Free Condoms!
---
Sorry, but sometimes the post titles just write themselves:
Furthermore, there are no (direct) negative externalities to unprotected sex*. And the indirect negative externalities (i.e., health care for the infected) only exist because of our semi-socialist health care system in the first place. A program like this is merely throwing good money after bad (or bad money after worse).
And even if some argument for free condoms could be made: 12.2 million in a single year? For a city with a population of 8 million, less than 80% of whom are over 14, and only a fraction of that fraction are sexually active with multiple partners, and only a fraction of that fraction of that fraction can't afford condoms.
Wherever the line is between defensible public health policy and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling may be, this "cover the city in latex" mania is far past it.
And as for those who have unprotected sex, regardless of whether they can't afford condoms or because they simply can't think rationally:
You'll go to a bar and spend $6 for a beer. You'll pay a $15 cover charge to get into a dance club. You'll pay $25 for a hit of meth. You'll pay $100 for sex with a prostitute. But you won't pay 25 cents for a condom?
Sorry, but sympathy is a scarce good that needs to be rationed. And you're at the absolute back of the line.
(*In terms of sexually transmitted disease. Unintended pregnancy is another matter.)
In a quest to quell HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, city health officials have quietly flooded the five boroughs with free condoms.Do we really need to spend more than ten seconds to determine whether condoms are a public good that should be underwritten by taxpayers?
They gave away 5.8 million in 2004 and a staggering 12.2 million last year, The [New York] Post has learned.
Last spring, Scott Kellerman, the Health Department's Assistant Commissioner responsible for coordinating HIV/AIDS services, told The Post that the department must "cover this city in latex."
...
Previously, officials gave condoms only to clinics that handle sexually transmitted diseases. "It wasn't readily open to other groups. Now, youth centers, senior centers, private hospitals, commercial sex venues and many other facilities can order," Dr. Isaac Weisfuse, the deputy commissioner told The Post.
Furthermore, there are no (direct) negative externalities to unprotected sex*. And the indirect negative externalities (i.e., health care for the infected) only exist because of our semi-socialist health care system in the first place. A program like this is merely throwing good money after bad (or bad money after worse).
And even if some argument for free condoms could be made: 12.2 million in a single year? For a city with a population of 8 million, less than 80% of whom are over 14, and only a fraction of that fraction are sexually active with multiple partners, and only a fraction of that fraction of that fraction can't afford condoms.
Wherever the line is between defensible public health policy and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling may be, this "cover the city in latex" mania is far past it.
And as for those who have unprotected sex, regardless of whether they can't afford condoms or because they simply can't think rationally:
You'll go to a bar and spend $6 for a beer. You'll pay a $15 cover charge to get into a dance club. You'll pay $25 for a hit of meth. You'll pay $100 for sex with a prostitute. But you won't pay 25 cents for a condom?
Sorry, but sympathy is a scarce good that needs to be rationed. And you're at the absolute back of the line.
(*In terms of sexually transmitted disease. Unintended pregnancy is another matter.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Helmet Won't Help a Bonehead
- Free Condoms!
Posted by Kip on
28 August 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
