety caps on all medicines. Child B manages to get into the medicine anyway and dies.

2. Company A implements safety caps on its medicines. Child B manages to get into the medicine anyway and dies.
-----------

IGNORE the lack of choice in situation 1, because it's really not relevant to the 'false sense of security' issue.

In both cases, a child has died despite the safety cap. In situation 1, you seem to suggest that it is the regulations that require the safety cap that are responsible.

In situation 2, I'm guessing you would blame the parents? Surely if the government is responsible for the death in 1 because of regulations, then the company in 2 must be responsible for the implementation of the safety cap causing a 'false sense of security'.


---

Note that I am NOT for government regulations on child safety caps, but the suggestions you seem to be making here do paint you as an anti-government fanatic.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
That would be a good point, were there allowed to be alternatives. But try buying a simple bottle of aspirin without a safety cap.

That freedom you mention would exist in the scenario I'm advocating: Many, if not most, manufacturers would provide safety caps while some would offer alternatives that you can buy.
Shanek, the problem is not with the regulation but with the market. You seem to have skipped this, from a CFLarsen post near the top of page 3:
The packaging required by the PPPA must be designed or constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open within a reasonable time, and not difficult for normal adults to use properly. For the sake of the elderly and handicapped who might have difficulty opening such containers, the Act provides that a regulated product available for purchase on store shelves may be packaged in one non-complying size provided it carries a warning that it is not recommended for use in households with children, and provided that the product is also supplied in complying popular size packages. Regulated prescription drugs may be dispensed in non-child-resistant packaging upon the specific request of the prescribing doctor or the patient.
Source: "Poison Prevention Packaging Act", U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
It would appear that if you can't find aspirin in a non-child resistant package, it is because the demand for such a product is insufficient. It seems that there is nothing preventing a manufacturer from putting out a non-child resistant package, provided that there is a child resistant package available as well. Which gives parents the choice that you crave.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I'm confused about your argument here. On the one hand, you say you are not claiming that safety caps are a bad thing. On the other, the quote you have above seems to suggest that you think the 'false sense of security' makes them a bad thing.

The false sense of security makes requiring them a bad thing!

Are they good, or bad?

The caps themselves are good. The mandates are bad.

In situation 1, you seem to suggest that it is the regulations that require the safety cap that are responsible.

That's what Viscusi found.

Look, you're not going to completely stop kids from getting medicines and poisoning themselves...all you can hope to do is enact methods that reduce as greatly as possible the number of kids who do so.

You say the lack of choice is unimportant; I think you couldn't be more wrong. By taking away the parents' choice, there's a tendency for them to defer the decision-making. Whereas if they had to choose between medicines that have safety caps and medicines that don't, that actually forces them to be safety-conscious on the cao issue, and therefore be safety-conscious on other issues as well.

I don't know how many times and how many different ways I can explain the above effect until people begin to understand what I'm saying...I've attempted to clarify this point numerous times.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
It would appear that if you can't find aspirin in a non-child resistant package, it is because the demand for such a product is insufficient.[/b]

No, it's because the demand for both is insufficient. The government's forcing them to release products with safety caps, and that most certainly does inhibit their ability to provide alternatives, especially when you weigh in the enormous costs of regulatory compliance that I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Unas, I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. I have addressed these points more than once, and have clarified myself more than sufficiently. If questions remain about your views, then obviously you have not clarified yourself sufficiently.

For instance: You stated that "the government, through the process of regulation, tells [parents] that safety caps are enough". You were challenged to support this claim. Rather than provide supporting evidence, you explained that "'Tell' doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication". Fair enough. But then you were challenged to explain just what "tell" did mean in your original argument. You have yet to do so.
If you can't add anything new to what you've been saying, don't count on any more replies from me. If you cannot answer the questions you are asked, don't expect the questions to simply go away.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
The government's forcing them to release products with safety caps, and that most certainly does inhibit their ability to provide alternatives, especially when you weigh in the enormous costs of regulatory compliance that I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring. In the specific instance at hand, you have provided no data regarding the incremental cost of safety caps over and above that of non-safety caps. It is impossible to judge whether that cost does "inhibit [manufacturer's] ability to provide alternatives" without knowing the cost itself.

What is the incremental cost of safety caps over and above that of non-safety caps?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well perhaps Shanek just needs to learn about the perfectionist fallacy from a class on introductory logic:

The perfectionist fallacy concludes that a policy or proposal is bad simply because it does not accomplish its goal to perfection, for example, a poverty program didn?t eliminate poverty and is thereby rejected out of hand. Another variation of the false dilemma is the line-drawing fallacy, that is, insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn.

http://mil.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/philosophy115/lessons/chapter6lesson12.htm#6.5

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's because the demand for both is insufficient. The government's forcing them to release products with safety caps, and that most certainly does inhibit their ability to provide alternatives, especially when you weigh in the enormous costs of regulatory compliance that I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring.
Demand for both is insufficient? What does this mean, exactly? That there is not enough demand for the choice between the two packages? That is kinda my point. The lack of demand for non-safety capped drugs makes your argument about "choice" pretty irrelevant.

Even if the regulation were eliminated today, you would still see the medication in child proof packages. There is no reason for a company to switch, and several reasons not to switch.

Also, in this particular case, harping about the "enourmous costs of regulatory compliance" is simply an "enourmous red herring". What are the costs of complying with this regulation? Look at the damn bottle. Is it an approved child proof design? Yes? Done. Whoa, that must take billions and billions out of the economy each year! Damn regulations....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
You stated that "the government, through the process of regulation, tells [parents] that safety caps are enough". You were challenged to support this claim. Rather than provide supporting evidence, you explained that "'Tell' doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication". Fair enough. But then you were challenged to explain just what "tell" did mean in your original argument. You have yet to do so.

Yes, I have!!!

"Tell" doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication. It can mean a representation, even an unintended one.

I even gave an example:

How many times have you heard someone say something like, "You're saying to them xxxx, but what you're really telling them is yyyy"?

I'm sick of defending myself to you when it's obvious you just don't want to listen. I stated exactly what I meant by tell: a perhaps unintended representation. It DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A DIRECT CLAIM!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Demand for both is insufficient? What does this mean, exactly? That there is not enough demand for the choice between the two packages? That is kinda my point.

No, it isn't. It's completely different. The companies HAVE to provide medicine with child-proof caps. So the market doesn't have a true option here. One aspirin company might have chosen to release their medicine with a child-proof cap and another might not have. But they don't have that option. They HAVE to release a version with a child-proof cap, and that would mean that if they wanted to release one without it they would have to set up completely different packaging for the alternative. It's an extra expense instead of a choice now, and it's made even worse by the fact that they have to spend even more money proving to the government that they're in compliance! That cost is just going to go up if they try to release the non-child-proof version, since they'll have to prove to the government that their new packaging complies with the warning restrictions and other aspects of the regulation!

Even if the regulation were eliminated today, you would still see the medication in child proof packages.

I never said otherwise. In fact, that's a good reason why the regulation is unnecessary to begin with.

Also, in this particular case, harping about the "enourmous costs of regulatory compliance" is simply an "enourmous red herring".

No, it isn't. Those costs are real, and as I explained above can make the difference between an alternative product being available or not.
Is it an approved child proof design? Yes? Done. Whoa, that must take billions and billions out of the economy each year! Damn regulations....

You've never worked with the government much, have you? It involves a lot more than just loooking at the bottle. There's red tape, and inspections, and all sorts of other aspects to regulatory compliance.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it isn't. It's completely different. The companies HAVE to provide medicine with child-proof caps. So the market doesn't have a true option here. One aspirin company might have chosen to release their medicine with a child-proof cap and another might not have. But they don't have that option. They HAVE to release a version with a child-proof cap, and that would mean that if they wanted to release one without it they would have to set up completely different packaging for the alternative. It's an extra expense instead of a choice now, and it's made even worse by the fact that they have to spend even more money proving to the government that they're in compliance! That cost is just going to go up if they try to release the non-child-proof version, since they'll have to prove to the government that their new packaging complies with the warning restrictions and other aspects of the regulation!

You are making a massive assumption here - that it is the cost of regulation that prevents the introduction of non-child proof packaging. I see no reason why this would be so. If there were a sufficient market for it, we would see it. In fact (at least here in Canada, I think the regulations are likely quite similar) we do see versions of Tylenol (for example) in a more easily opened container for arthritis sufferers.

For the majority, however, there is no benefit to a non-child safe package. Why produce something with no benefit? Why bother when it won't affect your market share? The problem is not the costs (not exclusively) - it is that the demand does not justify the costs.

I would expect that the majority of the costs are the ones that would be spent on equipment and different packaging, but those could be amortized over all of the products (including those in the safe packs). I doubt that the "costs of gov't regulation" are really that high in this instance. I just don't see how they can be. Unless you have some concrete info to share with us, I would think that active gov't regs in this area are quote minimal and do not really register as a significant cost.

Your objections on this point seem to come in the form of some mythical firm that wants to sell drugs only in non-child safe packages. I seriously doubt such a firm would exist, or, if it did, it would be run by idiots.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Are you in any way prevented from buying medicine with no safety caps?

Just yes or no.

[Victor Danilchenko]

yes, he is -- by virtue of the companies not making non-safety-cap medicine due to overwhelming burden of regulatory compliance. nevermind that people, now that they are familiar with safety caps due to regulation, keep choosing safety-capped packaging. Shane recognizes evil of government regulation but never good, and he recognizes strengths of the market but almost never its weaknesses.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek

The false sense of security makes requiring them a bad thing!


How would that be different than the false sense of security of simply making them available? Would those people who buy medication that is 'child safe' somehow no longer have that false sense of security if it was no longer required on all packages?



The caps themselves are good. The mandates are bad.


They may be bad, but I think trying to claim that the mandates themselves are responsible for the false sense of security is stretching things.

If you want to argue they are bad because of cost, sure, I can see that.


Look, you're not going to completely stop kids from getting medicines and poisoning themselves...all you can hope to do is enact methods that reduce as greatly as possible the number of kids who do so.


And requiring safety caps on medication isn't doing exactly that? Are you saying there are MORE deaths due to child safety caps being implemented than before? If not, I'm not really sure why this is a big deal.


You say the lack of choice is unimportant; I think you couldn't be more wrong. By taking away the parents' choice, there's a tendency for them to defer the decision-making.


A parent who tends to defer decision making would be more likely to simply buy the 'child proofed' medicine, no? I mean, if they're so easily bamboozled into thinking that 'child proofed' medication is impossible for a child to get into, why wouldn't they? How would the lack of regulation change this for those people whom are irresponsible enough to believe this?


Whereas if they had to choose between medicines that have safety caps and medicines that don't, that actually forces them to be safety-conscious on the cao issue, and therefore be safety-conscious on other issues as well.


What makes you think this is true? What makes you think that someone buying aspirin seriously even considers whether the bottle is child proofed or not?

Responsible parents keep medication out of the hands of youngsters. Irresponsible ones are less likely to do so. Child-proof or not, it makes little difference to the parenting skills of either set.


I don't know how many times and how many different ways I can explain the above effect until people begin to understand what I'm saying...I've attempted to clarify this point numerous times.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see regulation being the cause. If child proof caps lull people into a false sense of security about how safe it is to leave those medications with children, then it is the child proofing that is responsible, not the regulation to do so.

It seems you're just dead set on blaming the government on this, no matter how much it needs to be twisted to fit.

It doesn't strike me as very odd that more and more people here are recognizing your fanaticism, and your constant lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you only further emphasizes it.

[Aoidoi]

Well, after wading through this one I feel I must respond... put too much time in not to ;)

Shanek as far as I can tell is arguing that the problem with the situation is that it is government enforced rather than market driven. I feel that the cited drop in poisonings justifies the government's program on this case. So far as I know the market was not moving towards addressing the problem until the gov intervened. I'm open to data on that.

My real question is why to argue this case when there are so many more obvious and blatant examples of the government screwing up. Sugar tarriffs, anyone? The only thing I can come up with is that Shanek is trying to demonstrate that even the best intentioned and nominally effective programs contain the taint of inefficiency and being unnecessary, but if that was his point it was lost in the noise generated by the topic. Arguing child-safety with Americans is an invitation to disaster. ;)

I also think that calling Shanek insane is rather missing the point. He's got some unusual ideas, and takes the govenment = evil argument rather farther than I'd go, but he seems willing to debate the point and admit when he is wrong. If I may, I'd like to draw a comparison to Malachi... I agree with almost nothing he posts. I find his premises flawed, his arguments unsound (and unnecessarily verbose), and his tendency to draw conclusions from widely disperate incidents to be ridiculous and occassionally offensive. However, I find him no less sane than Shanek. He has his views and argues them. Just because I don't agree does not mean that they are suffering from some sort of mental disease. He simply takes a different set of data to pull his ideas from.

I rather prefer Shanek because I find his arguments more entertaining (whether or not I agree)... Malachi's just recycling ones I've heard too many times before. If nothing else Shanek inspires some thinking.

Edit: Some lunatic put typos in my post. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

You are making a massive assumption here - that it is the cost of regulation that prevents the introduction of non-child proof packaging.

No, it's not an assumption. It's a perfectly reasonable rebuttal of your claim. You claimed that the law makes it just as easy to provide non-child-proof caps as it would be if there were no law. I'm pointing out that this isn't true, since there are additional costs involved that wouldn't come into play otherwise.

I see no reason why this would be so. If there were a sufficient market for it, we would see it.

The problem is, what is a "sufficient market" is much higher with these additional costs than a "sufficient market" would be without those costs. Remember, demand increases as prices go down.

Also, keep in mind that this is an industry that is already regulated almost to death.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

Are you in any way prevented from buying medicine with no safety caps?

Just yes or no.

Asked and answered already. Yes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
How would that be different than the false sense of security of simply making them available?

Because, as I keep pointing out over and over again, and as people keep ignoring, that would place an active choice in the hands of the consumers.

And requiring safety caps on medication isn't doing exactly that? Are you saying there are MORE deaths due to child safety caps being implemented than before?

Given that most people here have admitted that the medicine companies would continue to use such caps on their own, I would say yes. You would lose a lot of the false security senses, but there wouldn't be that many fewer safety caps in all.

A parent who tends to defer decision making would be more likely to simply buy the 'child proofed' medicine, no?

That's not the point. The point is that since they would be the type to defer they would be less likely to exercise those safety precautions on their own.

What makes you think this is true?

The study, for one. Logic, for another.

Responsible parents keep medication out of the hands of youngsters. Irresponsible ones are less likely to do so.

Exactly. So you want to encourage parents to be responsible. Regulation does the exact opposite.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see regulation being the cause. If child proof caps lull people into a false sense of security

But yet again, I point out that my claim is not that it's the caps themselves, it's the regulation requiring them. One more thing I'm getting sick of repeating myself on. Why can't you people argue what I actually claim instead of what you want me to have claimed?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's not an assumption. It's a perfectly reasonable rebuttal of your claim. You claimed that the law makes it just as easy to provide non-child-proof caps as it would be if there were no law. I'm pointing out that this isn't true, since there are additional costs involved that wouldn't come into play otherwise.
First, I simply claimed that the law isn't preventing someone with coming out with a non-child safe package.

Next, unless you know more about the drug manufacturing business than you are telling us, it most certainly IS an assumption. Do you actually KNOW if existing production lines can accomodate both styles of packaging? Different labels are just different labels - no big deal once it is set up, and the set up can't be that high.

Also, these extra costs can be spread across the entire product. I am not denying that there are extra costs to set up another production run in different packages. I am just claiming that they are not as high as you would make out. And they are certainly not all due to the regulation or the costs of regulatory compliance. [/B][/QUOTE]

The problem is, what is a "sufficient market" is much higher with these additional costs than a "sufficient market" would be without those costs. Remember, demand increases as prices go down.
I disagree with "much higher". I don't think that the costs are really all that significant. Probably more significant is the litigation risk associated with non-child safe packaging. A risk averse drug company will stick to the child safe packages for reasons other than regulatory compliance.

The idea that somehow there is some unfulfilled great need for non-child resistant packaging for drugs is, IMO, ludicrous.

Also, keep in mind that this is an industry that is already regulated almost to death.
So what? Completely irrelevant to the issue of packaging. If anything, this weakens your argument as these firms are already experienced in dealing with regulations and can do any compliance activities more efficiently.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
The only thing I can come up with is that Shanek is trying to demonstrate that even the best intentioned and nominally effective programs contain the taint of inefficiency and being unnecessary,

That is exactly the point!

but if that was his point it was lost in the noise generated by the topic.

Yes, I noticed. :(

Contrary to what people (including you) have said, I don't think the government is evil. I just think that, by its very nature, it can't make us safer, it can't make us kinder, and it can't make our lives better.

If nothing else Shanek inspires some thinking.

And that is all I am seeking.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
First, I simply claimed that the law isn't preventing someone with coming out with a non-child safe package.

And I pointed out that, even if it's not outright preventing it, it is inhibiting it.

The idea that somehow there is some unfulfilled great need for non-child resistant packaging for drugs is, IMO, ludicrous.

Now all you have to do is point out where I claimed that there was.


So what? Completely irrelevant to the issue of packaging.

No, it's not irrelevant. The massive amounts of regulations they're already having to comply with means that they don't have as much wiggle-room to absorb additional costs.

If anything, this weakens your argument as these firms are already experienced in dealing with regulations and can do any compliance activities more efficiently.

Again, I can only conclude that you've never had to deal with regulatory compliance...It has nothing to do with experience or anything. Regulatory compliance is a slow, arduous, time-consuming, and ultimately quite expensive undertaking.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Asked and answered already. Yes.

Really?

Where? How?

(Pardon me for asking, but I'd really like to know)

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, I have!!!"Tell" doesn't have to mean a direct verbal communication. It can mean a representation, even an unintended one.I'll accept that when you said that, you meant that this was the meaning of "tell" you intended to convey -- though, as you worded it, it was presented merely as an example of one possible alternate meaning of "tell".

However, I do not accept that the government in any way -- intentional or unintentional -- represented that safety caps are all that is required to keep children safe from accidental ingestion of medicines. That is yet another unsupported assertion on your part.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Those costs are real, and as I explained above can make the difference between an alternative product being available or not.Tell us what those real costs are. Only then will it be possible to discuss whether the costs do, indeed, inhibit companies from providing alternative packaging.

[Jude]

I've only skimmed through the thread, so maybe it's already been mentioned; but perhaps you're focusing on the wrong thing. My question would be: How much does it cost pharmaceutical companies to add the extra safety features to bottles, how much does it cost taxpayers to regulate and make sure these features are added, and how much did it cost us to prevent each potential death (had the safety features not been added)? I don't have a solid position of my own until I know the answers to these.

[dissonance]

After about 30 seconds of searching, I found the following on the Bayer Aspirin website (http://www.bayeraspirin.com/products/oba/oba5.htm):

(emphasis added)

Tablets, caplets and gelcaps available in the following package types:

Tablets/Caplets

Travel pack - 12 tablets

Bottles of 24, 50, 100, 200, 300, and 365 Bottles of 50 and 100 count

There are child-resistant safety closures on packages of 12, 24, 50, 200, 300, and 365 tablets and 50 caplets.

Bottles of 100 tablets and caplets are available without safety closure for households without small children.

Now offered in a 40 and 80 count gelcap bottle. The 40-count gelcap bottle features a non-child resistant cap.


Clicking through the various products, some of them have non-child proof caps available on some sizes, although not all the products have that option.

Tylenol and Advil, unfortunately, don't appear to have packaging information on their websites. And now I'm thoroughly bored of looking at little pictures of pain relievers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
I've only skimmed through the thread, so maybe it's already been mentioned; but perhaps you're focusing on the wrong thing. My question would be: How much does it cost pharmaceutical companies to add the extra safety features to bottles, how much does it cost taxpayers to regulate and make sure these features are added, and how much did it cost us to prevent each potential death (had the safety features not been added)? I don't have a solid position of my own until I know the answers to these.

Well, according to Viscusi's data, they would be negative numbers since both the poisonings from safety-capped bottles and the poisonings of children 5 and under from bottles that came with safety caps but had the caps left off increased from 40% to 73% (once indexed with the rate of total poisonings). Mahatma Kane Jeeves has presented data of studies that he says refutes these numbers, but of the ones I've had a chance to check out so far none of them have broken down the numbers the way Viscusi has.

After the introduction of safety caps in the United States, the percentage of aspirin sold with safety caps was just over 50 percent. Poisoning from safety cap bottles was substantial, rising from 40 percent in 1972 to 73 percent by 1978. Much of the reason for these poisonings is that the parents left the caps off the bottles altogether. The share of poisonings from open bottles rose from 41 percent in 1972 to 49 percent in 1978. Problems also arose from apparent misconception of the efficacy of the caps. Because safety caps were often referred to even by prominent Consumer Product Safety Commission officials as being "childproof" caps, parents may have been lulled into a false sense of security. As a result, after the advent of safety caps, there was a rash of poisonings from similar products that at the time did not have caps. These increases were apparent in regression analyses that controlled for the poisoning trend.

W. Kip Viscusi, Behavioral Responses to Regulation, p. 71.

On the table on the next page where he breaks down the figures, he also has a line for "Total Poisonings," which drop from 167,270 in 1972 to 111,420 in 1978, even as the above-mentioned figures rose. So simply that a study shows a drop in the rates of poisonings does not dispute Viscusi's data.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
With that said...my evaluation of the thread so far is that just about the only positive contributions (I'm including mine here) have come from Mahatma Kane Jeeves. As he can testify, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the data and admit when I'm wrong about something.
I appreciate the compliment--I really do; especially in light of some of our past exchanges. But, to be totally honest with you, I can't testify to that at all. It’s been my experience that you have a singular inability to accept any information which contradicts your worldview. Take this thread, for example; you’ve been (appropriately) skeptical of all the numbers except your own. You haven’t been engaged in skeptical inquiry—you’ve been defending your preferred data against all comers. And despite overwhelming evidence that the packaging regulations have had a huge impact, you still believe, for some nebulous reason, that the regulations are wrong.

Originally posted by shanek
I just think that, by its very nature, it can't make us safer, it can't make us kinder, and it can't make our lives better. That has to be one of the most closed minded (and demonstrably wrong) statements I have ever seen. You’re basically admitting that you’re not open to any evidence to the contrary.

Here’s some more data—

From the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html)
These are total injuries from aspirin and aspirin substitutes for children aged 1 month to 5 years. The online system only goes back to 1991.

Year Total
1991 17712
1992 16480
1993 14344
1994 14376
1995 15479
1996 13620
1997 11546
1998 9492
1999 8982
2000 7725
2001 7280

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek

Well, according to Viscusi's data, they would be negative numbers since both the poisonings from safety-capped bottles and the poisonings of children 5 and under from bottles that came with safety caps but had the caps left off increased from 40% to 73% (once indexed with the rate of total poisonings). Mahatma Kane Jeeves has presented data of studies that he says refutes these numbers, but of the ones I've had a chance to check out so far none of them have broken down the numbers the way Viscusi has.
Maybe you can explain to me how I can have claimed to refuted numbers I've never even seen before?

Is Viscusi saying that the "lulling effect" was so strong that people felt they didn't even need to have the caps on the bottles for them to work? ;)

[Troll]

I understand your point on this. I really do. There's a lot of idiots out there that want a big government looking after them and as such feel that all things they implement is the end all of be alls and that they now have a magical suit of armor protecting them. It's sort of like giving assistance to the completely invalid. They need it and apparently many people consider themselves to be such as, so long as they have the help, they need not remember that they are not invalids and can still use their brains and do things for themselves.

The problem is we cannot really have government teach people to think for themselves. It's why so many buy into the rhetoric all sides spew. Many put too much trust into the government and are complacent because of it. On the other end of the spectrum we have the conspiracy theorists with their complete lack of trust. I've always like the "trust but verify" approach myself. And in this case, I have to say it's still the parental units that are the morons

[Thanz]

Shanek -

Let's look at the quote you posted from Viscusi a little bit more closely. I certainly don't think that it supports the position that "Government "safety" regulations are killing our children".

After the introduction of safety caps in the United States, the percentage of aspirin sold with safety caps was just over 50 percent.
While this is interesting, I thikn what we need is the the comparative numbers - what percentage of the market as a whole was made up of safety caps in 1972 and 1978, the two years he seems to be comparing?

Poisoning from safety cap bottles was substantial, rising from 40 percent in 1972 to 73 percent by 1978.
Again, how do we know that this increase is not simply due to the increase in the number of safety cap bottles sold? It tells us nothing about the rate of poisonings from sfety cap bottles as a percentage of safety cap bottles sold - did this go up or down?

Much of the reason for these poisonings is that the parents left the caps off the bottles altogether. The share of poisonings from open bottles rose from 41 percent in 1972 to 49 percent in 1978.
This is not because of the regulation - this is because of idiotic careless parents. If parents leave the top off of any bottle, they have only themselves to blame.

Problems also arose from apparent misconception of the efficacy of the caps. Because safety caps were often referred to even by prominent Consumer Product Safety Commission officials as being "childproof" caps, parents may have been lulled into a false sense of security.
This "false sense of security" seems to be just a theory - he says may - without any real back up. The numbers we have seen are not the appropriate numbers to back up his claim.

As a result, after the advent of safety caps, there was a rash of poisonings from similar products that at the time did not have caps. These increases were apparent in regression analyses that controlled for the poisoning trend.
So, again, idiotic parents. The poisonings come from bottles WITHOUT SAFETY CAPS that the parents, for some stupid reason, thought were safety caps. It appears that the actual caps were doing their jobs, and if this was the real problem, the gov't was certainly justified in expanding the safety cap program to cover these "similar" products.

On the table on the next page where he breaks down the figures, he also has a line for "Total Poisonings," which drop from 167,270 in 1972 to 111,420 in 1978, even as the above-mentioned figures rose. So simply that a study shows a drop in the rates of poisonings does not dispute Viscusi's data.
But it does dispute his conclusions. If the safety regulations were a bad thing, why did total poisonings drop by a third?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

Maybe you can explain to me how I can have claimed to refuted numbers I've never even seen before?

I misspoke; forgive me.

Is Viscusi saying that the "lulling effect" was so strong that people felt they didn't even need to have the caps on the bottles for them to work? ;)

He counted both the poisonings due to the safety caps being left off and the poisonings due to the safety caps being on but within reach. It was the latter that accounted for most of it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Troll
The problem is we cannot really have government teach people to think for themselves.

Agreed. Government is the last entity I'd depend on that for.

Many put too much trust into the government and are complacent because of it.

And that's the problem here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
While this is interesting, I thikn what we need is the the comparative numbers - what percentage of the market as a whole was made up of safety caps in 1972 and 1978, the two years he seems to be comparing?

He only gives numbers for aspirin. Here's the percent numbers for aspirin for the years 1972-1978:

Aspirin: 53, 56, 56, 59, 56, 55, 52

Not as much change as you'd think, and notice it ends up lower than it started. So it's relatively the same, while the percent of poisonings from safety-capped bottles and bottles with the safety caps left off both increase.

Again, how do we know that this increase is not simply due to the increase in the number of safety cap bottles sold?

Because, as I showed in the quoted figures above, there really was no such increase.

It tells us nothing about the rate of poisonings from sfety cap bottles as a percentage of safety cap bottles sold - did this go up or down?

All of the figures are based on the percentage of safety cap bottles. So, yes it does, and yes they did.

This is not because of the regulation - this is because of idiotic careless parents. If parents leave the top off of any bottle, they have only themselves to blame.

I'm not saying the parents are blameless, but hypothetically, if you take an action that encourages someone to be irresponsible, aren't you at least a little to blame yourself?

Besides the poisonings from the safety caps being left off only rose from 41% to 49% while the poisonings from safety-capped bottles rose from 40% to 73%. Even if you want to dismiss the former figures you still have to deal with the latter.

This "false sense of security" seems to be just a theory - he says may - without any real back up. The numbers we have seen are not the appropriate numbers to back up his claim.

What would you consider to be appropriate?

Would you also accept numbers from safety measures other than safety caps to support this theory?

So, again, idiotic parents. The poisonings come from bottles WITHOUT SAFETY CAPS that the parents, for some stupid reason, thought were safety caps.

No, all of these figures are from medicines sold with safety caps. None of them comprised bottles sold without safety caps.

But it does dispute his conclusions. If the safety regulations were a bad thing, why did total poisonings drop by a third?

The figures show that it wasn't due to the safety caps, since those figures increased. There are many other factors involved with poisoning other than safety caps, you know.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
He only gives numbers for aspirin. Here's the percent numbers for aspirin for the years 1972-1978:

Aspirin: 53, 56, 56, 59, 56, 55, 52

Not as much change as you'd think, and notice it ends up lower than it started. So it's relatively the same, while the percent of poisonings from safety-capped bottles and bottles with the safety caps left off both increase.
Is aspirin the only medicine affected? Are the poisoning numbers for aspirin only?

Because, as I showed in the quoted figures above, there really was no such increase.
But what about other medications? He seems to be talking about all poisonings, not just aspirin.

All of the figures are based on the percentage of safety cap bottles. So, yes it does, and yes they did.
No, you said that the numbers were indexed against total poisonings. So in 1972 40% of TOTAL poisonings were from safety cap bottles, while in 1978 this figure rose to 73%. THis tells us nothing about safety cap bottles unless we also know the proportions of safety/non-safety in the market, or perhaps rates of poisoning from safety caps ONLY, not total poisonings.

I'm not saying the parents are blameless, but hypothetically, if you take an action that encourages someone to be irresponsible, aren't you at least a little to blame yourself?
Putting a safety cap on a bottle does not encourage a parent to leave the top off the bottle. If anything, it should be a big red warning flag that what is inside the bottle may be dangerous and the top should be kept on at all times.

Besides the poisonings from the safety caps being left off only rose from 41% to 49% while the poisonings from safety-capped bottles rose from 40% to 73%. Even if you want to dismiss the former figures you still have to deal with the latter.
See above re: these numbers.

What would you consider to be appropriate?

Would you also accept numbers from safety measures other than safety caps to support this theory?
Well, numbers of actual poisonings due to safety caps in the two years would be a start, combined with numbers of products sold in safety vs. non-safety capped bottles.

No, all of these figures are from medicines sold with safety caps. None of them comprised bottles sold without safety caps.
Re read the portion I quoted. He talks about a "a rash of poisonings from similar products that at the time did not have caps." The people who are assuming that non-safety capped bottles have safety caps are the fools I was referring to.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek
Because, as I keep pointing out over and over again, and as people keep ignoring, that would place an active choice in the hands of the consumers.


How does this have anything whatsoever to do with the false sense of security instilled through having 'child proofed' medicines? Does the lack of a regulation magically cause those people who assume 'child proof' means 'impossible for a child to get into' to suddenly see the light?




Regarding: Are you saying there are MORE deaths due to child safety caps being implemented than before?

Given that most people here have admitted that the medicine companies would continue to use such caps on their own, I would say yes.


There's numbers in this very post that refute the idea that there are more deaths now than before.


You would lose a lot of the false security senses, but there wouldn't be that many fewer safety caps in all.


So you claim, I'm still not sure how you reach this conclusion, however.

I still haven't seen a reason to link the false sense of security with regulations. You just keep stating that it's there.


Regarding:A parent who tends to defer decision making would be more likely to simply buy the 'child proofed' medicine, no?

That's not the point. The point is that since they would be the type to defer they would be less likely to exercise those safety precautions on their own.


I don't understand how this is related to my statement at all. My point is that if safety caps instill a sense of security in a parent such that they let the child play with the medicine, whether it is a regulation or not is irrelevant.



The study, for one. Logic, for another.


What about the other study above showing a decline in deaths? And you can just say "LOGIC" all you want, but without, say an actual logical argument, it doesn't really mean much.


Exactly. So you want to encourage parents to be responsible. Regulation does the exact opposite.


You keep saying this, but I don't see how your assertions bear out.


But yet again, I point out that my claim is not that it's the caps themselves, it's the regulation requiring them. One more thing I'm getting sick of repeating myself on. Why can't you people argue what I actually claim instead of what you want me to have claimed?

Why can't you seem to see that you've yet to show an actual CAUSAL link between the regulation and this so-called 'sense of security'. It's simply a bald-faced assertion on your part.

"We people" are pointing out that the emporer has no clothes here. You're so desperate to point the finger at regulation, when the arguments given, namely the 'false sense of security' could just as easily be instilled by the free market.

Suppose the regulation went away tomorrow, and every medicine company continued on as normal. Sure, a few start putting out non safety-capped medicine, but as you said, most probably would still offer it.

Do you REALLY think the average person on the street even knows or CARES that there is a regulation about the caps? Do you really think the lack of this regulation would change people's behaviour AT ALL? Why? What reason do you have to believe that this regulation ITSELF is responsible for the sense of security? What reason do you have to believe that these 'irresponsible parents' that leave their kids with medicine are even AWARE of the regulation?

[Dancing David]

Seat belt and car seats? Nor putting arsnic in medicine?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

The Effectiveness of Child-Resistant Packaging for Aspirin (http://journals.iranscience.net:800/Default/archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v156n9/rfull/poa10352.html) Gregory B. Rodgers, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine Vol. 156 No. 9, September 2002, pp.929-933

This study supports the conclusion that child-resistant packaging has played an important role in reducing the aspirin-related child death rate. After controlling for several extraneous and confounding variables that also affected the poisoning rate, child-resistant packaging was estimated to have reduced the aspirin-related mortality rate by about 34% relative to levels that would have been projected in the absence of child-resistant packaging. This 34% reduction equates to about 90 fewer child deaths during the 1973-1990 postregulatory study period.
Several factors may help explain the lack of a statistical association found in the study by Viscusi. With respect to the analysis of mortality data, the regression model may have been affected by severe multicollinearity, as evidenced by the high intercorrelation exhibited between the predictor variables used in the analysis. Additionally, the lagged-response variable, which by definition was related to the response variable and therefore was highly correlated with it (r = 0.97; P<.001), played such a dominant role in the analysis that it may have masked the effects of other variables. Finally, these problems may have been exacerbated by the relatively short study period in the analysis, which was limited to the evaluation of annual data from 1963 to 1980.

Also for 1963 to 1980, Viscusi evaluated nonfatal aspirin ingestions that were reported to the FDA's National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers by individual poison control centers. The same statistical factors that may have affected the analysis of fatal poisonings would also have affected the analysis of nonfatal ingestions. Additionally, according to the FDA, the data on nonfatal ingestions reported through the poison control centers were unsuitable for estimating population-based poisoning rates or secular trends of those rates. This was because participating poison control centers joined and left the reporting program periodically, many reported their data sporadically, and the size of the population served by participating poison control centers varied but was never measured (M. Fow, PhD, FDA, written communication, April 1987).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Is aspirin the only medicine affected? Are the poisoning numbers for aspirin only?

He gave poisoning numbers for two categories: aspirins, and aspirins and analgesics. Both went up.

No, you said that the numbers were indexed against total poisonings.

Of course, because you'll want to account for that effect when you examine the efficacy of such a system.

THis tells us nothing about safety cap bottles unless we also know the proportions of safety/non-safety in the market,

That's why he gave it as well.

Putting a safety cap on a bottle does not encourage a parent to leave the top off the bottle.

It does if they have too much trouble getting it off.

The people who are assuming that non-safety capped bottles have safety caps are the fools I was referring to.

Okay.

[Skeptic]

How does this have anything whatsoever to do with the false sense of security instilled through having 'child proofed' medicines? Does the lack of a regulation magically cause those people who assume 'child proof' means 'impossible for a child to get into' to suddenly see the light?

Essentially, yes, according to Shanek. Of course, using Shanek's "logic", it would be a good idea for the government (or the all-knowing free market) to forbid safety caps on bottles, with them causing all this delusional thinking; better yet, how about deliberately putting cyanide capsules in, say, one out of every 10,000 bottles--you know, just to force parents to be more attentive when they give their children medicine.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
There's numbers in this very post that refute the idea that there are more deaths now than before.

But that isn't the claim.

I still haven't seen a reason to link the false sense of security with regulations. You just keep stating that it's there.

Because the regulations are out of line with the magnitude of the risk. In Rational Risk Policy, Viscusi states that they tend to overestimate the minimal risks but underestimate the mroe prevalent risks. On page 5 he shows a growth chart. The x-axis is the risk of death per year for a particular activity and the y-axis is the perceived risk of death. If they were in agreement with each other, they should follow along a 45-degree line. They do not. They follow a curve, starting above the line but then dropping below it even as it curves along the same direction. For example, towards the left you have things like botulism and tornadoes, which lie above the line on the perceptive curve (meaning that people think that these risks are greater than they really are), and towards the right you have things like diabetes, stroke, cancer, and heart disease, which are perceived as a lower risk than they really are (even though they're still higher than botulism and tornadoes; just not as much higher as they would be if they accurately reflected the risk). Regulations are made to follow the perceived curve, not the actual curve.

So what you have is a regulatory overreaction to the risk, and therefore people's perceptions are that the drop in risk after a regulation is passed is greater than it really is.

My point is that if safety caps instill a sense of security in a parent such that they let the child play with the medicine, whether it is a regulation or not is irrelevant.

But again, it's not the safety caps themselves that do this. If the safety caps were allowed to be introduced by market forces, they would more likely reflect the actual risk than the perceived risk. The problem with giving the government the power to regulate it is that, since the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, the perception is that the market isn't doing enough and people start demanding the government to regulate it. It's a vicious cycle.

What about the other study above showing a decline in deaths?

Again, those numbers weren't broken down the way Viscusi did. The numbers need to reflect the change in behavior after the regulation is introduced.

Suppose the regulation went away tomorrow, and every medicine company continued on as normal.

They probably wouldn't, since the incentive would be to move to a more realistic risk assessment. And however much you say the consumers wouldn't be aware of the difference in regulation, they would certainly notice a difference in what's available on the shelf. Then, their risk assessment may move towards the actual risk, increasing the rationality of their decisions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Seat belt and car seats?

Already covered in other threads. The free market made them available before government mandated them.

Nor putting arsnic in medicine?

That was a very reactionary measure that wasn't based on much in the way of good science. It goes back to what I was explaining to Valmorian in the above post: If the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, which I feel certain it was in the arsenic case, then you're going to have detrimental effects.

Do you really think that the free market would want to poison its customers? They have the best incentive of anybody to make sure their risk assessment is as realistic as possible.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek

Do you really think that the free market would want to poison its customers? They have the best incentive of anybody to make sure their risk assessment is as realistic as possible.

Are you sure it's not as economical as possible? After all, isn't it all about the bottom line?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
The Effectiveness of Child-Resistant Packaging for Aspirin (http://journals.iranscience.net:800/Default/archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v156n9/rfull/poa10352.html) Gregory B. Rodgers, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine Vol. 156 No. 9, September 2002, pp.929-933

Seems like a good study. Unfortunately, the graphics for the figures he references don't seem to be on the server.

He does mention some of the other factors leading to a reduction of poisonings, including improvements in emergency health care and the improvements of information given through health care providers, and more long-term safety trends, factors that many here expressed doubts that they existed.

I would like to see the graph for Figure 2 which purportedly shows the mortality rate due to aspirin ingestion compared to the predicted number of deaths there would be without such safety caps. I'd like to see if the data takes a number of things into account, but again, the gif file sadly isn't on the server.

He does say that the results of his stody differs from Viscusi's, but from what I've seen he didn't duplicate Viscusi's study. From the text of the web page, he does say that the data he used was "the unintentional-injury death rate from all causes for children younger than 5 years," whereas Viscusi focused on the particular cause of aspirin and alangesic ingestion. But without seeing the figure, I'm loathe to say that this makes Rodgers's data more suspect than Viscusi's.

I must admit I am confused by his critique of Viscusi's data. He says that multicollinearity may have been a factor; I freely confess that this is a little out of my league, but it seems to me that, while this may exacerbate the trend Viscusi was seeking, it wouldn't reverse it. I'm more than willing to listen to someone who knows a lot more about this than I do...

And by his own words, the shortness of the study period may have exacerbated the trend&mdash;but again, the word is "exacerbated," not "reversed."

His critique of Viscusi's use of the nonfatal poisonings from 1963 to 1980 may well be valid; but those aren't the figures I've been citing. Rodgers doesn't say if the sporadic nature of the poisoning reports applies to deaths from poisoning the way it does to all ingestions. I would guess that since the have to report the cause of death for every patient that dies that this sporadic nature would not apply here, but again, I'm willing to listen if anyone has any information to the contrary.

There is some good data here to shwo that Viscusi's figures may show the trend to be larger than what it is, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is the opposite of what it is. Again, if I've misinterpreted Rodgers's study, just tell me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Essentially, yes, according to Shanek. Of course, using Shanek's "logic", it would be a good idea for the government (or the all-knowing free market) to forbid safety caps on bottles, with them causing all this delusional thinking;

:Sigh:

No, that is not what I've said at all. I've corrected this perception so many times that I'm really having a hard time believing that people are just misunderstanding it...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Are you sure it's not as economical as possible? After all, isn't it all about the bottom line?

But that is exactly what would necessitate them seeking a realistic risk assessment! If they're going to be held responsible for the actual damage they cause, then they need to take the appropriate measures to account for that...but taking more precautions than necessary leads to the above-mentioned problem.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


But that is exactly what would necessitate them seeking a realistic risk assessment! If they're going to be held responsible for the actual damage they cause, then they need to take the appropriate measures to account for that...but taking more precautions than necessary leads to the above-mentioned problem.

I wish that was true. But sometimes flukes happen, look at the car for example. Ford was the first to release a car with safety features but for some reason the car did not sell well. That sent a message safe cars don't sell. So if you then want a car that does not kill you when you get into an accident you have no choice. It took a Ralph Nader before safety measure became mandatory.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I wish that was true. But sometimes flukes happen, look at the car for example. Ford was the first to release a car with safety features but for some reason the car did not sell well.

Sure, individual instances can throw things off in the short term. But you'll notice that it wasn't long before Volvo was proving that safer cars sold very well.

The car companies are cognizant of the fact that sales are fickle, and just because one car didn't sell well doesn't mean you set up a dogma for all time. There could have been reasons other than safety for the car's lack of popularity. Any company that didn't realize that would be foolish and would lose business to the ones that did.

It took a Ralph Nader before safety measure became mandatory.

Mandatory, maybe...but implemented? I'd like to see you support that one.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


Sure, individual instances can throw things off in the short term. But you'll notice that it wasn't long before Volvo was proving that safer cars sold very well.

The car companies are cognizant of the fact that sales are fickle, and just because one car didn't sell well doesn't mean you set up a dogma for all time. There could have been reasons other than safety for the car's lack of popularity. Any company that didn't realize that would be foolish and would lose business to the ones that did.



Mandatory, maybe...but implemented? I'd like to see you support that one.

I won't deny the fact that best safety devices -- speaking in terms of cars -- came about because corporations invented them, tested them, perfected them and properly marketed them. Volvo's lap and shoulder sit belt is great example as is Mercedes-Benz's crumple zones. The former was government enforced and became the standard, the latter car makers adopted themselves but it came about at a much slower pace. So what do I conclude from this? I think corporations will implement safety measure in the long run, but government can force the implementation to come about much quicker. That benefits the consumers and of course comes at a cost to the consumer.

[shanek]

I won't deny the fact that best safety devices -- speaking in terms of cars -- came about because corporations invented them, tested them, perfected them and properly marketed them. Volvo's lap and shoulder sit belt is great example as is Mercedes-Benz's crumple zones. The former was government enforced and became the standard, the latter car makers adopted themselves but it came about at a much slower pace. So what do I conclude from this? I think corporations will implement safety measure in the long run, but government can force the implementation to come about much quicker. That benefits the consumers and of course comes at a cost to the consumer.

Without going back to the NTSB timeline to show that the government only required safety belts after they were already being offered as standard equipment, the problem with the above argument is that you get situations like with air bags, where the government mandated a deployment force that was potentially fatal, as GM warned them in 1978. It wasn't necessary to protect a properly belted driver and passenger; the government wanted the extra force to protect nonbelted drivers and passengers, something air bags were never designed to do.

Not only did this have the effect of killing people unnecessarily due to the high deployment force, it also delayed the implementation of airbags 5-10 years from what the companies were originally planning, and so that cost lives as well.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Already covered in other threads. The free market made them available before government mandated them.



That was a very reactionary measure that wasn't based on much in the way of good science. It goes back to what I was explaining to Valmorian in the above post: If the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, which I feel certain it was in the arsenic case, then you're going to have detrimental effects.

Do you really think that the free market would want to poison its customers? They have the best incentive of anybody to make sure their risk assessment is as realistic as possible.


I agree that there is a wave motion between the free market and government regulation. However the fact that cars had seat belt or that car seat were available is not as important in my eyes as the fact that it is legislation that requires people to use them. It is no the availabilty that makes for safety but the fact that you will get a ticket for not using them that adds to safety.

And while it is nice to think that the free market would automaticaly not want to harm thier customers, I find that the history of food safety says otherwise. the Good Housekeeping seal of approval did not come about from the government. But from a female chemist who was concerned about the additive in foods, formaldehyde in meat products, copper sulphate in peas and other toxic in the food stream. I agree that it was not started by the government but is was the pressure of the potential for regulation that cleaned up the toxics.

Also when you look at the history of lead in gasoline and the chemist being willing to drink the lead solution, knowing it was toxic, I just feel that there is a role for regulation in safety issues.

But I feel that there should be a discussion between us all and that there is a role for all the players.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek

Because the regulations are out of line with the magnitude of the risk.



Again, just because the regulation is out of line with the magnitude of the risk, it does not follow that the regulations THEMSELVES are responsible for the false sense of security.


So what you have is a regulatory overreaction to the risk, and therefore people's perceptions are that the drop in risk after a regulation is passed is greater than it really is.


Again, this is nothing more than an assertion. What evidence supports the idea that the regulation causes people to have a false sense of security about the safety caps?


But again, it's not the safety caps themselves that do this. If the safety caps were allowed to be introduced by market forces, they would more likely reflect the actual risk than the perceived risk. The problem with giving the government the power to regulate it is that, since the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, the perception is that the market isn't doing enough and people start demanding the government to regulate it. It's a vicious cycle.


And economically, I could see how this would put pressure on the companies. And yet, I still have not seen convincing evidence that the REGULATION causes this sense of security.


Again, those numbers weren't broken down the way Viscusi did. The numbers need to reflect the change in behavior after the regulation is introduced.


Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc. What reason is there to believe that these numbers are due to the regulation? Could it not also be the fact that there are more safety caps out there that causes this number change?


They probably wouldn't, since the incentive would be to move to a more realistic risk assessment. And however much you say the consumers wouldn't be aware of the difference in regulation, they would certainly notice a difference in what's available on the shelf. Then, their risk assessment may move towards the actual risk, increasing the rationality of their decisions.

I believe you give consumers FAR too much credit for making rational decisions.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


Without going back to the NTSB timeline to show that the government only required safety belts after they were already being offered as standard equipment, the problem with the above argument is that you get situations like with air bags, where the government mandated a deployment force that was potentially fatal, as GM warned them in 1978. It wasn't necessary to protect a properly belted driver and passenger; the government wanted the extra force to protect nonbelted drivers and passengers, something air bags were never designed to do.

Not only did this have the effect of killing people unnecessarily due to the high deployment force, it also delayed the implementation of airbags 5-10 years from what the companies were originally planning, and so that cost lives as well.

But you could turn the air bag off with out any penalty of law. Doesn't that fit with in your request to be given a choice?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
However the fact that cars had seat belt or that car seat were available is not as important in my eyes as the fact that it is legislation that requires people to use them.

Ah, so you're referring to requiring drivers to buckle up, not for requiring manufacturers to implement them.

It is no the availabilty that makes for safety but the fact that you will get a ticket for not using them that adds to safety.

I'd love to see you support that. I'd also love to see you justify such a measure which punishes behavior that harms no one but the person who voluntarily chose not to wear the seat belt.

If someone chooses not to wear the seat belt, that's their business...but they also choose to bear the responsibility if something happens to them.

(BTW, my car automatically belts me in when I get into it. Seems like the free market found a better solution!)

the Good Housekeeping seal of approval did not come about from the government.

Nor did the UL label.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Again, just because the regulation is out of line with the magnitude of the risk, it does not follow that the regulations THEMSELVES are responsible for the false sense of security.

Oh, come on, think through it: The actual risk of activity A is x, but people believe it to be y, which is greater than x. A regulation comes along that purportedly cuts the levels down to y/2. Consumers think that the risk actually drops by y/2 when it doesn't it actually drops by x/2, a smaller number (assuming the regulation is as effective as perceived, which it generally isn't). Therefore, they take fewer precautions because their risk assessment has been lowered by an unrealistic amount.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc. What reason is there to believe that these numbers are due to the regulation?

Let's try it this way: What kind of information would you accept?

Could it not also be the fact that there are more safety caps out there that causes this number change?

No, because as Viscusi pointed out, the percentage of aspirin bottles with safety caps didn't change by any significant amount between 1972 and 1978.

I believe you give consumers FAR too much credit for making rational decisions.

Hmmm....

Make up your minds, people: Am I giving consumers too much credit, or do I think they're too stupid to make their own decisions? It ain't both, folks...

...Could it be that it lies somewhere in the middle? Which is where on generally finds the truth?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
But you could turn the air bag off with out any penalty of law.

No, you couldn't. Not for years, at any rate. And it was only due to enormous public outcry that the government finally let them install deactivator switches&mdash;but they still have to install them at the customer's request and expense.

Doesn't that fit with in your request to be given a choice?

No, because they're forced to pay for both the airbags AND the deactivator switch.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you couldn't. Not for years, at any rate. And it was only due to enormous public outcry that the government finally let them install deactivator switches&mdash;but they still have to install them at the customer's request and expense.



No, because they're forced to pay for both the airbags AND the deactivator switch.

While I do see and agree with that point I believe a correction is in order.

Before the switch you could turn your airbag off, however no business (including dealership) would do it because they were afraid of lawsuits. Thus one would have to go through manuals to figure out which fuses, sensors and wires controlled the airbags and how to disable them.

Let me ask you this; if a company sells a faulty and/or dangerous product, are you for consumers bringing lawsuits against the company for that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Before the switch you could turn your airbag off, however no business (including dealership) would do it because they were afraid of lawsuits. Thus one would have to go through manuals to figure out which fuses, sensors and wires controlled the airbags and how to disable them.

Okay, technically that's true, but such deactivation was beyond the ability of the ordinary driver.

Let me ask you this; if a company sells a faulty and/or dangerous product, are you for consumers bringing lawsuits against the company for that?

Of course.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah, so you're referring to requiring drivers to buckle up, not for requiring manufacturers to implement them.

Sorry I was very young when the seat belt laws were enacted, I don't remeber which came first, the belts or the government threat of regulation.



I'd love to see you support that. I'd also love to see you justify such a measure which punishes behavior that harms no one but the person who voluntarily chose not to wear the seat belt.

If someone chooses not to wear the seat belt, that's their business...but they also choose to bear the responsibility if something happens to them.
Thta nice from the libertatrian point of view, but when idiots don't wear thier belts, we all havre to help defray the cost of thier negligence.

-snip-



Nor did the UL label.

So ShaneK, when I mentioned food safety and the capitalist system not being accountable , you just ignored it. I think that capitalism is fine, to a point. Thaere is a point where manufactureres will sell a dangerous product just make money. I too am for less government regulation, and more sensible regulation. But I think that there is just as strong a case for capitalist not caring about consumers, after they have thier cash.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Thta nice from the libertatrian point of view, but when idiots don't wear thier belts, we all havre to help defray the cost of thier negligence.

Why?

So ShaneK, when I mentioned food safety and the capitalist system not being accountable , you just ignored it.

I have not ignored that issue; it's been discussed to death on this forum.

Thaere is a point where manufactureres will sell a dangerous product just make money.

Examples?

But I think that there is just as strong a case for capitalist not caring about consumers, after they have thier cash.

Evidence?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek,

You want examples of manufactureres selling a dangerous product just make money? How about tobacco companies? They were not merely selling tobacco, they were deliberately targeting their advertisenment practices to increase the harm of it, because it's precisely the addictiveness of tobacco that makes it so profitable.

Or how about air pollution? It's not the selling of a harmful product, but the principle is the same -- profit-chasing hurting the society. Coase theorem is nice and well, but it is only applicable to those resources where ownership can be clearly and unambiguously allocated. private ownership may be a solution to the pollution of rivers and strip-logging of forests, but not to overfishing of the oceans or pollutionof the air.

Yes, companies can and do put profit above society's well-being -- and sometimes, the difference between the two is tremendous. Market does not automatically promote moral good, as you are hell-bent on believing. Often it does, but not always, and it does have to be regulated to control its destructive aspects.

The trick is not to let either blind ideology -- neither 'market is god, and governments only destroy, interfere, and steal your socks from the laundry' nor 'greedy capitalist pigs would rape out women and drink our children's blood at the alter of profit" -- rule the decision-making. market has strength, and so does government regulation. You have to accept each one, and try to combine them in maximally advantageous ways, instead of pursuing your blind ideology to the society's detriment.

...

You see, Shane, this is what kills me. People like me -- libertarian sympathizers -- are LP's best bet of political relevance. Whether you believe me or not, I sincerely do wish that LP achieved greater political prominence. There are many people out there who would want smaller government and freer markets, if it would help the society; which I think it would. However, by closing your eyes to the multi-faceted complexity of economic realities, you lose the only voting base which could become the foundation of LP's political ascent; for it you can't persuade people who are already sympathetic to your causes, who are you going to persuade on your way to the expansion of your voting base?

[Dancing David]

ShaneK, I admire the libertarian point of view and have no desire to debate this to death either.

I bring up food safety because that is perhaps the area where the capitalist system failed the most to protect consumers. At this point meat packers are already pushing the envelope for food safety, and they want to irradiate food just so they can relax the cleanliness. This is also an area where the consumer has to be involved in thier own safety.

When it comes to idiots not wearing seat belts. If they die there is just the burial cost, but when they are injured then there is the treatment, if they are uninsured, underinsured or insured, the rest of us end up paying higher medical bills because of thier negligence. (Whenn someone gets in a crash there is the paramedic and the fire people, then the whole medical system).

As far as manufacturers selling dangerous products, I believe that it was the government that required cribs not kill children before the industry cared, this might be more of an issue with the importation of goods as well.

My feelings about manufactureres just wanting cash, I would like to own an American car someday. But the big guys in detroit don't seem to be able to manufacture a product that works well and does not require extraordinary repairs. My evidece would be shaky, it is more just my feeling that our society cares even less about the consumer than it did in the past and that profit and stock price have become more of a motivation than customer satisfaction or safety.

So I will beg to differ from you on this topic, there is too musch regulation in some areas, like airports now! But until I feel that the capitalists care for more than short term profits, I will hope that somebody, NGO or GA will be watching.

(This does not except consumers from watching out for themselves)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You want examples of manufactureres selling a dangerous product just make money? How about tobacco companies?

Hardly a good example. Since people want to smoke tobacco, and they want to engage in the unsafe behavior, it's not at all comparable to say, providing a safe car.

They were not merely selling tobacco, they were deliberately targeting their advertisenment practices to increase the harm of it, because it's precisely the addictiveness of tobacco that makes it so profitable.

Then explain why they worked for so many decades to make cigarettes as safe as possible.

Or how about air pollution?

Air pollution is not a product. You're really reaching here. People WANT the products that consume power, and right now the most efficient way of making that power is to burn fossil fuels.

What would you propose as an alternative?

Market does not automatically promote moral good, as you are hell-bent on believing.

I challenge you to go through the entire history of my posts on this forum and come up with even ONE example where I've said this. If you can't, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying. You've pulled this crap before.

You have to accept each one, and try to combine them in maximally advantageous ways, instead of pursuing your blind ideology to the society's detriment.

And I submit that that is exactly what I have been doing, by wanting to confine government to the areas where it is proper and effective. It's hardly my fault that it's government that is so far overstepping its bounds that it's creating most of the harms we experience in our society.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
At this point meat packers are already pushing the envelope for food safety, and they want to irradiate food just so they can relax the cleanliness.

Relax the cleanliness? What does that mean?

They want to irradiate the food because it has been proven for over 40 years in Europe as an effective means of controlling the growth of e. coli and other harmful microbes in meat as it is shipped and stored and has even been shown to make the meat more flavorful. Again, it's government who has been forcing them to suck the hind teat here.

This is also an area where the consumer has to be involved in thier own safety.

Don't they always? Isn't that the very point I've been trying to make in this thread? If you create the perception that people don't have to be involved in safety decisions (because those decisions are being made for them), that results in the false sense of security I keep going on about. And it is such a simple, direct, and logical progression I really don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping it!

When it comes to idiots not wearing seat belts. If they die there is just the burial cost, but when they are injured then there is the treatment, if they are uninsured, underinsured or insured, the rest of us end up paying higher medical bills because of thier negligence.

And the same isn't true of people bungee jumping or eating too much fat?

As far as manufacturers selling dangerous products, I believe that it was the government that required cribs not kill children before the industry cared, this might be more of an issue with the importation of goods as well.

If you gave more details about what you're talking about here, I might be able to respond to it. "Cribs killing children"?

My feelings about manufactureres just wanting cash, I would like to own an American car someday. But the big guys in detroit don't seem to be able to manufacture a product that works well and does not require extraordinary repairs.

So don't buy it. Buy one of the safer brands, which by and large are made where there are fewer regulations anyway.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Then explain why they worked for so many decades to make cigarettes as safe as possible.Because they wanted to minimize liability, duh! but they didn't want it so much that they would refrain from deliberately engaging in harmful advertising practices. They weren't merely satisfying a consumer demand for unsafe product, they were going out and deliberately pumping that demand up. Sure, they were trying to minimize liability as well (it would be stupid not to), but the point is that they engaged in harmful economic behavior for the sake of profit.

Air pollution is not a product.No, but it's a socialized cost that the manufacturers eagerly place on the society'as shoulders, for the sake of profit; it's a hiden part of the product. It's yet another example of a situation where an unregulated market ends up doing bad for society overall -- which is exactly my point: that in a number of domains (such as ait pollution), hybrid government/market solution is socially superior to a pure market solution.

People WANT the products that consume power, and right now the most efficient way of making that power is to burn fossil fuels.The problem is that without government regulation, the people end up bearing the socialized cost of these products' manufacture (pollution), regardless of whether they actually use the product. This is an example of the type of pollution where Coase doesn't help.

What would you propose as an alternative?Government regulation -- but only for those domains where economic self-regulation won't work. Government should privatize logging grounds instead of regulating logging, but they should regulate air pollution because there is no better way to control it.

I challenge you to go through the entire history of my posts on this forum and come up with even ONE example where I've said this.No, of course you didn't -- you may be occasionally dishonest, but you are not strupid. However, each time you are confronted with the evidence of government regulations doing better than market in some specific domain, you refuse to admit it. Outside of law and military, your position de facto amounts to dogmatic belief that the government cannot do better tha the market. You never explicitly said so (although you did a few times let slip stratements of incredulity at the very possibility of such), but your behavior speaks louder than your words.

If you can't, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying. You've pulled this crap before.I am curious, have you given in on any point at any time, agreeing that in a given domaibn (outside law and military) government should intervene? You kinda sorta came close in our spate about local roads' ownership, but even there you waffled and equivocated instead of admitting the government's superior ability to handle the domain in question.

And I submit that that is exactly what I have been doing, by wanting to confine government to the areas where it is proper and effective.Any areas besides military and law? I certainly can't recall any. To the best of my recollection, you never changed your mind about which areas would be such proper ones.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Seems like a good study. Unfortunately, the graphics for the figures he references don't seem to be on the server.
Technically, I don't think "iranscience.com" has permission to post the text, much less the graphics. Mums the word.

I would like to see the graph for Figure 2 which purportedly shows the mortality rate due to aspirin ingestion compared to the predicted number of deaths there would be without such safety caps. I'd like to see if the data takes a number of things into account, but again, the gif file sadly isn't on the server.
The factors he controlled for are in the body of the text.

He does say that the results of his stody differs from Viscusi's, but from what I've seen he didn't duplicate Viscusi's study.
There's more than one way to measure the effectiveness of the packaging; and if Viscusi's methods were questionable and data sources potentially unreliable--why would you want to duplicate it?
From the text of the web page, he does say that the data he used was "the unintentional-injury death rate from all causes for children younger than 5 years," whereas Viscusi focused on the particular cause of aspirin and alangesic ingestion. But without seeing the figure, I'm loathe to say that this makes Rodgers's data more suspect than Viscusi's.
Ummm...that quote comes from the last paragraph in the "data" section and is specifically listed as being additional data. If you look at the first sentence under "Data," you'll see:
The Effectiveness of Child-Resistant Packaging for Aspirin (http://journals.iranscience.net:800/Default/archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v156n9/rfull/poa10352.html)
Data on the annual number of child deaths caused by the unintentional ingestion of aspirin were collected from the files on underlying cause of death published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
And by his own words, the shortness of the study period may have exacerbated the trend&mdash;but again, the word is "exacerbated," not "reversed." He didn't say that the trend was exacerbated, he said "these problems [the other problems with the study] may have been exacerbated by the relatively short study period in the analysis." There's quite a difference.
His critique of Viscusi's use of the nonfatal poisonings from 1963 to 1980 may well be valid; but those aren't the figures I've been citing.
:confused: I haven't been able to find detailed discussions of Viscusi's study (studies?). Has he done several studies? Are they reprinted in their entirety in the book you are using? Or are they just overviews of his journal articles? Most importantly, what were his data sources?
Rodgers doesn't say if the sporadic nature of the poisoning reports applies to deaths from poisoning the way it does to all ingestions. I would guess that since the have to report the cause of death for every patient that dies that this sporadic nature would not apply here, but again, I'm willing to listen if anyone has any information to the contrary.
The problem here is that Poison Control Centers do not have "patients." These are call centers, they only track a case if they receive a call. Hospital data comes through the National Center for Health Statistics.
There is some good data here to shwo that Viscusi's figures may show the trend to be larger than what it is, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is the opposite of what it is. Again, if I've misinterpreted Rodgers's study, just tell me.
The study shows that "child-resistant packaging independently lowered the child death rate by about 34%" for aspirin alone. How is this not the opposite of what Viscusi predicted?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

According to this site (http://130.15.96.12/target/chapter06.html), Viscusi is quoted as saying:
[It was concluded that the impact of the regulation was counterproductive,] "leading to 3,500 additional (fatal plus non-fatal) poisonings of children under age 5 annually from analgesics".
That's 3500 additional poisonings. Where are they?

CPSC Urges Observance Of National Poison Prevention Week
March 1975
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1975mar/75025.html
To aid the handicapped and elderly, manufacturers of those items may use conventional packaging for one size of a particular product.

The Commission strongly recommends, however, that consumers buy products with safety packaging. CPSC injury data indicates a 20 percent decline in the number of aspirin ingestions since the safety packaging requirements went into effect.


CPSC Reminds Public Of Exemption To Child-Resistant Packaging Regulations
August 25, 1976
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1976aug/76054.html
Child-resistant packaging requirements issued under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 have been credited with a reduction in fatal ingestions of aspirin and other toxic substances by children. For example, the number of reported deaths of children under five from aspirin poisoning dropped 48% in the two years after the aspirin regulation went into effect, according to statistics from the Public Health Service's National Center for Health Statistics.

Aspirin was the first item for which child-resistant packaging was required (Aug. 14, 1972) . The number of aspirin ingestions by children under five toppled from 8,146 in the year before the regulations to 4,837 in 1974, the year for which the most recent data is available from Poison Prevention Control Centers.


CPSC Urges Public Participation During National Poison Prevention Week
March 16, 1977
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1977mar/77025.html
In the three years since aspirin products were first required to be packaged with child- resistant caps, deaths from aspirin poisoning among children under five dropped 63% and accidental ingestions dropped 47%.

For the elderly and the handicapped who have difficulty opening child-resistant containers, regulated products can be packaged in one non-complying size provided its label states that it is not recommended for use in households with young children and provided the product is also available in safety closure packages. Prescription b drugs also are available in non-child-resistant packaging upon the specific request of the patient or the prescribing physician.


Agencies Observe National Poison Prevention Week
March 18, 1979
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1979mar/79010.html
Poisonings among children under five from aspirin have dropped by about 55 percent over a four year period since Federal regulations for packaging of these products went into effect. Deaths among children under five from accidental ingestion of aspirin, formerly the leading cause of childhood poisoning, have declined 46 percent.


Posion Prevention Week Planned To Warn Parents Of Household Poisons
March 12, 1980
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1980mar/80008.html
Until the previous decade, aspirin was the substance most commonly involved in poisonings to young children and was the first substance required to have child-resistant closures under the PPPA. Since the safety closures have been required, there has been a 76 per cent reduction in the number of deaths to young children who ingested aspirin, and a 60 per cent decrease in the actual number of ingestions. Overall, deaths from accidental poisonings to young children from all household products have been reduced by 56 per cent.


National Poison Prevention Week Reminds Consumers To Protect Young Children From Poisons
March 13,1981
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1981mar/81012.html
Since the safety closures first were required in 1972, there has been a 72 per cent reduction in the number of deaths to young children from aspirin overdoses. Deaths from accidental poisonings of young children from all household products have been reduced by 63 per cent. And cases of children swallowing lye (a common ingredient in drain cleaners) have been reduced by 63 per cent since 1973.


National Poison Prevention Week
March 21, 1983
http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/cpsc/files/1983mar/83013.html
Aspirin, for example, dropped to sixth place after having been the most frequently ingested product by children. Recent reports according to the CPSC show a 65 percent decline in accidental aspirin ingestion and an 83 percent drop in associated fatalities.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The problem is that without government regulation, the people end up bearing the socialized cost of these products' manufacture (pollution), regardless of whether they actually use the product.

And likewise, with government regulation, the people end up bearing the cost of regulatory compliance and its effect on prices, the availability of jobs, and the economy at large, regardless of whether they actually benefit from the regulation.

No, of course you didn't

Then I'll thank you to stop ascribing things to met hat i never said.

However, each time you are confronted with the evidence of government regulations doing better than market in some specific domain, you refuse to admit it.

I have provided far more evidence of the harm of government regulations than anyone has for the benefits.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
The factors he controlled for are in the body of the text.

I know that, but it's very difficult to get the concept without seeing the figure he's referencing.

He didn't say that the trend was exacerbated, he said "these problems [the other problems with the study] may have been exacerbated by the relatively short study period in the analysis." There's quite a difference.

Not really, since the other problems don't reverse the trend, either. I'll fully concede that the effect may not be as bad as Viscusi claims (although, with the uncertainty Rodgers pointed out, it could just as easily be greater) but I still haven't seen anything that would turn an upward trend into a downward trend.

Are they reprinted in their entirety in the book you are using?

The book I'm using is a textbook that covers a lot of different aspects of how government regulations can have the effects he's positing. It's taken from transcripts of lectures he's given where he's shown the results of these studies.

The problem here is that Poison Control Centers do not have "patients."

But hospitals do, and they would certainly be keeping track of who dies from what, including poisoning.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
That's 3500 additional poisonings. Where are they?

They cited "Viscusi, W.K. (1984). The lulling effect: The impact of child-resistant packaging on aspirin and analgesic ingestions. American Economic Review, 74, 324-327" as their source for that. Think the answer might be in there?

I just checked, and apparently you have to be a member of some library or something to see the articles online. It does seem to mirror his number in the original source I cited (it had the 3500 number, too) but I don't recall it saying that it included nonfatal poisonings, too.

And I'm not going to respond to your sources, since I never claimed that safety caps themselves were a bad thing. Again, I'm referring to the surrounding regulations.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

And likewise, with government regulation, the people end up bearing the cost of regulatory compliance and its effect on prices, the availability of jobs, and the economy at large, regardless of whether they actually benefit from the regulation.Everybody breathes the air, Shane. The manufacturers simply have no right to pollute the common good -- the air -- the way they did; and yet the only thing that would shield bystanders from the harmful effects of air pollution, was government regulation.

You don't like giovernment regulations that socialize the costs which have no business being socialized? Fine; argue against those specific regulations. However, some regulations, such as regulations of air pollution, do exactly the right and needful thing both ethically and economically. Yes, this is one of the things that the government does right, besides law and military.

Then I'll thank you to stop ascribing things to met hat i never said.Why not? You meant it, quite clearly. I am ascribing to you a position that positively fountains out of your posts. You want to prove me wrong? Fine; show me when you accepted an argument for government interference which was opposed to your prior position. Otherwise, your indignant protestations ring all too hollow.

At this point, shane, it's your job to prove that you are not an irrational fanatic. You have done too much to push your perceived state in that direction. You cannot simply continue to proff your acceptance of government's role in law and military as your shield, the proof that you accept the usefulness of government in some regards. It doesn't work that way -- you had that position from the beginning, much of LP did. That position is static, and static acceptance of a position, no matter how enlightened, does not prove that you are ready to consider new ideas. That view of the government's role simply happens to be your starting dogma, nothing more.

I have provided far more evidence of the harm of government regulations than anyone has for the benefits.I argued before that the free market cannot handle local roads. You kinda-sorta conceded, but you never actually admitted that yes, this is something government should do. Furthermore, I just demonstrated, beyond reasonable reproach, that only governmental regulations can control air pollution, because the very nature of air makes the air pollution socialised, foisting upon unconsenting bystanders the cost of manufacture, and thus leading to economic inefficiency through overproduction. Where is your admission of being wrong, shane?

Where's the opening into your mind, shane? Do you have one? prove it!

It doesn't matter how much bad arguments and bad positions were thrown at you. I will readily concede that libertarian position on many economic topics is the superior one, and that in many of your arguments on this board, you are right. However, on some topics, your position is wrong, incontrovertibly so, and yet you never admit it.

Where's that opening, shane?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Everybody breathes the air, Shane.

That's just completely ignorant. Not everyone breathes the same air. Someone out in the country doesn't have as much to worry about air pollution as someone living in a major metropolitan city, yet he ends up paying just as much.

Why not? You meant it, quite clearly.

No, I haven't. This is the porblem with you: You tend to take the worst possible interpretation of the posts of someone you don't agree with and acribe it to them as if that's actually what they meant.

What I've meant&mdash;and what I've stated outright&mdash;is that the government can't force people to be moral. That's a damn sight different than saying they necessarily would be moral were ot not for government interference.

Where's the opening into your mind, shane? Do you have one? prove it!

The opening into my mind cannot be found with strawman arguments and personal attacks, as has been your mode so far.

You've been blathering about air pollution all this time when you know perfectly well (because I've said it in response to your posts) that corporations (or anyone else for that matter) should be held responsible for the pollution they cause. The problem with regulations, as I keep repeatedly pointing out, is that everyone gets punished regardless of whether or not they did any harm at all.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

That's just completely ignorant. Not everyone breathes the same air.So what? Many people around the industrial centers breathe the polluted air, yet do not benefit from the production the said pollution enabled. They pay for others' goods. it's worse than taxes, because taxes are passed by a government subject to the vote control. Joe Sixpack can vote, but he can't do anything against the air polluters who foist upon him the cost of their products -- except by having the government regulate the air pollution.

Someone out in the country doesn't have as much to worry about air pollution as someone living in a major metropolitan city, yet he ends up paying just as much.Yes. And the price is subsidized by those who breathe the polluted air but don't buy the product. By socializing the production cost, the manufacturers force others to pay a part of the manufacture expenses; which is economically inefficient, an overproduction.

No, I haven't. This is the porblem with you: You tend to take the worst possible interpretation of the posts of someone you don't agree with and acribe it to them as if that's actually what they meant.I am waiting for any other reasonable interpretation to avail itself. Show me when you have been persuaded by the argument to concede that the government can be better at something -- anything -- than market alone. You have so far avoided even acknowledging this question, much less actually answering it. Could it possibly be because you can't cite such an example, and because deep down, in a place you keep secret even from yourself, you know that you won't give in on any specific domain?

What I've meant&mdash;and what I've stated outright&mdash;is that the government can't force people to be moral. That's a damn sight different than saying they necessarily would be moral were ot not for government interference.This is not a belief I have a problem with, Shane. Dion't change the subject. The issue here is your willingess -- not your chest-thumping proclamations of such, but the actual real willingness -- to see where you are wrong about supremacy of markets and shortcomings of government.

Such as with the air pollution. I keep giving you the fundamental irrefutable argument, and you keep changing the subject. Who the fsck cares that not all people breathe polluted air? the point is that many people breathe it -- and thus pay the manufacture cost -- without consuming the product made possible by pollution. The point is that manufacturers effectively dforce innocent unconsenting bystanders to pay a part of the production cost!

But you keep avoiding it. You keep weaseling. You keep changing the subject. I haven't seen you bring out your old 'privatization is the answer' schtick, because, having seen you do that numerous times before, I cut it off at the root -- Coase theorem doesn't apply to air; but still, completely lacking in anything even remotely resembling a cogent counter-argument, you refuse to admit that yes, there can be something besides law and military, that the government is good at and should do.

The opening into my mind cannot be found with strawman arguments and personal attacks, as has been your mode so far.What strawman arguments, shane? I am making a very clear and straightforward argument -- air pollution cannot be handled efficiently by the free market, due to the very nature of air. Where are the strawmen, shane? Where are your answers to the statements I am actually making?

You've been blathering about air pollution all this time when you know perfectly well (because I've said it in response to your posts) that corporations (or anyone else for that matter) should be held responsible for the pollution they cause. The problem with regulations, as I keep repeatedly pointing out, is that everyone gets punished regardless of whether or not they did any harm at all.So tell me, gloriously dishonest shane, how is punishing air pollution going to be handled via the courts? On what basis will teh courts allocate responsibility for lung cancer, leukemia, ans asthma? How will the courts decide exactly how much to penalize each polluter for? And what fscking good will it do after the people are already sick and dead?

The courts have been around fora long time. The knowledge that smog is bad for you has been around forever. There were no spates of lawsuits suing the polluters over smog, and you know why? because such lawsuits are basically impossible to do with any sort of cogency; the only type of victory in such a lawsuit can be the kind that has absolutely nothing to do with reality, the judges' and jurors' whim. it's impossible to allocate blame in each specific case, shane.

What's more, the polluters simply have no right to force others to pay their manufacture cost. Punishment is the last resort -- prevention is far better; just as you would try to prevent a murder instead of simply punishing it if you could.

This is why, when we speak about any other sort of pollution, you chant your 'private ownership' mantra: because you realize that pollution is something to be prevented not something to be punished. Yet when it comes to air, one of the few domains where private ownership cannot be the answer, you would rather sacrifice every truth and fact, than admit that you stupid dogma can indeed be wrong.

You are a liar, shane. You claim to have an open mind, but your is as closed and dishonest as that of any religious fanatic. You are not willing to consider opposing arguments, and admit to being wrong. You will proclaim such willingess, and you probably even convince yourself, but when the push comes to shove, all you do is invent excuses.

if you step on your bathroom scale and see that it shows a weight gain of 10lbs, you could decide that you gained weight; or you could decide that the gravity field in your bathroom is locally distorted. With regard to your libertarian dogma, you are opting to hold on to any alternative explanation, no matter how ridiculous, except for conceding that the government may be better than market at something (besides law and military, of course).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
So what? Many people around the industrial centers breathe the polluted air, yet do not benefit from the production the said pollution enabled. They pay for others' goods. it's worse than taxes, because taxes are passed by a government subject to the vote control. Joe Sixpack can vote, but he can't do anything against the air polluters who foist upon him the cost of their products -- except by having the government regulate the air pollution.

I have pointed out time and time again that that is wrong. Time and time again I have given you alternatives to governemnt regulation. You simply have no desire to listen, and no desire to learn.

I am waiting for any other reasonable interpretation to avail itself.

I have given it to you directly. You're just to pigheaded to accept it.

This is not a belief I have a problem with, Shane. Dion't change the subject.

I'm not! This is the actual view I hold, contrary to the one you ascribed to me. There is a big difference between saying that government can't force people to be moral and saying that people will be moral without government. I have said time and time again that people need to be held responsible for the harm they cause others, and this is the precise reason why we need law enforcement and the court system.

Such as with the air pollution. I keep giving you the fundamental irrefutable argument, and you keep changing the subject.

No, I don't. I have given you alternatives. You've ignored them. You simply don't want to consider anything other than what you've already decided.

Who the fsck cares that not all people breathe polluted air?

That;s your attitude. Who the fsck cares that other people are going to be needlessly harmed by the regulation? Who the fsck cares that it won't be effective? Who the fsck cares that it's going to lead to fewer freedoms for everyone? Who the fsck cares that it's going to harm everyone by damaging the economy?

I care, that's who. And so do many, many others. If you don't, fine, but we don't care to have your filth forced on the rest of us.

the point is that many people breathe it -- and thus pay the manufacture cost -- without consuming the product made possible by pollution.

So make the manufacturer pay restitution to those directly harmed by its actions! Why is this such a tough concept for you to grasp? If Erin Brockovitch can use pseudiscientific claptrap to convince people that power lines cause cancer, and can make a power company pay restitution to them, why would it be so hard to do so with proven air pollutants? If anything, the court system is leaning too far the other way&mdash;it's too easy to get restitution when you don't deserve it. So the solution is right there, but you refuse to see it.

But you keep avoiding it. You keep weaseling. You keep changing the subject.

No, I don't. I keep responding to it directly. You keep ignoring it.

What strawman arguments, shane?

Your attribution that I think everyone will be moral without government is a strawman. Plain and simple.

So tell me, gloriously dishonest shane, how is punishing air pollution going to be handled via the courts?

I just gave you an example above.

What's more, the polluters simply have no right to force others to pay their manufacture cost. Punishment is the last resort -- prevention is far better; just as you would try to prevent a murder instead of simply punishing it if you could.

What you completely fail to understand no matter how many times I explain it to you is that this kind of punishment is a deterrent. Not only do companies not want to be sued, they also don't want the negative consumer backlash that accompanies them. Whereas regulations give them no such incentive. Many of htem tend to follow the letter of the regulation and no more. Then, when they are brought to court, they say, "Hey, we followed the regulations! What more can we do?" One of the points that Brockovich brought up in her case was that there was no regulation of the power lines, so the courts had to hold them responsible.

People do legally own the air around their property, up to a certain altitude. They should have the perfect right to sue anyone who pollutes that air.

[pathetic personal insults excised]

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

I have pointed out time and time again that that is wrong. Time and time again I have given you alternatives to governemnt regulation. You simply have no desire to listen, and no desire to learn.i do listen, shane -- and I hear self-serving delusions. there is no rational way to implement legal restitutions for air pollution. There is no fair, objective way discern the fraction of the suffering due to it, and to allocate blame. Courts won't help you here.

I'm not! This is the actual view I hold, contrary to the one you ascribed to me.Dude, you hold more than one view. You believe that the government cannot force people to be moral; I agree, and it's not this belief of yours I have a problem with. My problem is with your belief that the government has no ability to perform anything besides law and military better than the free market -- your dogmatic belief therein.

There is a big difference between saying that government can't force people to be moral and saying that people will be moral without government.And neither one is relevant to my posts.

No, I don't. I have given you alternatives.Yes, you did -- you claimed that you are open-minded, but right every time so far. Of course, having seen how many times you turned your face away from reality, I will be excused for nto taking that pretense of yours seriously.

That;s your attitude. Who the fsck cares that other people are going to be needlessly harmed by the regulation?Who? All this regulation would do, is prevent the manufacturers from socializing their expenses; it would prevent the manufacturers from effectively stealing from other people, from foisting upon them the cost of pollution.

This is something you refuse to realize. Air pollution is an example of the situation where the marklet's natural tendency would be to effectively steal from people, and where the government regulation would be protecting the people from being used thusly.

Who the fsck cares that it won't be effective? Who the fsck cares that it's going to lead to fewer freedoms for everyone?Gee, I see an increase in freedoms -- because I will be free to not pay the cost of someone else's manufacture by breathing the fumes they are unwilling to clean, because they don't have to pay the cost. No, the only loss of freedom here is the freedom that had no business existing in the first place -- the freedom to force others to pay a part of one's manufacturing costs; the freedom to punch another's face.

Remember our long arguments about the nature of freedom, and the conflict inherent therein? the freedom to pollute the air is one of those things which, from your perspective, have no business being regarded as freedoms at all. Just as you refused to recognize the freedom to swing fists at my nose, so you should refuse to recognize the freedom to pollute the air.

Who the fsck cares that it's going to harm everyone by damaging the economy?it's the other way around. Because the cost is socialized, the true cost of the pollution far exceeds the manufacture profit. This is a classic 'tragedy of the commons' situation, except here you cannot privatize the commons; and so instead you have an economic process which is inefficient, because the entity that reaps the prfoits, is not the one that pays the costs. And so the social cost of the pollution is far greater than the manufacturers' savings at not cleaning it up, which in turn leads to economic inefficiency due to overproduction. The government, by stepping in and internalizing the pollution costs for the manufacturers via regulation, would actually be restoring the market to its efficient equilibrium. Basic economics, dude.

I care, that's who. And so do many, many others. If you don't, fine, but we don't care to have your filth forced on the rest of us.Boy, you just can't keep a thread of conversation in mind, can you? ADD, or willful strawmanophilia?

I am the one who is arguing that one person's filth (the manufacturing byproducts polluting the air) should be prevented from being forced upon everyone around.

So make the manufacturer pay restitution to those directly harmed by its actions!You can't determine who had been directly harmed, and to what amount! That's the inherent limitations of reactive correction like the legal system -- in order for it to work, you have to be able to clearly allocate blame and compute expenses. Works fine with contract law, works so-so with medical malpractice, doesn't work at all with pollution.

Why is this such a tough concept for you to grasp? If Erin Brockovitch can use pseudiscientific claptrap to convince people that power lines cause cancer, and can make a power company pay restitution to them, why would it be so hard to do so with proven air pollutants?oh, it would be easy -- but as you said, and as I in fact said in my previous posts, such a conviction would be pseudo-scientific claptrap, a conviction made on the whim of judge and jury. It would have no connection to reality, and so it would be throwing the economic efficiency even more out of whack -- because it would be fundamentally arbitrary, random.

No, court action is near-useless for pollution. The same pseudo-scientific arbitrary claptrap that can scare real polluters into cleaning up their crap, is also what scares manufacturers of harmless producst (such as silicone breast implants, long-distance power lines, and broadcast satellites) out of business, or at least make their lives inefficiently and unfairly expensive.

This is economic inefficiency, this is where a purely reactive solution to the free market's excesses leads. Because there is no clear, well-defined way to allocate blame and compute expense, you end up blaming whoever is handy, and forcing them to pay whatever the judge and jurors decide in their whims.

If anything, the court system is leaning too far the other way&mdash;it's too easy to get restitution when you don't deserve it. So the solution is right there, but you refuse to see it.No, the solution is right there, and I see very clearly what things that solution cannot solve. Litigation is not a solution to pollution, and it cannot be, barring some miraculous scientific advances.

No, I don't. I keep responding to it directly. You keep ignoring it.Your previous post -- where you spoke about litigation as being the remedy -- was the first one where you actually responded to my point directly.

Your attribution that I think everyone will be moral without government is a strawman. Plain and simple.Well, good thing I never attrributed such a view to you, then. Instead, the view I attribute to you is a dogmatic belief that government cannot do better than market, nor even help the market via intervention, at anything besides law and military.

I just gave you an example above.yes, the example of the punishment basically having no realtionship to the transgression (i.e. with the powerlines/cancer thing).

What you completely fail to understand no matter how many times I explain it to you is that this kind of punishment is a deterrent.I understand that, shane -- but it's only a deterrent if you make the punishment fit the crime. This is only possible in some cases, and it'as most definitely impossible with air pollution, where you have both multiple polluters, multiple victims, and multiple significant unknowns; where you can allocate neither the proportion of the damage due to pollution (as opposed to other factors), nor the proportion of the blame due to some specific polluter.

Not only do companies not want to be sued, they also don't want the negative consumer backlash that accompanies them.Only if they care about the populatyion where the backlash occurs, and only if they can be sued successfully in the first place. As I already said, pollution lawsuits have no realtionship to reality. They will overshoot or undershoot at random. They will either lead to the manufacturers paying too little and continuing to pollute inefficiently, or to manufacturers paying too much and having to undertake excessive, economically inefficient remedies. There is virtually no chance that lawsuits would bring the manufacturers anywhere closer to the economic equilibrium, and of they do, it would be by sheer raqndom chance.

People do legally own the air around their property, up to a certain altitude. They should have the perfect right to sue anyone who pollutes that air.No, they don't -- no more than they can sue someone for broadcasting through the space on their property. Nor can they sue the manufacturers for polluting their air above property other than their own (i.e. the street, the playground, etc.) And even if they could sue the manufacturers, for what and by how much? Can I sue the manufacturers for producing excessive carbox dioxide near my property? if so, how excessive would the production have to be? Can I sue drivers for producing extra carbon dioxide as it drifts onbto my property from the highway?

You can't partition air, shane. The solution you describe is the Coase theorem solution -- except that it it doesn't work in domains where you cannot clearly allocate ownership. You can allocate ownership of forests, and so private ownership would solve over-logging problem; you might be able to allocate ownership of rivers, and so the private ownership may be able to solve the rive rpollutionproblem; but it cannot help you with air.

You can no more sue an air polluter for polluting 'your' air, than you can sue your smoking neighbor for their second-hand smoke drifting onto your property in the wind, or for the smoke from a smoking restaurant being inhaled by you when you pass it on the street.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
i do listen, shane -- and I hear self-serving delusions.

Then you're not listening. You're hearing only what you want to hear.

there is no rational way to implement legal restitutions for air pollution. There is no fair, objective way discern the fraction of the suffering due to it, and to allocate blame.

Without getting into why I disagree with this, how is that at all consistent with the idea that it should be regulated? If there's no qualtifiable harm, no way to measure how bad the harm is, and no way to find out who's causing it, then how are regulations going to help at all?

My problem is with your belief that the government has no ability to perform anything besides law and military better than the free market -- your dogmatic belief therein.

That belief is based on the government's consistent and continual failure to do so. Even if they do manage to get something right for a short period of time, it doesn't last because the program is always expanded way beyond what it was intended for. It's kind of like trying to open a can of beans with a steamroller.

And neither one is relevant to my posts.

That's a lie! You DIRECTLY stated that I believed that people would be moral without government! My correction of that mischaracterization is most definitely relevant to the claim you made about me!

Who?

See? After all the posts and all the threads and all the evidence showing the staggering costs involved with complying with government regulations, and all the harm that it causes, and you ignore it and continually deny it.

There is someone closed-minded here, and it ain't me.

This is something you refuse to realize.

Well, maybe if you offered something other than blind assertions and actually presented a logical argument, as well as a refutation of my logical argument, things would be different.

Gee, I see an increase in freedoms -- because I will be free to not pay the cost of someone else's manufacture by breathing the fumes they are unwilling to clean,

Even though you WILL be paying, directly or indirectly, the cost of regulation. That's what you continually ignore.

the freedom to pollute the air is one of those things which, from your perspective, have no business being regarded as freedoms at all.

Absolutely. Because that action directly harms others, and you aren't free to initiate any kind of force or fraud against anyone.

The government, by stepping in and internalizing the pollution costs for the manufacturers via regulation, would actually be restoring the market to its efficient equilibrium. Basic economics, dude.

Show your work, please.

It is NOT part of market economics to punish EVERYONE for the actions of a few. The market-based solution would be to punish only those who harm others, and to pay restitution to those they have harmed.

Boy, you just can't keep a thread of conversation in mind, can you? ADD, or willful strawmanophilia?

I am the one who is arguing that one person's filth (the manufacturing byproducts polluting the air) should be prevented from being forced upon everyone around.

No, you are arguing that EVERYONE should be punished because some people are polluting. I say, only punish the polluters. When you go advocating the punishment of innocent people, then I reserve the right to call it filth. When it directly harms the economy for everyone, I call it filth.

You can't determine who had been directly harmed, and to what amount!

Sure, you can! If we know something to be a pollutant, then we know the harm it can cause. If we know who is polluting, then we know who in the surrounding area is being affected. You acknowledged that someone out in the country isn't breathing the city smog; that logically means they are not paying this "cost to society" you keep blathering on about. Therefore, the cost is not to society, but to specific individuals.

oh, it would be easy -- but as you said, and as I in fact said in my previous posts, such a conviction would be pseudo-scientific claptrap,

No, it wouldn't. Bronkovich is guilty of pseudo-scientific claptrap because there's no evidence that power lines cause cancer, and because she specifically drew the affected area to skew the results in her favor. Since pollution has a known factor of harm, you would need to do neither.

I agree we need to get rid of the pseudoscience in the court system; but that would not affect the ability to sue polluters in any way.

Your previous post -- where you spoke about litigation as being the remedy -- was the first one where you actually responded to my point directly.

That's a lie and you know it. I brought this up to you before and you ignored it.

Well, good thing I never attrributed such a view to you, then.

YOU LIAR!!!!

You said this:

Market does not automatically promote moral good, as you are hell-bent on believing.

When I called you on it, you admitted that you could not even produce a single post where I had said it, but kept on with it anyway. Now, as is typical of you, you're backpedalling and pretending you really meant something else.

I understand that, shane -- but it's only a deterrent if you make the punishment fit the crime.

You have provided nothing to show that this could not be done here. Only your assertion, backed up by absolutely nothing.

and it'as most definitely impossible with air pollution,

Why? Give me rational, logical, quantifiable reasons, not just bald assertion!

where you have both multiple polluters, multiple victims, and multiple significant unknowns;

That hasn't stopped people from suing successfully before...and even in cases where, like I mentioned, the science isn't even on their side!

No, they don't -- no more than they can sue someone for broadcasting through the space on their property.

That's different. People are not considered to have ownership of the broadcast frequencies through their properties. This is just another one of your desperate ploys.

Nor can they sue the manufacturers for polluting their air above property other than their own

Why should they?

And even if they could sue the manufacturers, for what and by how much?

For polluting the air, and for however much the damage is worth, for example, health care costs.

And you can MOST DEFINITELY sue people for poisoning your air, and numerous people have successfully done so in the past. It's just not as easy now BECAUSE OF THE REGULATIONS.

[Victor Danilchenko]

I was half-way through typing a long, detailed reply, and my computer crashed. I won't retype it, because frankly, there is no point. You don't change your opinions when confronted with contradictory facts.

This is pointless, shane. You are a smart guy, but you simply are not willing to seriously entertain the idea of the opposition being right. You pay lip service to open-mindedness, but your actions belie your deeper position.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I was half-way through typing a long, detailed reply, and my computer crashed. I won't retype it, because frankly, there is no point. You don't change your opinions when confronted with contradictory facts.

You haven't confronted me with ANY facts! Just your assertions, which you refuse to back up!

But go on. Ignore everything I said in my last post. Ignore the clarifications, the rationale, the corrections, the fact that I caught you in yet another lie...ignore it all, and you can sleep tonight...

Now, is there anyone out there who wants to go back to arguing the DATA?

[fsol]

I'd love to see you support that. I'd also love to see you justify such a measure which punishes behavior that harms no one but the person who voluntarily chose not to wear the seat belt.

Lets imagine for a moment a car with three occupants. Two in the front and one in the back sitting behind the driver. The two in the front are wearing seatbelts. The passanger in the back is not. The car is involved in an accident which causes it to come to a sudden halt. The two front occupants are prevented from being catapaulted into the front windscreen by their seatbelts. The passenger in the rear of the car is however not restrained. He is thrown forwards with such force that the driver is crushed to death between the seat and the steering column. The passenger in the rear of the vehicle survives the accident. That is an example of how not wearing a seatbelt can harm another. Even if the driver is not killed some harm is likely attributable to the passenger in the rear of the car.

For a few links to back this up have a look here

http://www.google.com/search?q=rear+seatbelt+deaths&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The presence of seatbelts in cars does not save lives. It is the wearing of seatbelts that saves lives, the person wearing the seatbelt and others.


Editted to add: This would appear to reinforce Shaneks lulling argument.

http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
And I'm not going to respond to your sources, since I never claimed that safety caps themselves were a bad thing. Again, I'm referring to the surrounding regulations.
shanek, I am more than a little confused. Safety caps=good, but regulations requiring safety caps=bad? I think that the real reason you don't want to address the sources provided my Mahatma Kane Jeeves is that they show the poisonings going DOWN, not UP, after the regulations took effect. This belies the basic premise you are arguing for - that requiring the safety caps actually caused more deaths.

What you have been asked repeatedly for, and what I haven't seen (unless I have missed it) is something connecting the actual regulation to the lulling effect. That is, let's say that instead of requiring safety caps, the companies just decided it was a good idea. They put in safety caps, advertise them as a new feature of the product, etc.

A parent then buys the product with the safety cap. Are you saying that the parent is going to treat that product differently if the cap is there because a regulation said it has to be or if the the company just put it there on its own. I think that this is your claim. I think that it is illogical, to say the least. I think that it is more logical to think that the parent will treat the bottle no differently whether the cap is mandated or not.

Further, even if there is a certain "lulling effect", I think that the numbers posted by MKJ show that the effect, if any, was overshadowed by the number of poisonings prevented by the cap. Otherwise, why would the number of poisonings go down?

[fsol]

the poisonings of children 5 and under from bottles that came with safety caps but had the caps left off increased from 40% to 73%

Does Viscusi give a reason why the safety caps were left off the bottles? Or perhaps why he thinks they were left off?

To me it seems like it has nothing to do with a lulling effect. It seems to me to have more to do with the caps themselves.

A person has a bottle of aspirin with a safety cap, has a lot of hassle getting the cap off, and then leaves the cap off for ease of use in the future.

It's obviously just my opinion but it does seem as if it makes an argument that the caps themselves are a contributing factor to the child deaths not a lulling effect.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fsol
Lets imagine for a moment a car with three occupants....

Okay, this is a different situation. The driver/owner of the car is perfectly within his rights to require that the other passengers fasten their seat belts as a condition for riding in his car. If he makes no such requirement, and the scenario you described happens, the driver is responsible for his own harm. Likewise, the other passengers don't have to enter the car unless people are properly belted. I know many people who insist on precisely this.

Editted to add: This would appear to reinforce Shaneks lulling argument.

http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

Thanks for posting it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

shanek, I am more than a little confused. Safety caps=good, but regulations requiring safety caps=bad?

Yes...just like set belts-good, regulations requiring seat belts=bad. Just because something is good doesn't mean that it's good to regulate it.

What you have been asked repeatedly for, and what I haven't seen (unless I have missed it) is something connecting the actual regulation to the lulling effect.

The Viscusi source I've been quoting from provides that. I've quoted passages that show it.

A parent then buys the product with the safety cap. Are you saying that the parent is going to treat that product differently if the cap is there because a regulation said it has to be or if the the company just put it there on its own.

In some cases, probably not, but in many cases, yes. They'll have made the choice between the product with or without the safety cap and they wouldn't have had a government actively telling them that the product was made safer.

Otherwise, why would the number of poisonings go down?

I've answered this question several times. Please refer to my previous posts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fsol
Does Viscusi give a reason why the safety caps were left off the bottles?

Yes: Because people had trouble getting the caps off and didn't have the choice of an easier cap. So they just left them off.

BTW, the aspect of leaving the caps off doesn't have to do with the lulling effect; that Viscusi measures by the properly capped bottles left within the reach of the children. Leaving the caps off is a different effect of the regulation, nothing to do with the lulling effect.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
The Viscusi source I've been quoting from provides that. I've quoted passages that show it.
Well, I have seen it as a theory, but I don't think that anything you have posted from Viscusi shows the effect as a result of the Regulation as opposed to the caps themselves.

In some cases, probably not, but in many cases, yes. They'll have made the choice between the product with or without the safety cap and they wouldn't have had a government actively telling them that the product was made safer.
On this we'll just have to disagree. I don't see a parent putting that much more faith in a "child proof cap" that is mandated by the government as opposed to simply introduced by the company. I don't know why they would. Both will have been actively promoted as being safer.

I've answered this question several times. Please refer to my previous posts.
I must have missed it. Can you give me the two line version (or point out where it has been answered)?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Relax the cleanliness? What does that mean?

There are some who believe that the meat packing industry in the US would like to use irradiation because then the cleanliness factor of the slaughter would not matter as much.


I really don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping it.

I do grasp it, it just means that I don't always agree. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean I share it.


And the same isn't true of people bungee jumping or eating too much fat?

I agree that is the case but I am not uncomfortable with seatbelt laws, I support your rigyt to question the usefulness of those laws


If you gave more details about what you're talking about here, I might be able to respond to it. "Cribs killing children"?

The evil government regs are that there is a minimum slat opening in cribs and that there is a certain stiffness to the matress, this is to prevent strangulation. I belive the government legislated before industry responded.

[/B]

Sorru ShaneK, I agree that there are some areas where there should be les regulation, but short term profit has always been the motive of the post industrial capitalist, so I feel there needs to be the dance between the market and the regulation. All voices heard, and the group deciding.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

I must have missed it. Can you give me the two line version (or point out where it has been answered)?

Basically, because there are many other factors to poisoning that have nothing to do with safety caps.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
There are some who believe that the meat packing industry in the US would like to use irradiation because then the cleanliness factor of the slaughter would not matter as much.

I see. That might be true, but I don't have any information one way or the other.

I do grasp it, it just means that I don't always agree. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean I share it.

That's fine, but you should at least allow for it when you respond to me.

The evil government regs are that there is a minimum slat opening in cribs and that there is a certain stiffness to the matress, this is to prevent strangulation. I belive the government legislated before industry responded.

I don't have any information on that, either.

Sorru ShaneK, I agree that there are some areas where there should be les regulation, but short term profit has always been the motive of the post industrial capitalist,

I haven't seen any real evidence of that. While they are concerned with short-term profits, any company that doesn't think long-term usually doesn't last much beyond the short-term. Look at the so-called "dot bomb."

so I feel there needs to be the dance between the market and the regulation. All voices heard, and the group deciding.

The problem is, government is the last place where all voices will be heard...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Not really, since the other problems don't reverse the trend, either. I'll fully concede that the effect may not be as bad as Viscusi claims (although, with the uncertainty Rodgers pointed out, it could just as easily be greater) but I still haven't seen anything that would turn an upward trend into a downward trend.

I have no idea what "trend" of Viscusi's you're referring to here, as Rodgers makes no reference to one. Maybe you could point it out.
From the study (http://journals.iranscience.net:800/Default/archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v156n9/rfull/poa10352.html):
Several factors may help explain the lack of a statistical association found in the study by Viscusi. With respect to the analysis of mortality data, the regression model may have been affected by severe multicollinearity, as evidenced by the high intercorrelation exhibited between the predictor variables used in the analysis. Additionally, the lagged-response variable, which by definition was related to the response variable and therefore was highly correlated with it (r = 0.97; P<.001), played such a dominant role in the analysis that it may have masked the effects of other variables. Finally, these problems may have been exacerbated by the relatively short study period in the analysis, which was limited to the evaluation of annual data from 1963 to 1980.
The book I'm using is a textbook that covers a lot of different aspects of how government regulations can have the effects he's positing. It's taken from transcripts of lectures he's given where he's shown the results of these studies.
So you don't have his original studies, but you're fully prepared to take him at his word--and criticize others.
But hospitals do, and they would certainly be keeping track of who dies from what, including poisoning.
Yes, but according to Rodgers, Viscusi used the Poison Control Center data, not hospital data.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
They cited "Viscusi, W.K. (1984). The lulling effect: The impact of child-resistant packaging on aspirin and analgesic ingestions. American Economic Review, 74, 324-327" as their source for that. Think the answer might be in there?

I just checked, and apparently you have to be a member of some library or something to see the articles online. It does seem to mirror his number in the original source I cited (it had the 3500 number, too) but I don't recall it saying that it included nonfatal poisonings, too.

And I'm not going to respond to your sources, since I never claimed that safety caps themselves were a bad thing. Again, I'm referring to the surrounding regulations.
Are you suggesting I buy your sources for you? Sounds like creeping socialism to me. :p

I'm sure you realize that it was a rhetorical question, and the sources you are "not going to respond to" were given to show that Viscusi's predicted 3500 additional poisonings didn't happen.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I have no idea what "trend" of Viscusi's you're referring to here, as Rodgers makes no reference to one. Maybe you could point it out.

I'm referring to the one he showed in Rational Risk Policy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I'm sure you realize that it was a rhetorical question, and the sources you are "not going to respond to" were given to show that Viscusi's predicted 3500 additional poisonings didn't happen.

Since I'm unable to access the main source (and apparently you are too), we don't know what he meant by the word "additional." As I pointed out earlier, if he meant it in the same way as he did in the first source I cited, the "additional" meant on top of the normal amount of poisonings that would have happened with or without safety caps...there was an additional 3,500 on top of that. You're making it sound like he meant 3,500 poisonings on top of what there were in some previous time period, yet you're unable to actually produce what he actually said.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Now, is there anyone out there who wants to go back to arguing the DATA? Yes.

Where is the data to support your claim that the "enormous costs of regulatory compliance" inhibits drug manufacturers from offering alternative packaging?

We're still waiting....

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Since I'm unable to access the main source (and apparently you are too), we don't know what he meant by the word "additional." As I pointed out earlier, if he meant it in the same way as he did in the first source I cited, the "additional" meant on top of the normal amount of poisonings that would have happened with or without safety caps...there was an additional 3,500 on top of that. You're making it sound like he meant 3,500 poisonings on top of what there were in some previous time period, yet you're unable to actually produce what he actually said. As are you -- you have just admitted as much.

Why, then, do you choose to accept Viscusi's data, and ignore other data presented to you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
As are you -- you have just admitted as much.

Right, but I'm not the one ascribing any meaning to it the way MKJ is.

Why, then, do you choose to accept Viscusi's data, and ignore other data presented to you?

I haven't ignored the other data. I've examined it, and found that, while it may call into question the magnitude of the trend Viscusi discovered, it doesn't reverse it. And I've explained why.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
I've examined it, and found that, while it may call into question the magnitude of the trend Viscusi discovered, it doesn't reverse it.The data you've been referred to shows that poisonings went down after the safety cap regulations went into effect -- the exact opposite of Viscusi's conclusion.

Yet this does nothing to shake your faith that Viscusi must be right, and everyone else wrong.

Why?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
The data you've been referred to shows that poisonings went down after the safety cap regulations went into effect -- the exact opposite of Viscusi's conclusion.

Yet this does nothing to shake your faith that Viscusi must be right, and everyone else wrong.

Why?

:Sigh:

Because...as I keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...many other factors could reduce the overall number of poisonings and that does nothing to discredit the data which shows that there are poisonings happening which would likely not have happened had it not been for the safety cap regulations.

Maybe if I say it fifty times people will start to at least acknowledge it... :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Just something to add. I bought some medication today at the pharmacy – it had nothing to do with this thread just in case you are wondering – and they gave me regular none childproof caps without asking me which one I wanted. The cap looked like other caps except it said, in big letters, “NONE CHILDPROOF CAP.”

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Because...as I keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...many other factors could reduce the overall number of poisonings and that does nothing to discredit the data which shows that there are poisonings happening which would likely not have happened had it not been for the safety cap regulations.It seems, then, that your strategy is to simply dismiss hard data that shows that safety caps reduce poisonings, and claim instead that safety cap regulations are, in some mysterious yet-to-be-documented way, responsible for causing parents to become irresponsible twits who allow their children to swallow whatever the little darlings can get into their mouths.

Does that encapsulate your view on this subject accurately? If not, please explain where I have erred in interpreting your past arguments.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Unas
It seems, then, that your strategy is to simply dismiss hard data that shows that safety caps reduce poisonings, and claim instead that safety cap regulations are, in some mysterious yet-to-be-documented way, responsible for causing parents to become irresponsible twits who allow their children to swallow whatever the little darlings can get into their mouths.

Does that encapsulate your view on this subject accurately? If not, please explain where I have erred in interpreting your past arguments.

Whew, I almost made the mistake of bothering to browse this thread. Crap, why would I think for a second that it's any different than Shanek's typical free-market fantasy?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
and claim instead that safety cap regulations are, in some mysterious yet-to-be-documented way,

Not in some mysterious yet-to-be-documented way...I PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION!!!

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Not in some mysterious yet-to-be-documented way...I PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION!!! As this thread has grown to over two hundred messages, I am certain you will want to ensure that everyone reading it can find your documentation easily.

In exactly which message(s) did you provide documentation describing the precise mechanism by which the safety cap regulations cause parents to adopt less responsible attitudes towards what their children ingest? A link would be grand -- but failing that, please provide the date and timestamp of the message as it appears in this thread. Thanks.

By the way, is it safe to assume that the data to support your claim that the "enormous costs of regulatory compliance" inhibit drug manufacturers from offering alternative packaging will be posted here within the next, say, forty-eight hours?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Since I'm unable to access the main source (and apparently you are too), we don't know what he meant by the word "additional." As I pointed out earlier, if he meant it in the same way as he did in the first source I cited, the "additional" meant on top of the normal amount of poisonings that would have happened with or without safety caps...there was an additional 3,500 on top of that. You're making it sound like he meant 3,500 poisonings on top of what there were in some previous time period, yet you're unable to actually produce what he actually said.
That's quite a double standard you've got going there. You haven't even seen Viscusi's original study, yet somehow he is the "gold standard" against which everything else is measured. You haven't even seen Viscusi's original study, yet somehow you are competent to criticize other works on the subject and find them lacking in some way. You haven't even seen Viscusi's original study, yet if someone else criticizes him, suddenly it's "hold the phone, you haven't seen his original work."

Even if he meant it the way you claim, in order for it to be true you would have to believe that the 66% decline in ingestions was completely due to "other factors." You would also have to believe that every other study done on the subject is wrong.
Originally posted by shanek
Right, but I'm not the one ascribing any meaning to it the way MKJ is.
You ascribed meaning to it in your very first post!! You assumed he was talking about fatalities, and you didn't know he was referring specifically to aspirin cases because you've never seen his original study. Since the 3500 number refers to aspirin cases, the "actual" number of poisonings predicted by Viscusi should be much higher when you include OTC and prescription medications. Guess what? They didn't happen either.

Originally posted by shanek
I haven't ignored the other data. I've examined it, and found that, while it may call into question the magnitude of the trend Viscusi discovered, it doesn't reverse it. And I've explained why.
I don't recall you commenting at all on the studies found here (http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm) (except to complain that you couldn't judge them without seeing them in their entirety). The problem is that all the studies I've posted completely contradict Viscusi's premise. This "magnitude of trend" business is simply handwaving. The regulations had an overwhelmingly positive effect independent of other safety trends. If you really have an "open mind," it's time to bite the bullet and simply admit Viscusi is wrong.

[Victor Danilchenko]

If you [shanek] really have an "open mind," it's time to bite the bullet and simply admit Viscusi is wrong.Oh, I would love to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
That's quite a double standard you've got going there. You haven't even seen Viscusi's original study, yet somehow he is the "gold standard" against which everything else is measured.

Since the other material being presented purportedly falsifies Viscusi's data, I think it's most proper to compare the data to Viscusi's to see if that claim bears out.

Even if he meant it the way you claim, in order for it to be true you would have to believe that the 66% decline in ingestions was completely due to "other factors."

I acknowledged a long time ago that Viscusi's figures are probably exacerbated, meaning that the 3,500 figure is probably too big, maybe even way too big. But as I pointed out at the time, nothing in the criticisms of Viscusi's study found anything that would reverse the trend.

I don't recall you commenting at all on the studies found here (http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/childinjury/topic/poisoning/packaging.htm)

Because I haven't been able to get ahold of them yet. The tiny summaries on that website is hardly enough to study the data. You blather on about my double-standard, but at least I've read Viscusi's very detailed account of his study even if I haven't read the study itself. You, by your own admission, read nothing but the tiny summaries on that page and yet are using those to try and completely discredit the data.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Since the other material being presented purportedly falsifies Viscusi's data, I think it's most proper to compare the data to Viscusi's to see if that claim bears out.You haven't actually seen Viscusi's study. Why do you believe that his claim "bears out"?
Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I don't recall you commenting at all on the studies found hereBecause I haven't been able to get ahold of them yet.You haven't "been able to get ahold of" Viscusi's study, either. On what basis, then, do you comment on it?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Unas
As this thread has grown to over two hundred messages, I am certain you will want to ensure that everyone reading it can find your documentation easily.Was I wrong in making this assumption, shanek?
By the way, is it safe to assume that the data to support your claim that the "enormous costs of regulatory compliance" inhibit drug manufacturers from offering alternative packaging will be posted here within the next, say, forty-eight hours? The forty-eight hours has expired. Do you need an extension to produce this data?

Or is it possible that you have no intention whatsoever of providing facts to support your assertion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
You haven't "been able to get ahold of" Viscusi's study, either. On what basis, then, do you comment on it?

I have been able to get hold of several pages written by Viscusi about his study, with tables, results, methodology, etc. That's a LOT better than a one-paragraph summary on a web page. If there were a comparable amount of detail available about the other studies, I would accept that. But not the miniscule amount that's on that site.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Was I wrong in making this assumption, shanek?
The forty-eight hours has expired. Do you need an extension to produce this data?

Or is it possible that you have no intention whatsoever of providing facts to support your assertion?

Just for the lurkers: I'm continuting to ignore this blatantly dishonest strawman. I originally posited this as a possible speculation as to why it might happen; it's a known effect, I've posted about the cost of regulation at length in other threads with plenty of evidence presented.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by shanek


Just for the lurkers: I'm continuting to ignore this blatantly dishonest strawman. I originally posited this as a possible speculation as to why it might happen; it's a known effect, I've posted about the cost of regulation at length in other threads with plenty of evidence presented.
Shane,

I made a comment early on in this thread, but haven't followed it until today. I tried to catch up, but it's a lot to read.

Like Denise, I'd recommend you go back and re-evaluate how well you are communicating. Perhaps you need to make your own "Larsen List" and try to suscinctly answer those questions before proceeding.

As an aside, I happen to be in the regulatory business (Safety Engineer for 25+ years). I'd be happy to give you my opinions on some statements you've made in this thread. Some comments you made regarding risk analysis, motivation behind new regulations, industry vs. govt. initiative for regulations, etc. are certainly questionable.

PM me if you wish.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
Just for the lurkers: I'm continuting to ignore this blatantly dishonest strawman.Why is it "blatantly dishonest" to ask you to back up your claims with facts, shanek?

By the way, it is obvious from your comment that you have no idea what a strawman argument is.I originally posited this as a possible speculation as to why it might happen...False. Your statement is blatantly dishonest.

Your claim was:The government's forcing them to release products with safety caps, and that most certainly does inhibit their ability to provide alternatives, especially when you weigh in the enormous costs of regulatory compliance that I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring.That's not presented as "speculation", shanek. That's an unconditional statement. All you are being asked to do is back it up with facts. Where are your facts?
...I've posted about the cost of regulation at length in other threads with plenty of evidence presented. Wonderful! Which of your other threads addreses the specific claim at hand: that enormous costs inhibit the ability of pharmaceuticals manufacturers from providing alternative packaging for medications?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Your claim was:That's not presented as "speculation", shanek.

Context is so important...Why didn't you quote the post I was replying to?

Originally posted by Thanz
It would appear that if you can't find aspirin in a non-child resistant package, it is because the demand for such a product is insufficient.

My reply:

No, it's because the demand for both is insufficient. The government's forcing them to release products with safety caps, and that most certainly does inhibit their ability to provide alternatives, especially when you weigh in the enormous costs of regulatory compliance that I keep pointing out and everyone keeps ignoring.

I was clearly responding to Thanz's claim&mdash;which, if anything, was even more specific than mine, and I notice you're not bugging him for evidence for his claim&mdash;that there was no demand for non-childproof caps.

In my response, I pointed out how there is a huge difference in the demand for one product or the other and in the demand when one product is mandated and the other one isn't. I pointed out how, not only do you have to consider the costs of putting both on the market (since you don't have the option of releasing a non-child-proof version only), but that the additional cost of regulatory compliance&mdash;WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINITIVELY SUPPORTED BY ME IN OTHER THREADS&mdash;would be a factor as it would make it more expensive to release both products under regulation that it would be to release products without regulation.

You are dishonestly mischaracterizing that statement into making it seem like I'm claiming that the costs of regulatory compliance are the reason why non-child-proof caps are unavailable (which, as has been repeatedly said before, they aren't unavailable; there are options, just not as many as there would be without regulation for the reasons I stated above).

This has been your MO throughout this thread. I have had to spend so much time untwisting my statements after you get done with them, and I'm just fed up with it. I defend myself only to the lurkers now; as far as you're concerned, I don't care the least little bit what you say or think, because you've made it clear you have no desire to discuss things rationally.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
In my response, I pointed out how there is a huge difference in the demand for one product or the other and in the demand when one product is mandated and the other one isn't. I pointed out how, not only do you have to consider the costs of putting both on the market (since you don't have the option of releasing a non-child-proof version only)...I would be happy to "consider the costs of putting both on the market".

What are those costs? That's all I am asking....but that the additional cost of regulatory compliance&mdash;WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINITIVELY SUPPORTED BY ME IN OTHER THREADS&mdash;would be a factor as it would make it more expensive to release both products under regulation that it would be to release products without regulation.Oh. OK.

In which thread did you provide data that "DEFINITIVELY SUPPORTED" your claims regarding the costs to pharmaceutical manufacturers of complying with the regulations that mandate child-proof caps? That's all I am asking.
You are dishonestly mischaracterizing that statement into making it seem like I'm claiming that the costs of regulatory compliance are the reason why non-child-proof caps are unavailable (which, as has been repeatedly said before, they aren't unavailable; there are options, just not as many as there would be without regulation for the reasons I stated above).I've never said that you are "claiming that the costs of regulatory compliance are the reason why non-child-proof caps are unavailable".

But you did just claim that the costs of regulatory compliance are a reason why non-child-proof caps are unavailable, did you not? If so, then what are those costs? That's all I am asking.
...I don't care the least little bit what you say or think, because you've made it clear you have no desire to discuss things rationally. Implying that another participant in this discussion is irrational is an ad hominem argument, shanek. Surely you know better than to try such a tactic in this forum, of all places.

What are the costs to pharmaceutical manufacturers of complying with the regulations that mandate child-proof caps? It's a simple question. Once you answer it, we'll have a factual basis on which to continue this discussion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
But you did just claim that the costs of regulatory compliance are a reason why non-child-proof caps are unavailable, did you not?

No...I am claiming that, with any regulation, there are costs of compliance. And that it is more than reasonable to conclude that those costs, like any other, affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternate packaging. They don't have as much money as they did before. That's true of any company making any kind of product or service, it's true of any regulation. There's nothing specific to pharmaceuticals here. You keep trying to pin me down to a level of detail that I never made a claim for. I never claimed that this was in any way specific or unique to the costs of pharmaceuticals.

Let me pin you down here:

Do you agree that, as costs increase, companies are less able to deliver things such as alternate packaging of their products?

Do you agree that any regulation results in an additional cost to any company that that regulation covers?

If the answer to both of these is "yes," then how can we not conclude that the cost of regulatory compliance would be an inhibiting factor in the releasing of medicines with non-safety caps? We don't need what you are asking for to reach this conclusion&mdash;only a "yes" answer to the above two questions is required. The first, I think, is self-evident; the other I have provided evidence for in other threads. The conclusion follows naturally from these.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


This has been your MO throughout this thread. I have had to spend so much time untwisting my statements after you get done with them, and I'm just fed up with it. I defend myself only to the lurkers now; as far as you're concerned, I don't care the least little bit what you say or think, because you've made it clear you have no desire to discuss things rationally.

Shanek,
The same charge has been leveled at you by many on many issues.

Is it barely possible that you might be mistaken and Unas is being rational, as well as Jeeves, Skeptic, Claus Larsen, Victor, etc.?

Are all these people simply irrational who can't see the truth?
From their posts they seem well informed and seriously minded people.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
No...I am claiming that, with any regulation, there are costs of compliance. And that it is more than reasonable to conclude that those costs, like any other, affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternate packaging."Affect the ability"... hmmm. To what degree do additional costs affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternative packaging? Does any additional cost at all mean that no alternative packaging will be produced? Is there a linear relationship? Is there a threshold cost beneath which a company is still quite capable of producing alternative packaging and still make a profit?

We can't answer these questions, you see, until we know the costs involved. You seem to be presenting a scenario in which companies see any additional cost and throw up their hands, crying "Aiiigh! No more non-childproof caps! Woe is us!" I suggest that the situation may be just a tad more complex, and that if you want to convince us that the costs are high enough to prevent alternative packaging from being produced, you need to show us what those costs are.
You keep trying to pin me down to a level of detail that I never made a claim for. I never claimed that this was in any way specific or unique to the costs of pharmaceuticals.Nor have I said that you did. But it's pharmaceuticals and their packaging that you chose to focus on in this thread.

The validity of your claim that the "enormous costs of regulatory compliance" inhibits drug manufacturers from offering alternative packaging cannot be judged until we have hard data about those costs. You insist that your claims are valid, even though you cannot provide the data.
Let me pin you down here:An interesting tactic -- avoid answering specific questions asked of you, yet demand that your own questions be answered.
Do you agree that, as costs increase, companies are less able to deliver things such as alternate packaging of their products?"Less able"? What does that mean?

Are companies going to consider costs when deciding to produce an alternative version of a product? Yes. Will any additional cost automatically result in the non-production of an alternative version of a product? I doubt it. Produce the numbers to convince me that the costs of meeting the mandate for childproof caps is high enough that non-childproof caps won't be produced.
Do you agree that any regulation results in an additional cost to any company that that regulation covers?Yup. But what is the magnitude of that cost? And why are you so uninterested in knowing that magnitude?
If the answer to both of these is "yes," then how can we not conclude that the cost of regulatory compliance would be an inhibiting factor in the releasing of medicines with non-safety caps?

We don't need what you are asking for to reach this conclusion&mdash;only a "yes" answer to the above two questions is required.I see no reason to believe the decision to produce or not produce alternative packaging is as simple as you seem to think it is.

[Unas]

Interestingly enough, it was only ten days ago that shanek was telling us that "lids don't cost that much (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313)". The song seems to have changed in a relatively short time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
"Affect the ability"... hmmm. To what degree do additional costs affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternative packaging?

Obviously, that would depend on the amount of the additional costs.

Does any additional cost at all mean that no alternative packaging will be produced?

At all? No, it just means that fewer alternatives would be available. The profits from the sales of the alternately-packaged items would have to offset these additional costs. If the additional cost is such that it cannot be made back with the extra sales, then in that case, yes, no alternative packaging will be produced.

You seem to be presenting a scenario in which companies see any additional cost and throw up their hands, crying "Aiiigh! No more non-childproof caps! Woe is us!"

Now, when did I ever say anything like that? You're venturing back into strawman territory again.

The validity of your claim that the "enormous costs of regulatory compliance" inhibits drug manufacturers from offering alternative packaging cannot be judged until we have hard data about those costs.

Of course it can! The degree of inhibition may be a matter we could not comment on, but the basic point is very straightforward and logical.

"Less able"? What does that mean?

Exactly what it says! With extra costs, something has to go. They can only raise prices to cover it so much before sales drop too much, so they have to cut the costs of production by other means.

Will any additional cost automatically result in the non-production of an alternative version of a product? I doubt it.

When did I say it would "automatically result in the non-production of an alternative version of a product"? I'm saying it makes such a production less likely and less prevalent in the market.

Produce the numbers to convince me that the costs of meeting the mandate for childproof caps is high enough that non-childproof caps won't be produced.

Since I don't claim this, I am under no obligation to produce anything of the kind.

Yup. But what is the magnitude of that cost? And why are you so uninterested in knowing that magnitude?

I never said I was uninterested. I think it would be fascinating to see the figures. But it's irrelevant to my rebuttal of Thanz's point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Interestingly enough, it was only ten days ago that shanek was telling us that "lids don't cost that much (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313)". The song seems to have changed in a relatively short time.

The cost of the lids are not what I was referring to. I was referring to the cost of regulatory compliance, which has nothing to do with actually producing the lids. A company making the exact same product with the exact same specifications can make it at a much lower cost without regulations than they can with regulations. This is yet another strawman.

Without regulation, whether or not safety caps are included with the product is a matter of supply and demand. Since they're relatively inexpensive compared to the other costs of the product, it will likely be driven primarily by what the consumers demand. The minor added expense of a safety cap might easily be offset by the increased demand for the product, thereby making it a smart business move and resulting in greater profits. Whether or not two sets of caps would be available is likewise a matter almost solely of demand.

But adding on yet more regulations in an industry that is already arguably overregulated is going to make the introduction of the caps more expensive than it would be in the above scenario. Same thing with making both sets available. And since they are not given the option of releasing a product solely with non-safety caps, this decision is not market driven. The only choices are: safety caps, or both. So the only way non-safety caps would be available is if there is sufficient demand for both such that the extra sales would more than offset the costs of complying with the regulations on top of the costs of providing the caps.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek Originally posted by Unas
"Affect the ability"... hmmm. To what degree do additional costs affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternative packaging?Obviously, that would depend on the amount of the additional costs.I see. So whether a drug company does or does not produce products with alternative packaging does depend on the additional cost of meeting the regulations. I'm glad we are in agreement on that. Now we need to know what those costs are, and we'll be on our way to determining whether they are great enough to prevent the drug companies from producing products with alternative packaging. It's clear now that we can't tell whether the costs are large enough to be the reason for non-production of alternative packaging until we know the magnitude of said costs.

So: What are those costs?

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
The cost of the lids are not what I was referring to. I was referring to the cost of regulatory compliance, which has nothing to do with actually producing the lids.Horse puckey. In the exchange I cited (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313), you and CFLarsen were discussing production costs.

Don't try any more revisionist history, bubba. The fact that your words are archived here permanently makes it way too easy to expose your prevarications.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
I see. So whether a drug company does or does not produce products with alternative packaging does depend on the additional cost of meeting the regulations. I'm glad we are in agreement on that.

And that's all I was saying from the beginning.

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
The cost of the lids are not what I was referring to. I was referring to the cost of regulatory compliance, which has nothing to do with actually producing the lids.

...

The only choices are: safety caps, or both. So the only way non-safety caps would be available is if there is sufficient demand for both such that the extra sales would more than offset the costs of complying with the regulations on top of the costs of providing the caps.

Let's assume for the moment that you were in fact referring to the cost of regulatory compliance in the earlier post. You also said of that cost that "certainly it's a drop in the bucket compared to the fantastic costs of the medicines (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313)".

So tell us: How can this "drop in the bucket" have such a drastic effect on the decision whether to produce alternative packaging or not?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
Horse puckey. In the exchange I cited (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313), you and CFLarsen were discussing production costs.

Don't try any more revisionist history, bubba. The fact that your words are archived here permanently makes it way too easy to expose your prevarications.

If you'd care to actually read the very post of mine that you linked to, you'd see that the nature of the disagreement was whether or not the extra costs of the packaging would have much of an effect in a world without regulation. In that scenario, the only thing getting in the way is the cost of producing the lids; there are no extra costs as to regulatory compliance. And you'll notice that I said in that post that the lids wouldn't cost that much.

The other posts, the one where you say I was changing my tune, dealt with the extra cost of regulatory compliance. And I said that several times!

I'm not the one being revisionist&mdash;YOU are!

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek Originally posted by Unas
I see. So whether a drug company does or does not produce products with alternative packaging does depend on the additional cost of meeting the regulations. I'm glad we are in agreement on that.And that's all I was saying from the beginning. But you cannot know whether the decision to not produce alternative packaging was the fault of the cost of meeting the regulations without knowing that cost. You said so yourself, when you pointed out that the degree to which additional costs affect the ability of companies to do things like produce products with alternative packaging depends on the amount of the additional costs.

So: What are those costs?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas


Let's assume for the moment that you were in fact referring to the cost of regulatory compliance in the earlier post. You also said of that cost that "certainly it's a drop in the bucket compared to the fantastic costs of the medicines (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313)".

No, no, no! PLEASE READ THE POST YOU'RE LINKING TO! That post refers to THE COST OF THE LIDS THEMSELVES, NOT THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATIONS!!!

Why do you so stubbornly refuse to see the difference?

So tell us: How can this "drop in the bucket" have such a drastic effect on the decision whether to produce alternative packaging or not?

The cost of the lids is a drop int he bucket...the cost of regulatory compliance is another matter, and can very easily be a drastic cost.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Unas
But you cannot know whether the decision to not produce alternative packaging was the fault of the cost of meeting the regulations

WHAT decision???? Have you even read the exchange fully, or did you just go quote mining?

[Unas]

Originally posted by shanek
If you'd care to actually read the very post of mine that you linked to, you'd see that the nature of the disagreement was whether or not the extra costs of the packaging would have much of an effect in a world without regulation. In that scenario, the only thing getting in the way is the cost of producing the lids; there are no extra costs as to regulatory compliance. And you'll notice that I said in that post that the lids wouldn't cost that much.But yesterday, you said of that post and that specific statement: "I was referring to the cost of regulatory compliance (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870049939#post1870049939)". Now you're back to claiming that you were talking about the cost of the lids themselves -- i.e., production costs. Where's my Dramamine?
The other posts, the one where you say I was changing my tune...What "other posts"? We are discussing just one post! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033313#post1870033313)
I'm not the one being revisionist&mdash;YOU are! Wrong again, Sparky. Keep dancing...