Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are Health Advocates Finally Wising Up About the Nature of Risk?

Everything we do entails risk. The question is our tolerance for it.

Not to be outdone by a friend who is having his mid-life crisis, I've been going through my own way-past-mid-life crisis. So I've been looking into motorcycle riding as a way to spark a little everyday excitement, which has naturally led to some reading and research about risk—and the amount of it that people are willing to endure.

It's a fascinating topic. Every year, the Isle of Man—a self-governing British dependency in the Irish Sea—hosts a motorcycle race that zooms through the island's gnarled, twisting roadways. Competitors in the Tourist Trophy are routinely killed, with the total death count on the Snaefell Mountain Course hitting 255. It's amazing reading accounts of this risky contest.

I doubt that Americans would tolerate such a dangerous spectacle. But we do accept everyday activities that have a high body count. Nearly 89 Americans die each day in car crashes. And 13 motorcyclists are killed in the U.S. daily on top of that, but risks for bikers are far higher when one factors in vehicle-miles traveled. Motorcyclists account for only 0.6 percent of the miles traveled yet riders account for 21 percent of all vehicle fatalities, according to the National Motorcycle Institute. Bikers are 38 times more likely to die in an accident than people in cars.

Those figures—and anecdotal stories of riders clobbered by birds or killed after some "cager" on a cellphone cuts in front of them—ultimately put the kibosh on my thoughts of taking weekend motorcycle rides through the Sierra foothills. But others are more willing to accept the risk. And there's still plenty of risk that non-riders face on any given day. I have two friends who have been hit by cars while walking just in the past year.

That brings me to the topic at hand: tobacco use. The statistics are even more daunting than those involving motorcyclists. The Centers for Disease Control blames cigarette smoking for 480,000 deaths in the United States per year. Even if those figures are inflated, that's still a shockingly high number. All these fatality numbers, by the way, are dwarfed by the injury and sickness numbers. I'm far more willing to risk death than I am willing to risk spending the next year in the intensive-care unit, or spending my golden years eating through a feeding tube.

Policy makers are understandably intent on reducing risks wherever possible. Road safety groups are understandably intent on improving vehicle safety in a variety of ways (Anti-lock braking systems on motorcycles, for instance, are viewed as a great safety improvement). Anti-tobacco groups are understandably intent on convincing more Americans to give up a deadly habit. Smoking rates are down thanks in part to some public policies, but a certain level of zealotry has hobbled efforts to make even greater strides in reducing the number of tobacco-related deaths.

Several California localities have passed bans on flavored tobacco products (menthol cigarettes, cheap flavored cigars, etc.) as a way to limit their appeal, especially to teenagers who might be tempted to try them. Unfortunately, the bans always include flavored electronic cigarettes. Because virtually all vaping liquids are flavored, that means a ban on a product that isn't risk-free—but is far less risky than combustible cigarettes. State officials have foolishly insisted that vaping is just another form of smoking and should be treated in the same harsh manner.

But perhaps we're finally seeing a more sensible, less ideological approach to tobacco risk take hold among health advocates who are committed to reducing the death rate associated with cigarettes. For instance, this month the American Cancer Society, which had previously avoided recommending vaping, issued a statement that is worth applauding.

The society supports "FDA-approved cessation aids" and recommends that people give up all tobacco products. That's nothing new, but it also included this sensible advice: "Many smokers choose to quit smoking without the assistance of a clinician and some opt to use e-cigarettes to accomplish this goal. The ACS recommends that clinicians support all attempts to quit the use of combustible tobacco and work with smokers to eventually stop using any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes." It also calls for more FDA research. That's progress.

There are two different ways to deal with risk, from a policy standpoint. One is to insist on abstinence. That approach has dominated regulations toward tobacco, especially in California with its Nanny State mindset. The other—known as "harm reduction"—accepts that people do dangerous things, but helps them make safer choices.

Everything we do entails risk. The question is our tolerance for it. Mine is fairly low, so I'll probably pursue my latest life crisis on a 10-speed bicycle rather than a 900cc Ducati. And I'm not about to start smoking cigarettes. But those who do smoke need fewer bans and less hectoring—and more access to products such as e-cigarettes that might save their lives.

This column first appeared in the Orange County Register.

Photo Credit: Gunther Essbach / CHROMORANGE/picture alliance/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are trying to compare what normal people assume as risk outside California and what the majority in Commifornia want you to risk.

    California is a nanny and soft police state, so life's risky pleasures that are deemed taboo by the lefty Borg are banned. You must submit or you risk your liberty.

    No fun at all.

  • See.More||

    Policy makers are understandably intent on reducing risks wherever possible. . .

    How the hell is it understandable? It is not the proper function of policy makers to determine what are acceptable risks for me!

  • DJK||

    When governments are in charge of a substantial amount of healthcare spending, there's certainly an argument to be made that policy makers have a very vested interest in such outcomes.

  • DJK||

    Reduce the role of government in healthcare. Otherwise, your argument isn't likely to get a lot of traction.

  • Ron||

    is middle age crisis or are you just now able to afford the items you've wanted your whole life

  • BYODB||

    National shared health costs are going to inevitably be the reason why American's freedom's are curtailed. You know, 'for the common good' and 'to reduce spending' and things like that.


    It's the holy grail of social engineering. Once you have people on board that healthcare is not only a right but something that's a shared cost throughout all of society you can control every tiny detail of the populace.


    That's the reason why Government in on board with nationalized healthcare. Any grandmothers they wheel out to justify themselves are props in a bigger game.

  • NoVaNick||

    Except that a "healthy" population who doesn't smoke is going to still get sick and die at an older age, and the diseases many will end up with in their 80s and 90s, like dementia, require long-term care. Most smokers die of heart attacks, often instantly, or lung cancer, which can kill within months by the time it is detected. Still very tragic, but less costly in an economic sense, than paying for the multiple meds and long-term care required for the very old.
    My uncle was a perfect example-never touched a drop of alcohol or a cigarette, was always active and thin as a rail, and rarely ate meat. He died at 88 after spending the last 7 years of his life in a nursing home with dementia, he was on dialysis the last couple of years too.

  • Lester224||

    Encourage smoking since earlier death reduces Medicare costs. Is that the point?

  • SKR||

    Here's a link confirming that suspicion.
    https://tinyurl.com/y9tpkujj

  • MWill||

    "Those figures—and anecdotal stories of riders clobbered by birds or killed after some "cager" on a cellphone cuts in front of them—ultimately put the kibosh on my thoughts of taking weekend motorcycle rides through the Sierra foothills."

    Fag.

  • SKR||

    It's been well established that the guys on motorcycles are in fact the inheritors of the moniker 'fag'.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It was never about safety. It has always been about control.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But we do accept everyday activities that have a high body count.

    Owning AR-15s, for instance...

  • μ Aggressor||

    Sometimes, in the silences of the dead of night, you can just barely hear the rattling in it's case; forever thirsting to release it's bloody carnage on all nearby

  • dchang0||

    Greenhut: I'd advise against the 10-speed bicycle. It's not particularly safe to ride one alongside vehicles on city streets or even on sidewalks.

    I've been struck by vehicles TWICE on a bicycle in SoCal--once by a woman who came out of a driveway and hit me while I was on the sidewalk and once by a hit-and-run drunk driver running from a prior hit-and-run on someone else's vehicle. I gave up bicycling immediately.

  • jcalton||

    Google micromorts.

    The science on this is fairly new, insurance actuaries aside.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online