5 ms·

> finally give up on outdated notions of personal freedom and irrational choice Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with persona

> finally give up on outdated notions of personal freedom and irrational choice Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with personal freedom in advertisements have been successful in your case. I think the health benefits by far outweigh any perceived personal freedom costs. Smoking is damaging but addictive. Too many people want to but don't manage to stop. If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices.

TelmoMenezes 11y ago
> Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with personal freedom in advertisements have been successful in your case. Not really, I used to smoke but I quit. That's a straw man, and also quite patronizing. You can hold a rational ethical position without buying into the mythology of Marlboro man. The question still stands: if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line?
- adrianN 11y ago
  > if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? When they stop doing so, of course. It depends on how much you value different kinds of personal freedom. I for example believe that it would be reasonable to tax unhealthy food more than healthy food and have people who are overweight pay more for their health insurance. But I don't think that tracking everyone's movement outweighs potential benefits from taxing lack of physical activity.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Who, and by what metric, determines what "unhealthy food" is? We've all seen plenty of disagreement within nutrition science. Many people take positions that are somewhat more philosophical than scientific. Some foods may only be unhealthy in specific quantities, or in combination with other foods in specific quantities. Furthermore, there are medical conditions--and even treatments for medical conditions--that can cause obesity that have nothing to do with a person's diet. Should the people suffering from these situations be charged more for their health insurance? Here's a real-world example: A friend of mine's wife was, at the time they discovered she was pregnant, diagnosed with leukemia. It has been the most awful thing I've witnessed in some time. A mid-five-foot woman, who probably barely weighed 120 pounds, after months of different treatments, wound up with a host of medical complications, then further treatments. This all wound up causing her to gain what looked like probably 100+ pounds. Last year, they paid over $18K in out-of-pocket medical expenses. It seems unconscionable to me to advocate my friend and his wife should have to pay more for health insurance because she's now technically obese. They can already barely survive (she cannot work, and he spent 5 months unemployed last year). Bottom line: very few things are simply black-and-white. There are so many shades of gray. The real world is full of myriad complications and counterexamples that ought to help us realize we can't just draw simplistic lines in the sand based on silly, poorly conceived premises. Oh sure, it sounds good when the idea pops in your head, especially when it doesn't affect you--always because your conception doesn't ever include you. But it's bound, like all things, to come down with undeserved and unbalanced harshness on somebody. And that leads to having to probe whether or not these ideas are just and fair. Oftentimes, they are not.
    - adrianN 11y ago
      We're somewhat off on a tangent now, but anyway: While there has been plenty of disagreement in nutrition science, there's also a lot of agreement. It's pretty well established that highly processed foods that are loaded with sugar, salt and fat are less healthy than fresh vegetables. When the science changes, laws can also change, and we don't have to have laws that are so specific as to make the "perfect" diet free and any other diet prohibitively expensive. Examples like your friend that have a hard time controlling their calorie intake due to medical complications are pretty rare. But indeed, as you say, things are not black and white, which is why, in general, laws are fairly complex and it needs lawyers to understand them. It's not like the current tax code doesn't have any special cases for exceptional circumstances. But figuring out all the special cases needed for a tax code that rewards healthy behaviour is probably way out of scope for a HN comment thread.
- Ao7bei3s 11y ago
  > where do you draw the line? Somewhere around harmful (not just unhealthy) addictive substances. (Philosophical(?) question: is it personal freedom when you're addicted?)
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    Since addictions can be broken, why not?
  - xixi77 11y ago
    how do you separate harmful things from those that are just unhealthy then? If addiction is your criterion, just pick one of the things you classify as "just unhealthy", and type "X addiction" into google :)
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    You draw the line at using taxes selectively, as a means of influencing human behavior. If you want the public to make healthier choices, do it the right way, with scaremongering and emotional rhetoric. Or rational argument, I guess, if you're some kind of quixotic masochist.~
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      Ah, but quixotic masochists are the best kind of masochist.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Yes, especially then.
- jdenning 11y ago
  I think that most people draw the line right at the behaviors that they enjoy, but others consider unhealthy. It's kind of a classic in this country - "I don't do X because I think it's bad - let's tax/shame/incarcerate anybody who does X, because they're too stupid to realize how bad X is! Think of the children!!!" and "I can't believe they're taxing Y! I've been doing Y for years, and it's my business. It's a 'free' country!"
- IanDrake 11y ago
  > if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? Agreed. I hate using these terms, but the "progressive liberal agenda" that wants to make "HealthCare Free For All" will make your health choices everyone's business. I'm not paying for your triple bypass surgery, therefor red meat is going to be taxed higher. Etc...etc... Carry it all out to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that soon enough personal freedom won't mean much in a collectivist society and there will be no line to draw.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    This is when you line up an army on one side of the field that believes heart disease is exacerbated by the saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in red meat, and you line up the army on the other side of the field that believes that heart disease is exacerbated by sugars, simple carbohydrates, and insufficient magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K. Then they converge in the middle, and methodically slaughter any chance at rationally examining the science, with their sharp blades made from laminated dollar bills. Politics and science do not mix well. Some may not like that other people eat beef steaks. Others may not like enriched white flour or high fructose corn syrup. Some people might not like genetically modified whatevers, or artificial hormone treated this-and-thats. But I don't want my diet to be constrained on all sides by FUD and scaremongering. Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate.
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      > Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate. Exactly this. Cigarettes aren't being taxed out of any semblance of altruistic care for public health--that altruistic care is arguably borne out in anti-smoking laws in public places. The taxes, however, are simply a shakedown, like every other type of "sin tax" levied to collect money from people who enjoy a thing that cannot or will not be universally defended as something that is "okay" to enjoy.
- curun1r 11y ago
  > if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? I don't see cigarettes as a personal freedom issue. As long as you find people insensitive enough to smoke in public areas and force those of us that don't smoke to breathe their toxic air, cigarettes should be taxed just like other pollutants are. Taxes are one of the few ways that capitalism has of dealing with externalities.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Hasn't "... in public areas" been settled for a couple of decades now?
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      Eh, not everywhere. For example, in much of the Southeast US, it's still perfectly legal to smoke in certain places. There are increasing restrictions and legislative tweaks, of course. But it's still acceptable to smoke indoors in establishments that decide to only accept patrons > 21 years old, for instance.
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        I mean "settled", not "universal". That sounds like equilibrium to me.
        bobwaycott 11y ago
        Ah, gotcha. My mistake for misunderstanding.
    - curun1r 11y ago
      Just because the issue is settled legally doesn't change the fact that non-smokers are impacted by smokers. That's why I called smokers insensitive rather than lawbreakers. As an American, there are many things that we're legally allowed to do that I'd still say makes the person doing them an insensitive asshole. The law isn't the only tool we have to control unwanted behavior...social mores can actually be one of the best tools we have since they're less rigid and can change over time.
- lucisferre 11y ago
  > where do you draw the line? And that's a slippery slope. What makes you think the line can't actually be drawn. I'm all for personal freedom generally though, but I think adjusting the position of the line to find it's optimal balance is a fine alternative to erasing it altogether.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  All the people who were subject to the Marlboro Man were also subject to the stories surrounding John Wayne's death.
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
> If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices. Higher prices damage the only people that really need any help: those who have already been helplessly addicted for decades. These people are - statistically - poor, under-educated, and unhealthy. Making them pay more than they already have to is just pouring more gasoline over the fire. Don't fool yourself - you're advocating for the further crippling of these addicts' finances and lives. And in doing so, you're giving even more money to the state, which will just mismanage the money and use it to line its own pockets.
- BrainInAJar 11y ago
  > which will just mismanage the money and use it to line its own pockets. This is a profoundly American viewpoint. If you assume everyone mismanages funds, you don't give them enough funds to really deliver value on, so they look mismanaged. The rest of the world has relatively well functioning governments despite having quite a bit more responsibility
  - F2468 11y ago
    > If you assume everyone mismanages funds, you don't give them enough funds to really deliver value on, so they look mismanaged. What? >The rest of the world has relatively well functioning governments despite having quite a bit more responsibility. Define well-functioning. By my definition, they are absolutely not.
    - BrainInAJar 11y ago
      Let me explain it to you in a simpler way. If you have a house, and your siding is rotting off, you ask everyone in the house to pitch in to fix the siding so the foundation doesn't start to get destroyed. But everyone in the house is a child that holds childish simplistic libertarian ideals and refuses to give you anything more than the bare minimum, so you side it with tarps instead of shingles, eventually the structure starts rotting.
      - 11y ago
rtkwe 11y ago
> If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices. This may have worked but the article notes. > some economists believe that recent hikes have had little impact on consumption. They suggest that the majority of people who were going to stop because of price hikes might have already done so. From the paper linked under 'some economists' > Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant. Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%. That suggests we may have reached the limit where additional taxes are able to reasonably achieve their goal. If the taxes aren't actually working then I think something else should be done instead of just jacking up the price more and more.

TelmoMenezes 11y ago

> Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with personal freedom in advertisements have been successful in your case. Not really, I used to smoke but I quit. That's a straw man, and also quite patronizing. You can hold a rational ethical position without buying into the mythology of Marlboro man. The question still stands: if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line?

adrianN 11y ago
> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? When they stop doing so, of course. It depends on how much you value different kinds of personal freedom. I for example believe that it would be reasonable to tax unhealthy food more than healthy food and have people who are overweight pay more for their health insurance. But I don't think that tracking everyone's movement outweighs potential benefits from taxing lack of physical activity.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Who, and by what metric, determines what "unhealthy food" is? We've all seen plenty of disagreement within nutrition science. Many people take positions that are somewhat more philosophical than scientific. Some foods may only be unhealthy in specific quantities, or in combination with other foods in specific quantities. Furthermore, there are medical conditions--and even treatments for medical conditions--that can cause obesity that have nothing to do with a person's diet. Should the people suffering from these situations be charged more for their health insurance? Here's a real-world example: A friend of mine's wife was, at the time they discovered she was pregnant, diagnosed with leukemia. It has been the most awful thing I've witnessed in some time. A mid-five-foot woman, who probably barely weighed 120 pounds, after months of different treatments, wound up with a host of medical complications, then further treatments. This all wound up causing her to gain what looked like probably 100+ pounds. Last year, they paid over $18K in out-of-pocket medical expenses. It seems unconscionable to me to advocate my friend and his wife should have to pay more for health insurance because she's now technically obese. They can already barely survive (she cannot work, and he spent 5 months unemployed last year). Bottom line: very few things are simply black-and-white. There are so many shades of gray. The real world is full of myriad complications and counterexamples that ought to help us realize we can't just draw simplistic lines in the sand based on silly, poorly conceived premises. Oh sure, it sounds good when the idea pops in your head, especially when it doesn't affect you--always because your conception doesn't ever include you. But it's bound, like all things, to come down with undeserved and unbalanced harshness on somebody. And that leads to having to probe whether or not these ideas are just and fair. Oftentimes, they are not.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    We're somewhat off on a tangent now, but anyway: While there has been plenty of disagreement in nutrition science, there's also a lot of agreement. It's pretty well established that highly processed foods that are loaded with sugar, salt and fat are less healthy than fresh vegetables. When the science changes, laws can also change, and we don't have to have laws that are so specific as to make the "perfect" diet free and any other diet prohibitively expensive. Examples like your friend that have a hard time controlling their calorie intake due to medical complications are pretty rare. But indeed, as you say, things are not black and white, which is why, in general, laws are fairly complex and it needs lawyers to understand them. It's not like the current tax code doesn't have any special cases for exceptional circumstances. But figuring out all the special cases needed for a tax code that rewards healthy behaviour is probably way out of scope for a HN comment thread.
Ao7bei3s 11y ago
> where do you draw the line? Somewhere around harmful (not just unhealthy) addictive substances. (Philosophical(?) question: is it personal freedom when you're addicted?)
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  Since addictions can be broken, why not?
- xixi77 11y ago
  how do you separate harmful things from those that are just unhealthy then? If addiction is your criterion, just pick one of the things you classify as "just unhealthy", and type "X addiction" into google :)
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  You draw the line at using taxes selectively, as a means of influencing human behavior. If you want the public to make healthier choices, do it the right way, with scaremongering and emotional rhetoric. Or rational argument, I guess, if you're some kind of quixotic masochist.~
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Ah, but quixotic masochists are the best kind of masochist.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Yes, especially then.
jdenning 11y ago
I think that most people draw the line right at the behaviors that they enjoy, but others consider unhealthy. It's kind of a classic in this country - "I don't do X because I think it's bad - let's tax/shame/incarcerate anybody who does X, because they're too stupid to realize how bad X is! Think of the children!!!" and "I can't believe they're taxing Y! I've been doing Y for years, and it's my business. It's a 'free' country!"
IanDrake 11y ago
> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? Agreed. I hate using these terms, but the "progressive liberal agenda" that wants to make "HealthCare Free For All" will make your health choices everyone's business. I'm not paying for your triple bypass surgery, therefor red meat is going to be taxed higher. Etc...etc... Carry it all out to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that soon enough personal freedom won't mean much in a collectivist society and there will be no line to draw.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  This is when you line up an army on one side of the field that believes heart disease is exacerbated by the saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in red meat, and you line up the army on the other side of the field that believes that heart disease is exacerbated by sugars, simple carbohydrates, and insufficient magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K. Then they converge in the middle, and methodically slaughter any chance at rationally examining the science, with their sharp blades made from laminated dollar bills. Politics and science do not mix well. Some may not like that other people eat beef steaks. Others may not like enriched white flour or high fructose corn syrup. Some people might not like genetically modified whatevers, or artificial hormone treated this-and-thats. But I don't want my diet to be constrained on all sides by FUD and scaremongering. Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    > Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate. Exactly this. Cigarettes aren't being taxed out of any semblance of altruistic care for public health--that altruistic care is arguably borne out in anti-smoking laws in public places. The taxes, however, are simply a shakedown, like every other type of "sin tax" levied to collect money from people who enjoy a thing that cannot or will not be universally defended as something that is "okay" to enjoy.
curun1r 11y ago
> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? I don't see cigarettes as a personal freedom issue. As long as you find people insensitive enough to smoke in public areas and force those of us that don't smoke to breathe their toxic air, cigarettes should be taxed just like other pollutants are. Taxes are one of the few ways that capitalism has of dealing with externalities.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Hasn't "... in public areas" been settled for a couple of decades now?
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Eh, not everywhere. For example, in much of the Southeast US, it's still perfectly legal to smoke in certain places. There are increasing restrictions and legislative tweaks, of course. But it's still acceptable to smoke indoors in establishments that decide to only accept patrons > 21 years old, for instance.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      I mean "settled", not "universal". That sounds like equilibrium to me.
      - bobwaycott 11y ago
        Ah, gotcha. My mistake for misunderstanding.
  - curun1r 11y ago
    Just because the issue is settled legally doesn't change the fact that non-smokers are impacted by smokers. That's why I called smokers insensitive rather than lawbreakers. As an American, there are many things that we're legally allowed to do that I'd still say makes the person doing them an insensitive asshole. The law isn't the only tool we have to control unwanted behavior...social mores can actually be one of the best tools we have since they're less rigid and can change over time.
lucisferre 11y ago
> where do you draw the line? And that's a slippery slope. What makes you think the line can't actually be drawn. I'm all for personal freedom generally though, but I think adjusting the position of the line to find it's optimal balance is a fine alternative to erasing it altogether.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
All the people who were subject to the Marlboro Man were also subject to the stories surrounding John Wayne's death.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago

> If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices. Higher prices damage the only people that really need any help: those who have already been helplessly addicted for decades. These people are - statistically - poor, under-educated, and unhealthy. Making them pay more than they already have to is just pouring more gasoline over the fire. Don't fool yourself - you're advocating for the further crippling of these addicts' finances and lives. And in doing so, you're giving even more money to the state, which will just mismanage the money and use it to line its own pockets.

BrainInAJar 11y ago
> which will just mismanage the money and use it to line its own pockets. This is a profoundly American viewpoint. If you assume everyone mismanages funds, you don't give them enough funds to really deliver value on, so they look mismanaged. The rest of the world has relatively well functioning governments despite having quite a bit more responsibility
- F2468 11y ago
  > If you assume everyone mismanages funds, you don't give them enough funds to really deliver value on, so they look mismanaged. What? >The rest of the world has relatively well functioning governments despite having quite a bit more responsibility. Define well-functioning. By my definition, they are absolutely not.
  - BrainInAJar 11y ago
    Let me explain it to you in a simpler way. If you have a house, and your siding is rotting off, you ask everyone in the house to pitch in to fix the siding so the foundation doesn't start to get destroyed. But everyone in the house is a child that holds childish simplistic libertarian ideals and refuses to give you anything more than the bare minimum, so you side it with tarps instead of shingles, eventually the structure starts rotting.
    - 11y ago

rtkwe 11y ago

> If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices. This may have worked but the article notes. > some economists believe that recent hikes have had little impact on consumption. They suggest that the majority of people who were going to stop because of price hikes might have already done so. From the paper linked under 'some economists' > Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant. Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%. That suggests we may have reached the limit where additional taxes are able to reasonably achieve their goal. If the taxes aren't actually working then I think something else should be done instead of just jacking up the price more and more.