Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Spot The Problem

     Found in the Prohibition exhibit at the Indiana State Museum, in the portion dealing with the efforts to ban liquor.  Can you identify the problem with this document?
     I'm of two minds about revealing the answer.
at

16 comments:

  1. New Jovian ThunderboltJanuary 27, 2015 at 9:43 AM

    the date is a little late if you want to bolster a case for a nationwide ban...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve_in_CAJanuary 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM

    The 2-1/3rd statistics are not necessarily complimentary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean D SorrentinoJanuary 27, 2015 at 11:17 AM

    "Taken to the hospital?" What about those who don't go to the hospital, either because they are unhurt or because they are dead?

    And honestly, who gives a damn about them? I want to know who they hurt. They can harm themselves all they like as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. erikoJanuary 27, 2015 at 11:48 AM

    So really we are talking about 1/3 here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Will BrownJanuary 27, 2015 at 11:58 AM

    Your basic correlation/causation false assumption. How many of these "definitely drunk" are on their way to jail, for instance?

    ReplyDelete
  6. LCBJanuary 27, 2015 at 12:21 PM

    2/3rds have been drinking. You can't be drunk without drinking.

    1/3 are drunk. But the other 1/3 have been drinking. Umm...maybe they were using IV's??? yes?

    ReplyDelete
  7. rickn8orJanuary 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM

    What LCB said.

    To which I would add "sober people have accidents too."

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJanuary 27, 2015 at 2:18 PM

    I'll take a guess that "involved in" would count Mr. Stone-cold sober ferrying half a dozen drunk buddies home from the bar getting into a fender-bender as six instances of drunk people involved in a traffic accident.

    ReplyDelete
  9. parabarbarianJanuary 27, 2015 at 3:47 PM

    The first question I have is what percentage of those that were drinking or drunk were also driving?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Roberta XJanuary 27, 2015 at 5:15 PM

    But the biggest question is, "What do drunk-driving stats from 1936 have to do with Prohibition?

    ReplyDelete
  11. rickn8orJanuary 27, 2015 at 8:49 PM

    "But the biggest question is, "What do drunk-driving stats from 1936 have to do with Prohibition?"

    Perhaps the writer had an interest in bringing back Prohibition.

    Much like the predictions of death and destruction every time a gun control law dies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. parabarbarianJanuary 27, 2015 at 8:59 PM

    Point taken but I doubt the prohibitionists just gave up in 1933. This may have been part of a local campaign.

    Heck, Tennessee still has dry counties.

    ReplyDelete
  13. New Jovian ThunderboltJanuary 27, 2015 at 9:18 PM

    They haven't gone away. MADD would be more public for straight up demon-rum likker bans if they thought they could get away with it. And sometimes they let the mask slip.

    (I was involved with the A side before I ever did the F side. T was in the middle. ATF. The forms you have to fill out on the A stuff is just as bad as the F stuff, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. KristophrJanuary 27, 2015 at 9:32 PM

    Heh. Someone was butthurt about Alcohol decriminalization?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Roberta XJanuary 27, 2015 at 11:16 PM

    This poster's placement in the exhibit (with pre-18th Amendment material) was especially telling; but an exhibit about Prohibition necessarily ends with Repeal.

    ReplyDelete
  16. markmJanuary 29, 2015 at 10:59 AM

    This is _still_ how they collect "drunk-driving" statistics, so it is as relevant as the date: '"involved in" would count Mr. Stone-cold sober ferrying half a dozen drunk buddies home from the bar getting into a fender-bender as six instances of drunk people involved in a traffic accident.'

    They also count the drunk carefully driving home at 20mph, who gets rear-ended by a sober idiot talking on the cell phone while driving 70 in a 45mph zone.

    And then there are the statistics collected for marijuana and driving. If you are sober, and your passenger is drunk and has traces of THC metabolites (that is, he is not high now but was high several days ago), it's a "marijuana-involved accident" as well as a "drunk-driving accident".

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not be visible until approved. Arguing or use of insulting or derogatory language will result in your comment going unpublished: no name-calling. Comments I deem excessively partisan will not be published.