4 ms·

I agree with your overall point. However, the implicit claim that there are no externalities to cigarette smoking is silly. There are clearly effects on everyon

I agree with your overall point. However, the implicit claim that there are no externalities to cigarette smoking is silly. There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else.

ataggart 13y ago
>In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance ... then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. A vile argument. The idea that the state is empowered to curtail people's personal activities simply because the state chose to subsidize the personal health care costs of those activities should be anathema in a free and civilized society.
- breischl 13y ago
  Once we've chosen to subsidize health care, then everyone has a financial interest in everyone else's behavior. I agree that it's a vile situation, but I tend to think it's a reason to avoid government-subsidized health care in the first place. Once we've got it, ignoring the financial consequences is just stupid.
  - jasomill 13y ago
    This cuts both ways, though — with private insurance, insurers have a financial interest in focusing on current rather than lifetime expenditures, leading to both subpar outcomes in general and overestimation of costs related to lifespan-shortening behaviors like smoking. With that said, high taxes on tobacco products in particular are primarily seen (by proponents and detractors) as means to reduce smoking for general, not exclusively economic, public health reasons.
    - breischl 13y ago
      But at least with private insurance it's a voluntary contract between you and the company, and not a forced one between you and every other taxpayer in the country. While other members of your insurance group have a financial interest in your behavior, the government and the rest of the taxpayers don't. Tobacco taxes are certainly justified in many different ways, but public health is one of those ways. I'm also reminded of the big settlement the tobacco companies had to pay to all the states about 10-15 years ago, which was justified by the extra expense imposed on Medicare/Medicaid. That wasn't a tax, though it was functionally similar.
- markdown 13y ago
  You live in a democracy, so replace "the state" with "the people".
rwallace 13y ago
Actually, it turns out smokers cost the public health insurance system less, on average, than non-smokers do.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  If anyone actually believed the argument we should tax smokers because of externalities, upon hearing this fact they would immediately say "we should tax non-smokers!"
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Evidence, please? I understood the opposite: even if they live for a shorter time, smokers tend to have more costly chronic illnesses.
Houshalter 13y ago
>There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. I don't think this is true. It only applies when indoors and probably for a very long period of time (ie living with the person, not just being at a restaurant.) Furthermore you can ban public smoking indoors as many places do, that's not the same as a tax. >In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. This is a problem with public healthcare, not smoking.
- breischl 13y ago
  Certainly the duration and density of secondhand smoke matters, but I doubt that any amount of it is good. I can go dig up the research if you really care. To your particular example of being in a restaurant, the increasingly-popular ban on smoking in bars and restaurants was largely driven by the negative health effects on the staff. Though again, I believe the effects on other patrons were non-zero. >>This is a problem with public healthcare, not smoking. We're agreed there. But getting rid of the public healthcare doesn't seem to be a realistic option at this point.

ataggart 13y ago

>In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance ... then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. A vile argument. The idea that the state is empowered to curtail people's personal activities simply because the state chose to subsidize the personal health care costs of those activities should be anathema in a free and civilized society.

breischl 13y ago
Once we've chosen to subsidize health care, then everyone has a financial interest in everyone else's behavior. I agree that it's a vile situation, but I tend to think it's a reason to avoid government-subsidized health care in the first place. Once we've got it, ignoring the financial consequences is just stupid.
- jasomill 13y ago
  This cuts both ways, though — with private insurance, insurers have a financial interest in focusing on current rather than lifetime expenditures, leading to both subpar outcomes in general and overestimation of costs related to lifespan-shortening behaviors like smoking. With that said, high taxes on tobacco products in particular are primarily seen (by proponents and detractors) as means to reduce smoking for general, not exclusively economic, public health reasons.
  - breischl 13y ago
    But at least with private insurance it's a voluntary contract between you and the company, and not a forced one between you and every other taxpayer in the country. While other members of your insurance group have a financial interest in your behavior, the government and the rest of the taxpayers don't. Tobacco taxes are certainly justified in many different ways, but public health is one of those ways. I'm also reminded of the big settlement the tobacco companies had to pay to all the states about 10-15 years ago, which was justified by the extra expense imposed on Medicare/Medicaid. That wasn't a tax, though it was functionally similar.
markdown 13y ago
You live in a democracy, so replace "the state" with "the people".

rwallace 13y ago

Actually, it turns out smokers cost the public health insurance system less, on average, than non-smokers do.

Houshalter 13y ago
If anyone actually believed the argument we should tax smokers because of externalities, upon hearing this fact they would immediately say "we should tax non-smokers!"
ronaldx 13y ago
Evidence, please? I understood the opposite: even if they live for a shorter time, smokers tend to have more costly chronic illnesses.

Houshalter 13y ago

>There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. I don't think this is true. It only applies when indoors and probably for a very long period of time (ie living with the person, not just being at a restaurant.) Furthermore you can ban public smoking indoors as many places do, that's not the same as a tax. >In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. This is a problem with public healthcare, not smoking.

breischl 13y ago
Certainly the duration and density of secondhand smoke matters, but I doubt that any amount of it is good. I can go dig up the research if you really care. To your particular example of being in a restaurant, the increasingly-popular ban on smoking in bars and restaurants was largely driven by the negative health effects on the staff. Though again, I believe the effects on other patrons were non-zero. >>This is a problem with public healthcare, not smoking. We're agreed there. But getting rid of the public healthcare doesn't seem to be a realistic option at this point.