Why should I, a non-smoker, be so vehemently opposed to Pittsburgh's proposed smoking ban? It ultimately comes down to a firm belief that the government should not intervene in such personal decisions, and fears that it will not--in fact cannot--stop there.
This usually brings guffaws: "Jeez, there goes the paranoid libertarian again. Ha ha. What a gas! Like the government is ever going to manaeuver for that much power."
Well, let's see what Paul Krugman has to say in today's New York Times [emphasis added].
The obvious model for those hoping to reverse the fattening of America is the campaign against smoking. Before the surgeon general officially condemned smoking in 1964, rising cigarette consumption seemed an unstoppable trend; since then, consumption per capita has fallen more than 50 percent. ...
How can medical experts who see obesity as a critical problem deal with an ideological landscape tilted in the direction of doing nothing?
One answer is to focus on the financial costs of obesity, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the obese individuals themselves. (To their credit, the authors of the Amber Waves article do mention this issue, although they play it down.)
It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.
For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.
And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.
Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.
Perhaps the libertarians look a little less paranoid now. What, exactly, is he proposing? I'm sure it's no good. And I am just as certain he will win. It is a sad state of affairs.
And it is directly related to the proposed smoking ban. Allow me to reiterate: The ban is not about protecting bartenders from smokers. It's about protecting you from yourself. If ban supporters would only admit that, I would respect them a whole lot more. (Or disrespect them a whole lot less, I suppose.)
Either way, no thanks Mr. Krugman, you ridiculous turd.
And to those who support the smoking ban for purely selfish reasons (Come on. Admit it. There are a lot of you out there.) I only ask that you consider SOME kind of compromise. Keep in mind that the way the ban is playing out, supporters will not accept tax incentives to bars that go smoke free or other creative measures. They are insisting on a ban in all public places (although I object to the notion that a bar is a "public" place).
So are you prepared to divert police resources away from violence-plagued neighborhoods so detectives can look into who's smoking and eating the right thing in the right place--all so your smug self doesn't have to dry clean your cashmere and khakis after a night on the town? That's not a paranoid rant. That's the future.
As Mr. Krugman says, "There are situations in which 'free to choose' is all wrong."
So is an economics professor in a better position than you are to decide what you choose to eat and smoke? Paul Krugman thinks so. And so do ban supporters.
Shame on them.
Krugman shares many great views on health coverage and how if affects society.
Posted by: Blue Cross of California | December 08, 2005 at 06:44 PM