3 ms·
In a country with a national health system, why should you be able to internalize the benefit of smoking whilst externalizing the cost?
by FL33TW00D 5mo ago
In a country with a national health system, why should you be able to internalize the benefit of smoking whilst externalizing the cost?
- masfuerte 5mo agoThe sin taxes more than cover the healthcare costs of the associated sins. It's the untaxed sins, greed and sloth, that are fucking the NHS.
- slibhb 5mo agoYou could use this logic to ban unhealthy foods, or restrict people from eating too much.
- Noumenon72 5mo agoOr to resist ever passing a national health system.
- marcusverus 5mo agoThere is something insidious about the state forcing a citizen to pay for its services, only turn around and insist that the use of said services entitles the state to further control of the citizen.
- DicIfTEx 5mo agohttps://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/news-and-views/junk-food-advertising-ban-childrens-health https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/news-and-views/junk-foo... https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/government-bans-high-sugar-and-deep-fried-foods-from-school-menus/2135206.article https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/government-bans-high-sugar-a... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drink-levy-extended-to-protect-children-and-improve-health https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drink-levy-extended-...
- Gud 5mo agoConsidering the general state of the UK population, this may not be such a bad idea.
- nutjob2 5mo agoThis is just whataboutism, but the UK also regulates sugar in fairly draconian ways too, for example. There are good reasons to target smoking given how addictive and deadly it is. Nicotine is fairly unique in this regard.
- slibhb 5mo agoIt's reductio ad absurdum. Obesity is really bad for you and strains public health services. Should the government enforce a cap on caloric intake?
- lol768 5mo agoThey already prevent advertising the sorts of foods that contribute to obesity to children, and encourage you to drink less sugary drinks by applying tax to them (though unfortunately manufacturers have responded to this by reducing choice and adding artificial sweeteners instead of selling something at a higher price that can be enjoyed once every few weeks. I don't think any of this is unreasonable in a country that picks up the tab through both subsidised dental care and completely free-at-point-of-use healthcare.
- slibhb 5mo agoWould a calorie cap be reasonable?
- tredre3 5mo ago> Would a calorie cap be reasonable? A legislation that isn't possible to enforce is not reasonable, no. Banning cigarettes = easy to enforce. Banning sugar in soft drinks = easy to enforce. Limiting how many calories you can consume = how do you propose we do that? Do we even have the technology to track what someone eats? And do we carve out exceptions for athletes? If there was a way to cap calories without surgically inserting trackers into everybody I'm sure you'd see a lot less opposition to your idea.
- testing22321 5mo agoIndeed yes. We have extremely large governmental departments regulating what can and can not be sold as food.
- reassess_blind 5mo agoNot the quantity of food though. Deaths attributed to obesity are higher than those of smoking in recent years. Smoking rates are falling, but obesity continues to climb in the UK.
- testing22321 5mo agoTrans fats are banned in restaurants in Canada. Crazy food additives and preservatives are banned in Europe that are common in the US. https://foodbabe.com/food-in-america-compared-to-the-u-k-why-is-it-so-different/ https://foodbabe.com/food-in-america-compared-to-the-u-k-why...
- negura 5mo agonot could, should. i'm fully in favor of banning processed foods that fall below a threshold for calories/micronutrient ratio (and no artificial enrichment permitted)
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- skipants 5mo agopigouvian taxes are both a stronger disincentive and help cover externalized costs. if this moves nicotine to the black market then the people/government will still pay the cost without receiving any taxes on it at all
- alsetmusic 5mo ago> In a country with a national health system I live in the USA where we are treated like crap by our system of government. I'd agree with you if we had national healthcare.
- mothballed 5mo agoOK, so if you smoke you don't get national / socialized health care but don't have to pay the taxes that fund it either. Deal. It's enough to convince me to take up smoking.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- rcbdev 5mo agoThen ban McDonalds. Ban cigarettes outright for all. Give federal funding to healthy alternatives. Raise tax on sugar 200%. Alcohol 500%. Use federal funds to make cities walkable. Give police the mandate to enforce more action on violent criminals. Fund unions. Fine employers where people work longer than 8 hours per day on average. Fine employers who do not grant mandatory 5 weeks vacation per year. This is the world where the interests of the NHS is what counts for making the rules. Many countries implement at least some of these measures, to great success.
- AngryData 5mo agoSmokers cost less in medical care because they die of heart attack and stroke before they get old enough for age-related care, along with smoking disqualifying people from many common procedures. Plus the sin taxes they pay already bring in more revenue than their entire lifetime medical costs.