March 12, 2002

8:44 AM

Obesity Harder on Health Than Smokingaccording to a RAND study of 10,000 adults released today. "The study found that obesity -- linked to health complications including diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, strokes and certain cancers -- raises a person's healthcare costs by 36 percent and medication costs by 77 percent. [...] In terms of dollar amounts, the study found that obesity raised healthcare costs by an average of $395 a year, while smoking increased costs by $230 and heavy drinking is associated with a $150 annual increase."
posted by NortonDC (48 comments total)

Let these please NOT turn into another thread where "fat " people are intrinsically flawed and lazy. Again, I feel a more correct expression of this issue is:

If you are prone to such diseases as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, being overweight is a factor that can exacerbate your risk. My father was slim, and a runner. Never overweight in his life. He died at 39. He had high blood pressure and cholesterol. I am a woman 44, obese (by BMI standards) with low/normal blood pressure, Cholesterol of 150-175, no history of diabetes in the family, and a family tree full of women that are built like me that live healthfully, well into their 90's.
posted by Red58 at 8:58 AM on March 12, 2002

So I luck-out, being a slim-trim (for my height) smoker? Woohoo! *lights cigarette* Take that!
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:06 AM on March 12, 2002

People with a body mass index -- a measure of weight in relation to height
This seems to be a pretty poor measure of fitness. Somebody can be lean and muscle bound, yet be considered obese by the BMI test.

Does this study take into account that people tend to weigh more with age? Is age really the biggest factor here? Smoking and Drinking probably drop off with age. Thus these results could be more a factor of people who are overweight tend to be older and the smokers/drinkers tend to be younger. Correlation does not imply causation.
posted by jeblis at 9:07 AM on March 12, 2002

jeblis:

Does this study take into account that people tend to weigh more with age? Is age really the biggest factor here?

that's always been my problem with media reports on journal articles, jeblis. it's very easy to gloss over important details in the effort to present the main conclusion of the paper.
posted by moz at 9:28 AM on March 12, 2002

So are we gonna see "obesity taxes" like the "smokers taxes" that have been all the rage in recent years? I mean, my insurance premiums subsidize their health care... right? The gubmint's gonna sue McDonald's and Tastykake to recover some of the costs of medical treatment of obese people... right? McDonald's and Tastykake will then be forced to raise prices to discourage people from harming themselves by partaking, and that's gonna work really amazingly well, because economics always can triumph over addiction/hunger... right? ... is this thing on?

(Clarification for when this post invariably spawns much victimized wailing and protest: I'm not serious; someone had to say it; I don't believe you'd all be skinny if you just ate more greens; and I'm not anti-large-person but rather anti-singling-out-smokers-as-the-sole-cause-of-escalating-collective-health-care-costs.)
posted by Sapphireblue at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2002

Sapphireblue - Are you anti-reading-the-link? The "Twinkie Tax" prospect is specifically addressed, and dismissed, in the article.
posted by NortonDC at 10:03 AM on March 12, 2002

Norton: Dismissed? Not to my satisfaction. I would like to see this proof they think they have about how raising costs deters smoking. I mean, it's an addiction or it's not.

And anyway, I'm less outraged by the consumer taxes, on smokes or food, than I am by the idea that a bunch of states were able to *sue cigarette makers* for selling a legal product that, sure, cause health problems, but then---here's my point, not to be redundant---so do Twinkies. That angle isn't so much as mentioned in the article. Much less dismissed.

Are you anti-thinking-beyond-the-exact-text-of-the-link-to-very-very-slightly-larger-implications?
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:15 AM on March 12, 2002

Meanwhile, corporate scientists, slaving feverishly in their tobacco labs to invent a butt thats not just good but good for you, close in on (a markleting) success!
(I guess this means marboro lights were just low cal?)
posted by BentPenguin at 10:28 AM on March 12, 2002

I would like to see this proof they think they have about how raising costs deters smoking. I mean, it's an addiction or it's not.


I had understood the evidence to be that high cigarette taxes are effective as a deterrent only among teenagers who are the most sensitive to cost pressures. The "it's an addiction or it's not", while true, seems not especially relevant. If you make it so that fifteen year olds can't afford to buy cigarettes, they're less likely to become addicted in the first place. Unless it's your contention that a single puff or exposure to second hand smoke is enough.

OTOH, it's kind of silly to pretend that the cigarette taxes are there to prevent smoking. They're there to raise revenue.
posted by anapestic at 10:30 AM on March 12, 2002

Ha ha. Nice use of hyphenation, Sapphire Blue.

I'm glad I saw this link because I never knew there was a Sugar Association. Their website is hilarious! Look: carbohydrates are a dieter's best friend!

They also claim most Americans use sugars "moderately," which could fool the USDA which claimed in 1999 that American's eat double the recommendation.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:35 AM on March 12, 2002

Sapphireblue, there are clear differences between twinkies and cigarettes. First, twinkies are not addictive (somebody is going to mention carbohydrate addiction, I know...but come on). Secondly, the manufacturer of twinkies did not hide evidence that twinkies were dangerous, and they never told people of the health benfits of high fat foods.

Plus, twinkies don't make people obese. A lot of factors combine to do it, but the blame can't really be placed on food.
posted by Doug at 10:53 AM on March 12, 2002

Obesity raised healthcare costs by an average of $395 a year, while smoking increased costs by $230 and heavy drinking is associated with a $150 annual increase.

But food is probably cheaper than cigarettes or alcohal, no? So which has greater cumulative costs? My guess: I bet that heavy drinking is the most expensive.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:53 AM on March 12, 2002

Doug: First, twinkies are not addictive (somebody is going to mention carbohydrate addiction, I know...but come on).

I'm sorry, but it really is not as simple as you think. Many people's obesity is linked to a blood sugar imbalance, and that's where the carb addiction comes from. Your body may not crave another twinkie specifically, but it does get to crave a quick sugar fix.

...although I'm certainly not saying that Dolly Madison should be the target of a class-action lawsuit from a bunch of fat people.
posted by bingo at 11:02 AM on March 12, 2002

jeblis: A brief of the RAND report, which is published in full in the journals Public Health and Health Affairs (you have to pay $9.95 if you want the article), can be found here. Anyway, the researchers used the body-mass index as a means of measuring obesity. This is far from the only indicator, though, and differs somewhat from several used by the U.S. government, including the military (these are accurate, despite the source). The Army and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics desirable weights increase with age. By almost every possible meaure, though, obsesity has increased rather seriously in the U.S. in recent times.
posted by raysmj at 11:10 AM on March 12, 2002

(just in case anyone missed it, we recently had the argument on whether obesity is all about bad eating habits/laziness vs. genetics or other factors. it's a long, thorough thread with all sorts of points I would never have thought of; let's not rehash it here. not that anyone is. just sayin'.)
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:25 AM on March 12, 2002

Sapphireblue - Are you anti-thinking-beyond-the-exact-text-of-the-link-to-very-very-slightly-larger-implications?

No, but I am against (my own or others) making uninformed comments because they can't be bothered to read what they're commenting on. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong and you did read the entire article before your original comment. I won't contradict you.

croutonsupafreak - But food is probably cheaper than cigarettes or alcohal, no?

Uh, I suppose it's possible someone could smoke enough cigarettes that they spend more on them than food, but I doubt they could keep it up for long.
posted by NortonDC at 11:34 AM on March 12, 2002

Norton: You're wrong, and I hate that too. When people do it. Which I didn't.

Commence panty-unbunching.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:50 AM on March 12, 2002

I suppose it's possible someone could smoke enough cigarettes that they spend more on them than food, but I doubt they could keep it up for long.

Sorry to push things further off topic, but how much does a pack of cigarettes cost? Something like $2.50? How many packs do serious smokers smoke a day? One or two or three? I'm asking seriously, because I've never smoked and don't know much about it, but NortonDC's comment has got me wondering if I could spend the same or less on food. If smoking costs about $5 a day I think I probably could. Be an interesting experiment.
posted by JanetLand at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2002

So obviously states shoulds start taxing foods by an extra 20-30% and use the revenue for anti-obesity public service announcements, plugging their budget deficits, and interest group subsidies....right? But only after manufacturers like Frito-Lay or General Mills are directly sued. I mean, they're obviously targetting kids. Look at Chester Cheetah or Lucky the Leprechaun. As moral citizens we owe it to the children to hold these predatory corporations responsible for turning them into sedentary blobs of saturated fat.
posted by rhizome23 at 12:05 PM on March 12, 2002

I love you, rhizome23.
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:13 PM on March 12, 2002

There are European countries where it is illegal to advertise to children, correct?
posted by NortonDC at 12:20 PM on March 12, 2002

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Twinkie-oriented Truth.com spots.
posted by UncleFes at 12:22 PM on March 12, 2002

JanetLand, this smoker goes through about a pack a day, but plenty of others are more hardcore. Cigarettes here in Seattle are about to top $6 a pack (memo to myself: Jesus Leg-Fucking Christ! Quit, you moron!), but you can find them cheaper in smoke shops or the like if you look around.
posted by Skot at 12:27 PM on March 12, 2002

Without actually being able to read the study (which I was unable to find online), it's hard to say what this really means, especially since the costs of obesity are being arbitrarily compared to the cost of "sins" such as drinking and smoking. (Well, it's not arbitrary at all; it's the perfect way to get more press attention for your study, which is the ultimate goal of the average academic.) There are plenty of other medical problems on the decline as well that the authors could have used for comparison, if they're so worried that not enough money is being spent on this problem.

As for the study itself: There aren't many medications people get prescribed for being smokers or drinkers, for example. But an obese person could get prescribed pills for cholesterol, appetite control, blood pressure, arthritis, etc. In short, the obese "get more healthcare" and spend more on it because they actually get treated for the associated problems. (And I will point out, again, that the links being obesity and other deadly health problems have never been proven to be anywhere near as direct as everyone assumes they are; see below.) Smokers and drinkers largely do not, until they get lung problems, heart disease, cirrhosis, etc decades into their use of those products. But if you gain 100 pounds in the course of nine months and then go to the doctor, you can bet you'll be on a good $300-500/month (retail, certainly not what you'd pay with insurance, but undoubtably the numbers the authors are using) worth of medications after your very first visit. This is so obvious that I'm amazed anyone's taking this comparison seriously. You might as well compare the costs of obesity to the costs of Alzheimer's.

Now, again, The New England Journal of Medicine:

The data linking overweight and death ... are limited, fragmentary, and often ambiguous. Most of the evidence is either indirect or derived from [studies with] serious methodologic flaws. Many studies fail to consider confounding variables, which are extremely difficult to assess and control — Thus, although some claim that every year 300,000 deaths — are caused by obesity, that figure is by no means well established.

And yes, I know that death != all chronic health conditions. But this shows that every study about the costs of obesity - physical and montary - are almost invariably overstated. Is obesity a physical problem? For many, yes. Does treating it cost money? Of course. Is this studying using some assumptions and scare tactics to emphasize its point? Yup.
posted by aaron at 12:31 PM on March 12, 2002

Sorry to push things further off topic, but how much does a pack of cigarettes cost? Something like $2.50? How many packs do serious smokers smoke a day? One or two or three?

The cost depends on where you live. In NYC it's more like $5 a pack, and there are a lot more FIVE-PACK-A-DAY smokers out there than you'd think. I would guesstimate the average heavy smoker goes through at least two a day. When I was in NYC, my food costs generally balanced out to $10-20 a day unless I was going though a crazy dining-out-every-night phase, so there's your answer. The amount a really crazy smoker spends on cigarettes would rarely if ever be way more than he spent on food, but he could certainly work out a pretty decent balance on the cost of both categories.
posted by aaron at 12:39 PM on March 12, 2002

Here, cigarettes cost $5.50 or more, plus tax. I smoke about a 3/4 to 1 pack a day. No, I don't usually spend more on cigarettes than I do on food but, on some days -- when I work a lot -- I do end-up smoking more money away than eating it.

On topic: I think both problems; obesity & smoking, should be dealt with. I don't enjoy smoking -- I do it because I have to. Until cigarettes are banned entirely, I'll probably continue to smoke, despite my best efforts.

Don't ask me how to deal with obesity, although I think taxes would help. Ultimately, people have to eat less. It doesn't matter what you eat, for the most part, as long as you eat well. For a lethargic smoker, I do fairly well at 6' and 205 lbs. It's all about balance. And not stuffing your face every meal. Still, if people want to be obese, let them -- as long as they don't expect special privilages or rights. You make your bed, you lie in it. I smoke, I know I'm going to get sick (possibly die if I don't quit), but that is a choice I have made. I'm not going to sue tobacco companies for the "pain" they've caused me -- I caused it myself.

If you want to be obese, then be obese. Just don't whine about it when it becomes inconvenient. Same with the smokers. Same with everyone, now that I think about it.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:44 PM on March 12, 2002

You know, I don't see why it's so crazy to tax junk food to help pay for the damage it does. Yeah, I know, fat people often have genetic predisposition, different shaped bodies, etc etc, but the fact remains, in cultures where people exercise as a part of life (e.g., no cars, plow the fields, work = manual labor of some kind) and eat what grows in their fields, they are less fat than in cultures where work=sitting in front of computers and food is junk, full of refined sugars, etc. On an individual level, people may not be specifically responsible, but on a cultural level, we are absolutely responsible.

Encouraging bike riding, walking, taking the stairs, etc, as a normal part of life (rather than attempting to push the gym membership angle on people who just don't get into it) makes sense, and taxing foods that are fundamentally not good for you (e.g., twinkies) does too. Sure, people like to do things that may not be good for them - drinking, smoking, eating junk food, doing drugs, etc, are all "guilty pleasures". And all of them are in a way our fault and in a way not.

Some people are genetically more prone to addiction or even just enjoyment of these things than other people. I used to smoke casually but never had a problem giving it up, or just smoking on weekends or whatever; same with my sister, my brother, and my grandmother. But I've seen people go through the horrendous process of quitting when they really feel addicted, too, so I recognize I was just genetically lucky on that count. I imagine it's similar with overeating / eating junk food. But just because it's harder for some people to be in good shape (I just mean, eat well & exercise, not be a size 6 or whatever's considered "normal") doesn't mean we should just ignore the problem.
posted by mdn at 12:45 PM on March 12, 2002

Geez, cigarettes cost way the heck more than I thought . . . . one pack, $5- $6 per day is around $2000 a year, which is about $38 a week, and I'm pretty sure I can easily eat reasonably well for half that, maybe even less. 'Course, I live in a considerably cheaper town than NYC.

[will now creep softly away and let things return to the health/taxation/addition issues.]
posted by JanetLand at 1:03 PM on March 12, 2002

Somehow, reading this thread, the word twinkie came into my head, and I went downstairs to find one, despite the beef fat that I technically don't eat, anyway - the convenience store at the bottom of my building doesn't carry twinkies, so I made due with rollos.
posted by goneill at 1:10 PM on March 12, 2002

do.
posted by goneill at 1:10 PM on March 12, 2002

i think its worth pointing out that the higher health care costs that result from various unhealthy behaviors are often overstated, particularly in unsophisticated media reports. In the short term, unhealthy people unquestionably do raise health care costs, but this has to be balanced against the fact that unhealthy people die younger than healthy people so there is less time for them to consume health care resources. Thus, a healthy person that lives to be 90 can easily consume far more resources than obese smoker that dies at 50, even when a chronic condition is involved.

obviously, having people die at 50 imposes lots of non-monetary social costs that can't be captured by a purely economic analysis. but, one ought to be skeptical whenever anyone starts talking about a simple correlation between health care costs and health.
posted by boltman at 1:30 PM on March 12, 2002

You know, I don't see why it's so crazy to tax junk food to help pay for the damage it does.

I can think of three reasons off the top of my head:

1) It goes against conservative principles. Government as nanny state is bad, period. I don't care if overall health care costs end up ten times higher, or 100 times higher, than they would be if the Government controlled every aspect of our lives through such taxation (or any other finanicial "inducements"). Our individual freedoms are far more important than money.

2) The Slippery Slope argument. Before, it was cigarettes and alcohol. Now it's starting to be "unhealthy foods." Eventually, if you allow this to continue, they'll come after something you like to do. Perhaps government-mandated sensors built into cars that refuse to allow them to accelerate past 70 mph. Maybe a federal ban on mountain-climbing because the good it gives to society is nonexistent, while the cost to the government of saving those mountain-climbers that screw up and get trapped or hurt is immense.

3) It doesn't work. The taxes recovered to "pay for the health costs of Bad Habit X" almost never end up going to pay for those health costs. They end up getting dumped into the federal government's or states' general funds, in order to cover up some alleged "shortfall" from some other area, and end up doing not a damn thing to help alleviate the health costs of Bad Habit X. This is precisely what is happening with most of the cigarette taxes enacted over the last decade for the express purpose of "paying for the extra costs of smokers' health care;" they're ending up being used to pave highways instead. These taxes are scams.
posted by aaron at 1:50 PM on March 12, 2002

Well, I'd much rather encounter second-hand smoke than second-hand Twinkies ANY day.
posted by groundhog at 2:27 PM on March 12, 2002

Wait, wait... before we shore up the slippery slope, I'd like a tax on people who subject me to second-hand television. Or maybe send the bill straight to the networks... Teevee is very much like cigarettes, in that if there's one in operation anywhere in the immediate vicinity, you're subjected to it whether you like it or not. It's not so bad for your lungs, but in massive doses, is a fearsome destroyer of brain cells.

But after we get TV banned in public places, at that point, I agree wholeheartedly with aaron.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:43 PM on March 12, 2002

Aaron, I think that you forgot number 4) A consciderable amount of the "health care costs" accrued due to (somebody's idea of) poor behavior are not paid by taxpayers, but by those who patronize insurance companies. Hence, these taxes truly are scams, because much of the money does not go back to alleviating the burden of those who pay for the consequences of Bad Habit X. The insurance industry protects margins, Govt.s pad their operating budget, and those in disfavor at the moment pay prohibitively more for the social services of all. And, since there is no corresponding social or financial feedback (lower overall health costs), the political agenda remains to "vilify" more. Overall smoking continues to decrease as tobacco taxes have skyrocketed. How many people here have seen a decrease in their insurance rates or an increase in their benifits (from the same plan of course)?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:46 PM on March 12, 2002

I say tax all food to the max. It's not as though you have to eat.
posted by Summer at 2:55 PM on March 12, 2002

Wulfgar! - Quit smoking and your insurance rates will go down. How that says anything about the legitimacy of taxation escapes me.
posted by NortonDC at 4:21 PM on March 12, 2002

Amazingly enough, NortonDC, no, they won't. I pay the same as my non smoking collegues. (Just an aside, I'm trying yet again to quit smoking, and I've lost thirty pounds and 17 points of colesterol in the last 2 months. It won't affect my insurance rates one iota. It should be noted that we're talking about health insurance, not life insurance, for which there is a reduced cost if you are a non-smoker.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:36 PM on March 12, 2002

Good luck beating the smokes, Wulfgar! Get ready to rediscover how food really tastes.
posted by NortonDC at 7:15 PM on March 12, 2002

You know, I don't see why it's so crazy to tax junk food to help pay for the damage it does.

In addition to the four excellent points already named, there is this simple point -- it is still food, and still has some nutritive value. In addition, it is completely possible to enjoy a Big Mac, Twinkie or Snickers on occasion and remain a perfectly healthy and normal weight person, just as it is possible to enjoy a glass of wine each day without becoming an alcoholic or experiencing ill effects. (I'm eliminating cigarettes for the obvious reasons.) It only does damage to those who are irresponsible with it, to levy a tax on everyone in response will do nothing to change that.
posted by Dreama at 8:11 PM on March 12, 2002

1) It goes against conservative principles. Government as nanny state is bad, period.

Those are "libertarian," "neo-liberal" or "classic liberal" principles, not conservative principles, if you're talking Burkean "principles" here.
posted by raysmj at 8:26 PM on March 12, 2002

1) It goes against conservative principles. Government as nanny state is bad, period...Our individual freedoms are far more important than money.

Well, one would hate to go against "conservative principles".

If any.

But I digress, as usual. We were talking about the "nanny state" argument: "Nanny" - someone who makes someone do something they don't like to do.

Would someone explain to me how this argument is different from a 10 year old whining "you're not my mommy and you can't make me!"

Hmmmm..."nannies". I did find this obscure little "nanny" document:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I guess you smokers are going to have to take up your complaint with the founding "nannies".

2) The Slippery Slope argument. Before, it was cigarettes and alcohol. Now it's starting to be "unhealthy foods." Eventually, if you allow this to continue, they'll come after something you like to do.

Who is "they"? Where I'm from, voters overwhelmingly approve restrictions on smoking, and polls typically show widespread support for increased taxes on smoking.

But I suppose I should really watch myself on this slope. I know I've had the urge to huff paint in restaurants a lot. I hate it when the other patrons get mad about the second hand fumes. I'd sure hate to have that important freedom curtailed. We smokers and paint huffers are the vanguards of civil liberties, you know.

3) It doesn't work. The taxes recovered to "pay for the health costs of Bad Habit X" almost never end up going to pay for those health costs. They end up getting dumped into the federal government's or states' general funds, in order to cover up some alleged "shortfall" from some other area, and end up doing not a damn thing to help alleviate the health costs of Bad Habit X.

Actually, taxes "work" well. They have been shown to be one of the best ways to discourage this addiction that costs so many lives and so much money. And, as usual, the only folks that complain about the taxes are the addicts and those who make a living off addicting people. I say if there are problems with the taxes (if any), then we'll fix the tax distribution. But high taxes on cigarettes are an excellent idea.

Don't like those high taxes? Stop smoking.

Ah, I know what you're thinking, you rascals. "But foldy, it tastes good...we don't want to quit."

Oh. I always forget that one overriding principle, apparently a universal rationale in some lives.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:03 AM on March 13, 2002

I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying the occasional junk-food indulgence, but I'm certainly not opposed to a "luxury tax" on it either.

How can we blame America's rampant obesity on the general populace (who have been taught next to nothing about good nutrition) when healthy, environmentally-sustainable food retails for markedly more than a $0.99 Big Mac? While that Big Mac might be cheaper to produce in the short-term thanks to economies of scale and the transfer of true cost elsewhere, the long-term effects are devastating both for the planet's health and our own.

Luxuries should be taxed more than essentials, and those taxes should help to offset the costs of producing said essentials. I don't mean to demonize the Big Mac (Mmmm, Big Macs), but anything that heinous for your health shouldn't become a dietary staple due simply to economic neccesity.
posted by johnnyace at 12:18 AM on March 13, 2002

> Here, cigarettes cost $5.50 or more, plus tax.

Yikes! They cost about $1.35 US here for the western brands. A half-liter glass of good beer costs about $1.70.

Go east, young man.
posted by pracowity at 12:34 AM on March 13, 2002

1) Government as nanny state is bad, period. I don't care if overall health care costs end up 100 times higher, than they would be if the Government controlled every aspect of our lives through such taxation (or any other finanicial "inducements").

incentives? That's the beauty of taxes though - they don't control you. You are still welcome to buy the junk food, but if health food is subsidized by the taxes imposed on junk, then you can make a truly free choice - you can buy what you actually want to ingest, not the faster, cheaper, more promoted option.

Our individual freedoms are far more important than money.

To suggest that you make choices independent of "incentives" is ridiculous - it's just whether those incentives are provided by companies trying to make money off you or by the citizens of the country to which you belong attempting to make things better for themselves. Your individual freedoms suffer more through the market manipulations of giant corporations.

2) The Slippery Slope argument. Before, it was cigarettes and alcohol. Now it's starting to be "unhealthy foods." Eventually, if you allow this to continue, they'll come after something you like to do.

who's "they"? You live in a democracy, aaron. Anyway, I don't have a problem with taxes that would encourage me to live better. yeah, when they first started putting heavy taxes on cigarettes, I was still smoking on occasion, and I was annoyed by the price increase (the cost has at least doubled since I used to buy...) There were lots of factors that led to my stopping, including serious (unrelated) health issues, but cost was among them. Though I didn't especially like it at the time, looking back I'm glad. And I like chocolate a lot. But moderation is good, and luxury taxes are a good way to encourage this.

Perhaps government-mandated sensors built into cars that refuse to allow them to accelerate past 70 mph. Maybe a federal ban on mountain-climbing because the good it gives to society is nonexistent, while the cost to the government of saving those mountain-climbers that screw up and get trapped or hurt is immense.

banning is a different thing from imposing taxes or fines. There are already fines for people who accelerate past 70 mph. Don't know anything about mountain climbing issues.

3) It doesn't work. The taxes recovered to "pay for the health costs of Bad Habit X" almost never end up going to pay for those health costs.

Is the gov't paying those health costs? Then the taxes are paying for it. [of course, the gov't only pays for a small percentage of those costs; it's up to insurance companies to request higher premiums from smokers to make up for their costs, if they want to] Following individual dollars around is pointless. And the cig taxes, combined with general social pressure etc, has cut smoking down. I think it works quite well.
posted by mdn at 12:40 PM on March 13, 2002

You (in general) are assuming that obesity = eating junk food.

I'm obese (if you go by the BMI standard) and I fricking hate Twinkies. I was a vegetarian for 7 years, during which I gained weight faster than when I wasn't.

If you think you can tax people into good health, then find a way to tax people who don't exercise.
posted by Foosnark at 10:00 AM on March 14, 2002

There's no meat in chocolate. Vegetarian does not equal slender, trust me.
posted by NortonDC at 3:08 PM on March 14, 2002

You (in general) are assuming that obesity = eating junk food. I'm obese (if you go by the BMI standard) and I fricking hate Twinkies.

If your diet has nothing to do with your weight, you are an exception. In general, obesity is the result of unhealthy eating and not exercising enough. This is shown to be true culturally. Sedentary cultures where processed foods are cheap & easy to obtain, are fatter than places where food requires plowing or hunting - which means, a)you exercise to get it b) it's not so easy to get that you eat it endlessly and c) it's not processed or refined or filled with sugars etc.

As I said earlier, yes, we all have different genetic predispositions. Some people can eat McDonald's and TAco Bell regularly, and use their car to go anywhere beyond the end of the driveway, and still remain slim. Some people can live on fresh organic food, walk everywhere and jog a few miles a few times a week and still be overweight. BUT if you look at the two groups, those two lifestyles, can you honestly imagine that the percentage of obese people in them is the same? Of course not.

Vegetarians can certainly be overweight, especially if they live off french fries, mac 'n' cheese and ice cream. Again: some people may be worse off on brown rice and kale than seafood or low fat beef; everyone has a different metabolism. But no one's gonna be better off on McDonald's & Doritos than off fresh unprocessed food.

If you think you can tax people into good health, then find a way to tax people who don't exercise.

I think it would be reasonable to subsidize / tax refund people who use bikes/rollerblades instead of cars. Good for pollution issues too, which is everyone's problem (whether we add to it or not).
posted by mdn at 10:28 AM on March 15, 2002