We meant to print this last week but time got away from us, as it often does. So here it is anyway. Maybe the Week of Heavy Hangovers is an even better time for its message.
When you set out to celebrate the New Year give a thought to what your drinks cost. Not just the jumped up holiday price you pay in your friendly local gin mill, but the cost to society. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention every shot of heavy drinking by anybody costs society $2 for items like treatment for cirrhosis of the liver and other drink-related ailments, damages from drink-related auto crashes, lost hours of work, costs of jailing drunk drivers and crimes of alcohol related violence. They estimate the total cost — paid by all of us — is some $224 billion annually.
So Happy New Year!
Henry says:
Oh Fred, I love your writing and have done for a long time, but the moment you start putting a price tag on having fun the world turns into a dull and colourless place. Yeah sure, some kids lose a finger or two to firecrackers every year, but can you remember back when you used to have so much fun with firecrackers?
Think of “amusement by alcohol” as a socialist principal then, or even a capitalist one. The cost of the entertainment of the individual is carried by the society within which that individual resides.
I love you and your writing dearly, and agree significantly on your politics, but there’s no quick and easy fix for the ills of society no matter how much you want one.
January 5, 2012, 4:23 amBill Goodwin says:
Colonizing Mars would be fun too of course. Imagine what NASA could do with $224 billion a year. Sigh…I think I need a drink.
January 5, 2012, 7:02 amWalt G says:
I never drank booze so take my words with a grain of salt, but to say that society loses hours of work when someone imbibes is to say that “society” owns a person’s labor and that’s bad thinking.
January 5, 2012, 11:16 amJay Borcherding says:
This analysis sounds flawed. What about the economic benefit to the distiller (and to their employees and owners and suppliers); to the distributor (and their employees, owners, suppliers); to the retailer/bar/restaurant (and their employees, owners, suppliers); to the consumer (relaxation, enjoyment, entertainment); and to the taxing authorities that derive revenue from all these entities (and the beneficiaries of the consequently funded government programs)?
The positive ripple effects of any legal economic activity (what economists refer to as the multiplier effect) are non-negligible, and it sounds as though this analysis ignores the positive economic impact of drinking a slug of booze.
Having said that, I’d be curious to see the unintended negative economic costs of a Twinkie, or of a large order of McDonald’s fries, or of a pack of cigarettes. If a single drink of liquor supposedly results in a net cost to society of two bucks, I wonder what the comparable figure would be for other legal consumption that is typically assumed to be unhealthy, or at least unhealthy in excess.
January 5, 2012, 1:41 pmStefan Jones says:
Utterly delightful Dr. Seuss style take on the Occupy movement:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cat-inhat-on-wall-st.png
January 5, 2012, 1:42 pmEric says:
I agree mostly agree with Henry.
PLUS, it just isn’t fair or reasonable to “average out” the blame for the cost of problems caused by the 1% of irresponsible drinkers to the 99% of us that drink responsibly.
Yes, we should all recognize that abuse of alcohol costs society huge somes of real money every year.
No, I don’t need to feel bad about MY behavior if I am not part of the problem.
January 5, 2012, 1:49 pmWaterdog says:
Jay and Eric,
Fair points, but note that it says every shot of “heavy drinking” costs society $2. I.e., consider only those people who get completely loaded (say 10 or 15 drinks in a night). Determine from actuarial tables and other statistical sources the likely average medical costs, missed work, etc. resulting from this behaviour. Take those costs and divide by the total number of drinks. Voila, it turns out to be $2.
But a person who has a glass of red wine with dinner, or two beers at a football game, or a glass of sherry before bed doesn’t destroy their liver, miss work, or run over someone. The cost per drink in these cases must be closer to zero. So don’t feel guilty for drinking moderately and responsibly. You’re not destroying society.
January 7, 2012, 10:47 pmTina Black says:
Banning it was unworkable.
January 8, 2012, 1:05 pmNeil in Chicago says:
I Googled “united states gdp” and the first return was $14.58 Trillion. $224 Billion is 1.5% of that.
January 8, 2012, 8:51 pmI’m skeptical.
Eric says:
I hear what you are saying Waterdog, BUT, the first sentence of the note is a diffinitive statement that “YOU” should think about what “YOUR” drinks cost (emphasis mine).
If the the sentence had included a “might”, I probably would have let it go, but, I know how much my drinks all combined have cost society and the answer is a big $0.00. Heck, if the paragraph had just said to drink responsibly, I would have let it go.
January 11, 2012, 2:24 pm