This aligns with @MarkARKleiman’s account of Sober 24/7, South Dakota’s program to keep DUI offenders sober for 120 days. Most covered offenders are men, and the program has materially reduced mortality — with most of the mortality reduction being among women.https://twitter.com/ginianyt/status/994361983263703040 …
Is it really believable that male alcohol consumption causes more harm to women than to the men doing the consuming, *excluding* male violence? That seems like a huge stretch.
-
-
Like, take the “driving them to drink” effect. For the women to be harmed more, wouldn’t they have to drink more, ie one male drink *causes* at least one more female drink? Does the causation work the other way, too?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't know about a man's drinking causing a woman to drink, but having met the spouses and children of alcoholics I 10000% believe that the collateral damage (in general) is worse than the damage to the actual drinker. Like how drunks survive car accidents that kill others.
-
All else being equal, does your life insurance premium go up more if you drink, or if you live with someone who drinks? The life insurers are the ones with skin in the game, here.
-
They ask about DUI convictions, and about diagnoses, but as far as I know your answer about how much you drink is the only thing that triggers more questions. Well that and the liver function tests. And the psych diagnoses typical of extreme stress also raise insurance rates.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.