I find the true hypocrisy is that these ’sins’ are legal only because they create giant amounts of revenue that they often spend on other, non related,programs.

Think of what can be done with these funds if directed at eradicating the health concerns associated with smoking and drinking.

Further more, smokers pay extra for their health insurance too, where drinkers, big mac eaters, chocoholics don’t pay. How’s that “fair”?

RJS2 on March 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM

1) Drining, big macs, and chocolate, in moderation, is not a problem.

2) The over weight pay more in many health insurance plans.

Will the prohibitionists never learn?

Just wait, soon your government will be sending hoards of officials to look in your refrigerator to make sure you are eating healthy.

In Japan, they are measuring waistlines and charging its citizens if the measurement is not within the government’s guidelines. That’s what happens with socialized medicine.
Article

But boy, talk about a third rail. No one’s going to pigpile onto America’s alcohol taxes. How many deaths, traffic accidents, lost work days, assaults, divorces, spousal and child abuse cases are alcohol related each year? I’ll guess that the total cost to our society adds up to way more than caused by smoking.

Everything is “unhealthy” for you and nothing is.

Don’t any of you find it interesting that one week they will day that [insert name of food, drink or activity] is harmful for you then a month or two later they will say that it is not harmful or even healthy for you?

My dad was a smart man. He told me to follow the money on these “scientific studies” and do your own research. He said that the results of the vast majority of these “scientific studies” are more political then scientific and the “results” of the “study” are directly related to who funded them. The louder the media and others “shout” about the results is also a good indicator that the methodology used to conduct the “study” were skewed to lead to a conclusion that the funders of the study desired.

Now…

What I find so hypocritical about these “health nazis” is that there are two very detrimental behaviors that they turn a blind eye to. Ones that if they went after them with the same zeal as they have gone after smoking, trans fats and sugar would save billions in health care costs.

What are those two behaviors?

Drug abuse.

Sexual intercourse outside of the confines of marriage and sodomy.

When you mention these two to any “health nazi” they turn themselves into pretzels trying to make a logical argument to defend their ideas on these two detrimental behaviors.

Another one that turns supporters of nationalized health care and the “OMG you are costing me money because of [insert pet behavior related health care peeve here]” people into pretzels is watching them try to defend the Groningen Protocol, which is where all nationalized health care and it’s allies eventually end up at. I have friends who emigrated from the Netherlands because of their fear that the government would order their autistic son to be euthanized under the Groningen Protocol.

Don’t know what the Groningen Protocol is?

Start here.

Death by Committee
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp?pg=1

Is government’s refusal to consider the depressive effects of taxation stupid or deliberate or stupidly deliberate?

Deliberately stupid is my guess. No one can be that dense by accident.

Think about all the people now on medicare/Medicaid with all kinds of cancers, lung problems, and other ailments caused by smoking. Who is paying for that? Us.

Magnus on March 13, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Yep, and they die sooner using less long term health care; meaning statistically smokers cost less in Medicare, Social Security, Nursing Care, etc. than non-smokers.

Everyone dies eventually, smokers die sooner; meaning overall they tend to actually cost less for taxpayer funded cost-assessment.

Which is cheaper? Me dying of lung cancer at 72, or dying of pancreatic cancer at 93? Yes, in the 65-72 range there is more costs for some smoking related costs; but this is offset by my death preventing the costs for various services for 20-odd years.

But its easy to attack smokers. Oddly overweight tends to carry the same cost/benefit analysis; extra years of life = the same or higher costs overall… and would you be surprised to find that preventative care has higher long-term costs?

Yes, these all help people live longer; and that may be enough benefit; but the costs are either irrelevant, or higher for people who are “healthy” and therefore live longer.

Or would you pay for my lung cancer, but not my pancreatic cancer?

If the government wants to tap a lucrative revenue source they need to put a tax on beer. Say, $0.50 a bottle/can.

After all it would cut down on DUIs, cirrhosis, wife beatin’, the drunk/disorderly crowd in our jails, etc.

Suuuuure.

Does government have the right to coerce you into making the best decision, and to punish you for your own good, if you fail?
OneEyedJack on March 14, 2009 at 1:28 AM

Isn’t is amazing what a bunch of politicians can do with the “provide for the general welfare” clause in the constitution?

You Are Next on the abusive taxing schedual. Feel better now?

Because we give a SCHIP!

2d: all those low income people are really large, have you noticed?

OneEyedJack on March 14, 2009 at 1:28 AM

So, you’ll give up and not fight for liberty because you lost this round?

Personally, I HATE smoke because it irritates the whey out of my eyes, nose, and lungs. However, I support your right to smoke on your property as much as I support my right to establish my property as a no smoking zone. I have plenty of friends and relatives who smoke and I respect their right to do so.

The biggest problem I have with all this is the gov’t deciding what is the best and healthiest. I eat red meat and drink a ton of sodas. I am also healthy, as the physicals prove.
The same government that makes stupid mistakes left and right can decide what is best for me?