Archive for April, 2011

Athletes and the pill

Friday, April 29th, 2011

Sometimes it’s hard to know which is the more strange: the way some people behave or the laws that can make some behavior criminal. Take the question of having a drug in your possession. Oakland Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy is now a qualified expert in the law. A few years back, he was caught with some marijuana in his possession. Everyone knows the dispute over the status of this drug. But many people use this drug for pain relief and, around the world, it’s either not criminal at all or, as in some US states, medicinal use is accepted. So, however you look at it, most people are aware of its status as a “street drug” and therefore are not surprised when they read about convictions. Switch over to prescription medication and more people can be caught by surprise. In many US states, it’s an offense to be in possession of any “legitimate” drug unless you carry a prescription with you to justify the possession. The reason is easy to give. Many prescription-only drugs are derived from highly addictive substances and the US states want to control their use. Whether it’s right to use the criminal law is not the issue. Having decided to control all versions of some drugs, you must carry a prescription to distinguish criminal from lawful possession. It’s the same as having your driver’s license with you when in control of a vehicle. The police are entitled to ask you for proof a doctor has approved your use of these drugs.

This week, Louis Murphy was pulled over in his SUV and, after a brief but violent fight resulting in an arrest, the police officers found eleven little blue pills in an unmarked bottle. Murphy had no prescription. Presumably, like millions of other men, he bought the drugs from an online pharmacy without the need for a prescription. So this should be a warning to everyone who buys their drugs through the internet. No matter what the drug, you can find yourself on the wrong end of the criminal law if you carry the drug with you in a public place. Just to clarify, it’s perfectly alright to have the drug in your bloodstream and, if the drug was sitting in your home, the police would need a warrant to search. Without a warrant allowing a search for drugs, it would be very difficult to get a conviction should the drugs be “found”. (more…)

Car insurance for women drivers

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Have you noticed how there’s a disagreement about the value of statistics. To some, there are “lies, damned lies and statistics”. To others, statistics are the factual basis on which to base the operation of a major business. No one would suggest a casino or legal gambling operation should not work out the odds of winning and losing. It’s the same when it comes to insurance. There are a mountain of statistics showing how often different claims are made. Whether it’s a question of life expectancy, or the chances of illness following in a family, or homes being affected by flooding, or makes and models of vehicle being stolen, the actuaries will be able to give you a precise answer. With this information, the premium rates are set. Those who are low risk, pay less. Those who are high risk pay more. In theory, this is fair.

When it comes to driving, all the evidence shows women to be safer drivers than men. There are a number of reasons for this. The list starts with the simple fact that women are more likely to drive within the speed limits. So, most of the time, they can stop in time and avoid crashing into other vehicles. If they are unlucky, the force of the collision is less. There’s less damage to the vehicles and injuries are less severe. This is confirmed by the number of tickets issued, the number of claims made, and the hospital records of those injured. This is not evidence that is affected by male law enforcement officers being seduced into walking away without writing a ticket. There’s hard evidence of their safety record. The records also show women buying less powerful cars, fitted with more safety features. Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to reward them with lower premium rates.

Except the European Court has just ruled this practice sexual discrimination. All European countries have been given until the end of 2012 to produce nondiscriminatory rates. The reasoning of the Court is interesting. It argues the point of insurance is to share the risk between all the members holding policies. That way, the good drivers subsidize the bad with everyone paying the same. Frankly, this is an amazing decision. If you drive well, you should earn a reward. If you drive badly, you should be punished. That way, the premium rates are used as a stick and carrot to persuade people to drive more safely. If A will pay the same premium rate whether the driving is safe or dangerous, A has no incentive to drive safely. A can drive as if on a NASCAR track and never be penalized. (more…)