Reason Writers Around Town: Jacob Sullum on 'Public Health' Meddling in Newsday
Writing in Newsday, Senior Editor Jacob Sullum notes that both the cigarette tax hike President Obama signed shortly after taking office and the soda tax Democrats have proposed as a way of funding health insurance subsidies are highly regressive. For their supporters, however, these taxes are good not despite but because of their disproportionate impact on the poor, who will benefit if higher prices drive them to quit smoking or reduce their caloric intake. Those options are available to them even without the taxes, of course, but the fact that they continue sucking Marlboros and guzzling Mountain Dew shows they do not attach sufficient value to their own health. Hence the government must realign their incentives until they start making the right choices.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Your preaching to the choir, Jacob.
Everybody knows the poor are just too ignorant to make proper health choices.* That or some moral failing on their part, making choices different than Nancy Pelosi would. We must gently guide them with punitive taxation .for their own good. We can call it "The Caring Man's Burden".
* After all, they were educated by the state.
"Similarly, laws prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants superficially resemble laws regulating air pollution, which fit within the traditional public health mission of protecting people from external threats. But because secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants is both conspicuous and confined to private, enclosed spaces that people can easily avoid, it is a voluntarily assumed risk - like smoking itself, which is the real target of these laws."
I can't abide by this statement because I have yet to witness a smoking area that is in fact private and enclosed, nor have I experienced an establishment that truly offered the ability to "easily avoid" smoke, be it first or second-hand.
Now, I'm not the preachy reborne ex-smoker...but I am an ex-smoker.
When I still enjoyed partaking, I would have wanted to patronize a business that allowed me such liberty, and I think there should be places where folks can smoke. I am that sort of libertarian. Knock yourself out, baby.
If I do not appreciate the aroma, I can choose to find myself elsewhere - liking the option of some smoke-free environments, especially concerning the better for my young child. (I'm already dead from all my former habits.)
But to suggest, as this article does, that the 'smoking section' somehow alleviates the effects of having smoke inside a building without having a separate venting system, air handler and completely closed-off rooms...well...
perhaps I'm just picky, but just a section over there - maybe even a whole room with an open doorway - is a rather half-assed approach and not at all effective. And that, to date, is all I've seen in my various travels.
Never a fan of taxation, but I've always played with the notion that vice penalties, err, *cough*...taxes should be directly attributed to the rehabilitation and long-term treatments resulting from given behaviors. Put it where it best serves the need.
Silly me, I always thought the things we were taxed for should actually get the benefit of being funded. Kinda why I stopped buying those 'specialty' license plates...
nor have I experienced an establishment that truly offered the ability to "easily avoid" smoke, be it first or second-hand.
"First hand" means smoking dipshit.No bars or restaurants force you to smoke.
I can't abide by this statement because I have yet to witness a smoking area that is in fact private and enclosed, nor have I experienced an establishment that truly offered the ability to "easily avoid" smoke, be it first or second-hand.
Aw jeebus. Are you too much of a wimp to not patronize the goddam business? Only go to smoke free bars, if there ain't any in your neck of the woods, don't go to fucking bars.
Me, loud noises, decaying hearing, rock concerts. I don't demand that they turn down the volume do I? No, I merely don't go to rock concerts anymore. Fucking brilliant, no?
I too think we should tax people to pay for their own government social engineering.
Actually, to the first post too ignorant to hold his knee while it jerked (was that your knee?), I was speaking of restaurants...not bars.
Uh, you really don't think I know what first-hand smoke is? I think proximity has more to do with remnant or active inhalation. But go ahead and lay on the slurs. Your approach to this discussion is charming.
Feel better?
There are still places in this country can can serve food and put ashtrays on the table next to the ketchup. Did not say that was a bad thing, just that the option to have a place without the mock-effort to control or contain is not so horrible.
Do you bring your toddler to your local pub to yuck it up with the boys? That might explain it.
J sub D, your response was also strangely emotional for a post that should not have raised such hostility.
I did say I had that choice, right?
THAT can.
Okay, Restaurants. Doesn't change a thing. Don't patronize the business and, as the kids on the intertubez say, STFU.
Interesting...I thought this was a freethinking kinda place...but if my opinion doesn't match yours, I need to stifle.
I wonder why they bother with the comments section, then?
@potpo - I don't like smoky restaurants either, but it bothers me that the received wisdom is: if you can smell it, it's killing you. It just ain't so. No law is justified here.
A separate room or section for smokers is all I'd ask. If it still bothers me, I can go elsewhere, and tell the mgmt why. Annoyance != death.
So that some commenters can try to discourage others from expressing opinions the former find disagreeable, which discouragement the latter are free to disregard. Win/win.
As to the form: In a period suffering linguistic inflation, hostile commands issued in vulgar patois signify merely a depth of conviction.
And thus may knowledge pass from hand to hand, that human wisdom thereby be increased.
I wonder why they bother with the comments section, then?
So we can tell dick heads like you to go fuck themselves.
I can't abide by this statement because I have yet to witness a smoking area that is in fact private and enclosed
You pretend not to know what private property is (or buildings).That makes you a troll.
"dickheads like you"
Dickheads like you too! They tell me so!
timestamp=FAIL
No it does not.
A troll is someone who attempts to get a rise out of people.
Ignorance of libertarian ethics, or even the implication of basic property rights does not a troll make. Rather it just means he's very normal is these barbaric times.
FTA: The traditional focus of public health was protecting people from dangers imposed on them by others ...
The state carries on the tradition by 1) expanding the notion of "imposed" dangers (e.g. *manufactured* cigarettes and "insufficient" instructions) and 2) considering that "others" includes *oneself* in a collectivist society.
guys, you need to back off of Variable - nothing he said was objectionable.
Seriously - quote an anti-libertarian stance he took. If you wanna get all pissed about his implicit acceptance of taxation, be my guest. Other than that, there's nothing to see here.
It's okay to tax these things. You just go on beer and smoke runs to the nearest state that doesn't tax the shit out of them. Right Mike?
This will have to be the last, because Variable is a she and about to make a late dinner.
I do have a rather firm grasp about the concept of private property, which often causes a different sort of disruption when speaking to a more Socialized mind.
It amuses me to get nailed from both sides.
So let me try and break this down, as the article did not specifically address a private business as being exclusively smoking or non-smoking, m'kay? It spoke of measures taken to enhance air quality, not the owner's right to set his own standard.
If the establishment is in fact a designated "smoking friendly" club, restaurant - w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r., YES, J sub D, I will STFU if I want what's inside anyway.
I am not whining, not am I trolling. I'm just talkin' about what I read from the editorial.
What I meant was specifically the businesses that try to set some sort of...boundary...between the smokers and the non-smokers - and they still do that in some areas, just putting an age limit on the patrons...it doesn't work. You can't partition air.
That's what I wrote.
NOT that I agree that we need Government to come in and dictate how a business WILL run itself or that there should be one but not the other (you really misunderstood me, then) but that the methods employed, when there are 'options' available to the guest, are just...a joke. And i wasn't even complaining about it, just saying that I didn't agree with the author's assessment, and amazingly without having to call anyone a dipshit.
OK? OK.
I expect strip joints and bars to be smoke-filled. And I expect clubs and concerts to be loud. (Hello?)
Eh, the tax thing. Again, misunderstood, should clarify. IF the taxes are going to be taken, IF it is mandated and nothing short of a fire burning in Washington redirects the initiative, that additional money should be applied to the services directly related to the product.
I do not advocate a Nanny state. Not what I meant. But instead of anti-_________ programs to put up lame billboards and have professional speakers take up educational space in any given school day (and lobbyist incentives, if applicable), put the money in to the same programs, services, research those who have been taxed for it will make use of.
Or, hey...start a fire.
Am I at least a bit more clear?
the article did not specifically address a private business as being exclusively smoking or non-smoking, m'kay?
Actually, it did, via "private, enclosed spaces". You misread that as "smoking section", but that aint what it said.
I have yet to witness a smoking area that is in fact private and enclosed, nor have I experienced an establishment that truly offered the ability to "easily avoid" smoke
In your last post, you acknowledge that you have, in fact, witness smoking areas that were private and enclosed, such as strip clubs and bars.
You also acknowledged that you have, in fact, experienced establishments that truly offer the ability to avoid the smoke, IE, by not going in them at all.
If you had started with your 9:11 post, you wouldnt have got piled on. Much.
Similarly, laws prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants superficially resemble laws regulating air pollution, which fit within the traditional public health mission of protecting people from external threats. But because secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants is both conspicuous and confined to private, enclosed spaces that people can easily avoid, it is a voluntarily assumed risk - like smoking itself, which is the real target of these laws.
There is nothing in the linked article about segregated smoking sections within a business establishment,much less the effectiveness thereof.Perhaps I should have challenged your reading comprehension in addition to your understanding of the concept of property rights.
robc beat me to it
(Restaurants. I speak of restaurants. As an eating establishment. As in open to the public and wanting for business. Gentleman's Club, Disco, Dive...an aside.)
Similarly, laws prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants
(From that I gathered the enforcement of customer segregation, based on the business owner's initiative and government mandate. Because that is what it is.)
superficially resemble laws regulating air pollution,
(Air quality. That which the customer is exposed to, and that which the business may have taken some superficial measure to correct. Or not.)
which fit within the traditional public health mission of protecting people from external threats.
(Yeah, yadda...I know this goes too far.)
But because secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants is both conspicuous and confined to private, enclosed spaces
(Here you read a private building and I see it as expanded, including rooms within a private building, offering the option of a smoking section or not. If you want to say, hey - THE BUILDING is enclosed...fine. But my first post was plainly about the sectioning of one from another.)
that people can easily avoid, it is a voluntarily assumed risk - like smoking itself, which is the real target of these laws.
(Yes, if the business has taken the steps to regulate air quality and not just put a sign in the corner. And sure, I can just not go there. Never -anywhere here- did I say I should be able to go there, whaaa, poor me.
But don't kid yourself in to thinking that the appearance of setting a place apart has made a difference. You say "tough shit"...I say "why bother?")
Bans on the use of e-cigarettes in public indoor spaces, such as the one recently passed by the Suffolk Legislature, are even harder to justify, since these devices do not emit smoke.
(And that's just stupid.)
It is not an inability to comprehend what was written but an ability to comprehend more than just whatever appeals to the reader.
Now I know how you play the game around here .
Good night.
guys, she still hasn't said anything anti-libertarian, and you're frankly being fucking dicks (yeah, robc, #, etc. I am talking about you).
Here's another side to the smoking issue: I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, my sister (who is asthmatic) is even worse so. Without an enclosed separate area for smokers, with a separate ventilation system, we CANNOT patronize an establishment that allows smokers. In areas where indoor smoking is allowed, it means we CANNOT socialize with friends (who also do not smoke), because we are subjected to the second-hand smoke.
Now, banning smoking from the establishment does NOT help, because then smokers just hang out right outside the door and we have to go through a gauntlet of smoke just to get inside!
An option I'd like to see in urban areas is rooftop smoking gardens. Make the roofs of buildings publicly accessible, furnish them with shelters against rain, benches to sit on, ashtrays or trash cans to dispose of ashes, and perhaps plants and artwork to make the places pleasant destinations that smokers would WANT to go to smoke.
Stay home, bubble-boy.
I have to back up TAO (whether he wants me to or not).
Can't we save our precious invective against jackasses who really deserve it? VP said nothing way out of line, and from some of the comments, you'd think she was Naomi Klein coming out with a "Smoke Doctrine". For fuck's sake, get a grip.
can we use said invective against the allergic one?
your medical issues are your own to deal with. i also declare your allergy as bullshit. smoke is an irritant - we are all naturally 'allergic' to it. many can overcome this initial unpleasantness in search of desired effects, be they the mild stimulant of nicotine or the euphoria of cannabis. those who cannot are pussies.
smoke-allergic - I understand how you feel, as I have a lung disease that keeps me from going to any clubs where they allow smoking. I also know about the "gauntlet" - I've covered my face with my shirt many times moving as fast as I could through the throngs of smokers that cluster right outside the entrances to "smoke-free" bar-restaurants. But while "asshole-allergic" was being a dick about the way he put it, he was right about the basic idea - the property belongs to those who own it, and they should get to set the rules. We have the options of 1) peaceably trying to convince establishments to create cordon-sanitaire areas, or 2) finding other people like ourselves, who want totally smoke-free environments, and creating our own clubs, etc.
And then we can tell "asshole-allergic" to go take his smokes and cram them up his ass if he wants to come by and check out the band that's playing.
Nipplemancer - there is a huge difference between a slight irritation and an anaphylactic reaction. Granted "allergy" could fall somewhere in between the two, but there are people who could need an E.R. visit if exposed to smoke, the same way there are people who need an E.R. visit when exposed to peanuts.
This does not justify restrictions against private property, blah blah, SLD.
my sister (who is asthmatic) is even worse so. Without an enclosed separate area for smokers, with a separate ventilation system, we CANNOT patronize an establishment that allows smokers. In areas where indoor smoking is allowed, it means we CANNOT socialize with friends (who also do not smoke), because we are subjected to the second-hand smoke.
fantastic, do not go to those places.
Now, banning smoking from the establishment does NOT help, because then smokers just hang out right outside the door and we have to go through a gauntlet of smoke just to get inside!
oh jesus christ dear god. get a fucking napkin for the 2 +/- secs it takes you to run "the gauntlet"! better yet, stay home and don't breathe at all.
next step: eradicate the sun to eliminate solar urticaria.
she still hasn't said anything anti-libertarian,
I never said she did.
and you're frankly being fucking dicks
And that is different from every other day on H&R how?
Without an enclosed separate area for smokers, with a separate ventilation system, we CANNOT patronize an establishment that allows smokers. In areas where indoor smoking is allowed, it means we CANNOT socialize with friends (who also do not smoke), because we are subjected to the second-hand smoke.
Bullshit. You can socialize at home or in smoke-free establishments. Yes, it means you cant do it and those places that allow smoke, but duh. You have no right to those locations. People with peanut allergies shouldnt hang out in lower alabama either.
An option I'd like to see in urban areas is rooftop smoking gardens.
Great idea. Time for you to start a business I guess.
Hey, I just called silly on the tax talk which was clarified with a barrage of "ifs." I find all smoking laws bullshit. Regardless they boil down to personal property. A publicly owned building argument could be made, but aside from that they are bullshit.
People outside doors annoy me too, but I'm not about to start bitching about it unless they are standing outside my front door. We've slowly raised a nation of pussies that feel entitled to get their way 24/7 regardless of the consequences, repercussions, or effects on others.
Next she is going to tell me I have to serve negros in my restaurant.
You shouldn't have to if you don't want to.
i'm no MD, but i do understand the basic biology of allergies, their causese, and the responses. smoke is not an allergen, period. the end. it is an irritant to all creatures who breath with mucus-lined lungs. no one goes into anaphylaxis because of smoke - tobacco or otherwise.
there are medical conditions that make the inhailation of second hand smoke problematic, but it is not just tobacco smoke that causes an acute physical response but all irritants in general.
Smoke is allergen. An allergy is just an over reaction by the immune system, namely white blood cells, mast cells (histamines) and so on. The body initially encounters the foreign substance and reacts to it by forming an immune response. So the first time the reaction could be and often is normal. The problem is the formulated response may be out of whack with what is needed. So the next time you encounter the allergen or trigger your body freaks the fuck out and shit begins to swell, a result of the mast cells and white cells. The trigger could be anything from particular dust particles, animal dander, or grass. Humans are one fucked up machine.
There is nothing in the linked article about segregated smoking sections within a business establishment,much less the effectiveness thereof.Perhaps I should have challenged your reading comprehension in addition to your understanding of the concept of property rights.
An option I'd like to see in urban areas is rooftop smoking gardens. Make the roofs of buildings publicly accessible, furnish them with shelters against rain, benches to sit on, ashtrays or trash cans to dispose of ashes, and perhaps plants and artwork to make the places pleasant destinations that smokers would WANT to go to smoke.
Do you bring your toddler to your local pub to yuck it up with the boys? That might explain it.
Drunkblogging is now way to live.
H&R : adrenaline :: electronic cigarettes : nicotine.
Variable Potpourri | September 6, 2009, 8:05pm | #
"I thought this was a freethinking kinda place"
It is, if your freethinking is in line with the other freethinkers.
BakedPenguin | September 6, 2009, 10:59pm | #
i for one am apt to be more concerned for people who have a real problem w/ smoke as opposed to those who are just little bitches about it...
in general, i don't like to smoke indoors except at bars where it's allowed.
the other end of the spectrum is downtown events where smoking is banned outside. that is irritating. but i just choose not to go and spend my $ there.
in general, smoking bans are just another form of prohibition, so complaining about their effectiveness and/or results are pretty silly. they will never achieve the desired result that a free market can provide.
so complaining about their effectiveness and/or results are is pretty silly
Thinking a kid can be harmed by a few breaths of smoky air is where VP goes wrong. While I welcome her opinion, she might be better served at that mothering website.
These threads really go downhill fast after the adults go to bed. I thought I was back on Fark for a while.
A PhD in art history takes away 7 years of life from someone and gives nothing of value back. How about a 130% tax on that?
guys, she still hasn't said anything anti-libertarian, and you're frankly being fucking dicks
Pot, Kettle.......
jtuf | September 7, 2009, 11:02am | #
A PhD in art history takes away 7 years of life from someone and gives nothing of value back. How about a 130% tax on that?
Yes, but art history major girls are easy. All of them. Without exception. I have dated a few who in terms of social class, old money, rich important poppa, that sort of thing, would have been well out of my league except their minds were made plasticine by long term exposure to art history.
asshole-allergic | September 6, 2009, 10:44pm | #
Stay home, bubble-boy.
Maturity meter 1, funny meter 11
Funny overrules everything else, especially when it makes people cry.
'It's funny until someone gets hurt, and then it just becomes hilarious.'
-- Bill Hicks
I have two allergies that I am aware of, one is to egg plant which makes my lips swell up to enormous proportions and numbs the inside of my mouth, and, being aprox. 1/16 Mexican this one is a bit ironic, beans which almost killed me as a kid. I don't think I'm missing anything because aesthetically in smell and appearance they are grotesque.
An option I'd like to see in urban areas is rooftop smoking gardens. Make the roofs of buildings publicly accessible, furnish them with shelters against rain, benches to sit on, ashtrays or trash cans to dispose of ashes, and perhaps plants and artwork to make the places pleasant destinations that smokers would WANT to go to smoke.
Well, good luck with your venture there. I assume that is what you meant. Surely you are not suggesting making this idea mandatory for some one else to do with their own money if they are in the restaurant or bar business because such a suggestion would just be stupid with no explanation of the underlying problems in morality or logistics of implementation really being needed. So, I'll assume you are a person of a reasonable sensibility, avoid being insulting, and just say, best of luck.
It's called picking and choosing when to be a dick, and the time isn't when someone is agreeing with you on all politics and merely quibbling with the notion that you can meaningfully segregate smokers without extraordinary measures. So fuck you, Jack.
TAO,
Nah, subtle distinctions are the best time to be a dick. No fun being a dick to Tony, for example.
Yeah, that treatment of Variable Potpourri was a bit much. From what I read, I didn't see anything objectionable outright in the content, and I should emphasize, to the extent I could read it.
She has no feel for the rhythms of the old Saxony so it became more of a puzzle to piece together like code with too many conditional embeds with goto statements thrown in than an agreeable post to read for the pleasure of it. I bet that set robc off more than the content.
It's called picking and choosing when to be a dick, and the time isn't when someone is agreeing with you on all politics and merely quibbling with the notion that you can meaningfully segregate smokers without extraordinary measures.
Certainly some one with as much experience at being a dick as you have would be a good judge. Should all posts be pre-submitted to decide if the person agrees or is nit-picking?
Next time you decide to be the King of the Cock-suckers you need to send the post to me, so I can decide if it is "quibbling" or not.
Fuck you, Jack
Right back at you, shit-head.
Nope. My judgment stands alone - no need for "prejudgment". It was clear that the amount of vitriol directed at VP was unwarranted.
my sister (who is asthmatic) is even worse so. Without an enclosed separate area for smokers, with a separate ventilation system, we CANNOT patronize an establishment that allows smokers. In areas where indoor smoking is allowed, it means we CANNOT socialize with friends (who also do not smoke), because we are subjected to the second-hand smoke.