8 Comments

If drinking is a right, then paying for the consequences should be the responsibility of the drinker. This can be achieved by taxing the drink by the amount of costs it truly generates.

This is not prohibition. It is the removal of the government subsidy on drinking by not charging for the full cost of each drink.

In addition to standard health costs as in insurance for medical coverage, the cost of the police, prison, the accidents inflicted on others, the loss of work productivity, and the rest of the consequences attributable to each drink. The government should not be allowed to divert the revenue to non-drink costs.

The problem with these arguments about “paying for externalities”, whether they relate to drinking or tobacco or CO2 emissions, or anything wlse, is that they end up being a giant accounting/legal battle, with each side marshalling arguments, many of them specious, for charging (or not charging) every effect they can think of. It all becomes a giant game, and just wastes time and resources. If you want to ban liquor, then just say so.

“If drinking is a right, then paying for the consequences should be the responsibility of the drinker. This can be achieved by taxing the drink by the amount of costs it truly generates.”

Your health insurance covers treatment for cirrhosis of the liver doesn’t it? Knee surgery? A lung transplant? Insulin?

I think your idea to tax risky behaviors is terrific. By defraying the treatment cost of drinking, or skiing, or smoking, or overeating, health insurance premiums can be reduced for everyone. Many other risky behaviors that lead to medical conditions can be identified and taxed, and the taxes used to defray the medical insurance cost.

Done well, the new taxes on risky behaviors will reduce the cost of insurance by a huge amount.

What a great idea!!

Stella, please tell me that you were trying to be sarcastic.

RXC: Neutral experts such as a panel of non-alcoholic, non-teetotaller economists could do the math. Let all sides lobby by submitting valid scientific data. Let the wine industry seek a deduction from the tax for the benefit to heart disease of having a glass of wine daily. Any set tax could be revised every 5 years, and corrected if mistaken.

The low cost of alcohol, relative to its real consequential cost is a stealthy payment from the sober to the besotten. Unless, this transfer serves some clear public purpose, such as keeping sailors from mutiny, it is a form of welfare and a non-legislated tax.

And I do favor a total ban, with draconian penalties for bootleggers, as long as less dangerous substances such as cocaine and marijuana are banned. The inconsistency undermines the confidence in the law. A total ban is not realistic at this time. Nor would I seek to impose it on an unpersuaded public, as in the past.

I don’t understand why it isn’t within a person’s rights to do drugs. Aren’t the drug laws unconstitutional? Can any lawyers explain?

SC,

That argument would fairly easily apply to a great many things, not to mention your extreme naivete (or supreme optimism) regarding how such a tax would be work in actual fact (can you say POLITiCS?).

The fact of the matter is that the cost of alcohol actually IS low: it is quite easy to produce. The actions of some PEOPLE are a drain on the public coffer, but that applies to a great many things besides alcohol as well.

AA,

“I don’t understand why it isn’t within a person’s rights to do drugs.”

While IANAL, etc, etc, one very strong argument for the rigorous restriction of certain drugs is that our system of government depends upon the (at least mostly) rational behaviour of our citizens. Personally, I would favor the “drug hotel” option, where you can have whatever you can afford, but to do so, you must check in, and you are only allowed out once the mind-altering effects have subsided. Of course, that wouldn’t solve ALL problems (LSD comes to mind, as its effcts are never completely gone), but it would help rather a lot, I would think.

Thanks for replying. Still, the drug hotel notion seems a big drastic. I have productive friends (an inventor/professor at a prestigious university) who unwind with a joint. I don’t smoke pot, as it makes me comatose and ragingly hungry, but if I wanted to use pot or any other drug in my home, why should that be a problem?

I have taken LSD in a “controlled environment,” but I did that by choice. As for the notion that “its effects are never completely gone,” isn’t that sensationalism of the anti-drug crowd?

The truth is, hallucinogens and pot can offer relief to people with psychological problems or pain. But, our national discussion about drugs stops at “Just say no” — which is just moronic.