Piers Morgan on Bloomberg’s soda ban: “I think people need the nanny state occasionally”

posted at 12:41 pm on March 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via NRO, which not only cut the clip but snagged this ode to petty for-your-own-good authoritarianism from Morgan’s Twitter account:

“I think people need the nanny state occasionally,” he says. I say: Define “occasionally.” As with his crusade against “assault weapons,” his rhetoric frequently betrays much grander regulatory ambitions than what he’s ostensibly arguing for. If you’re going to give government a mandate to “make the populace healthier,” there’s no way you’re going to stop at a half-assed, almost completely arbitrary restriction on soda portions. You’re going to go further. What I want to know is, how much? Where is the point, whether on guns or on nutrition, where this guy thinks the average individual can be trusted? No one seriously believes Bloomy’s soda ban will do much to improve New Yorkers’ health. If you’re serious about that, you have to do more. If he’s unwilling to draw a line, then the only conclusion is that he’s following the same incrementalist strategy towards a far-left outcome as Jan Schakowsky.

By the way, his guest here, who spends three minutes gently pushing back against the food police, is no Republican. That’s Christine Quinn — loyal Democrat, usually loyal Bloomberg ally, current president of the New York City Council, and quite possibly Bloomy’s successor as mayor. This is why I said in yesterday’s post that the court ruling is a big deal. In most cases, he’d simply get the city legislature to hand him the power he’s asking for. Not this time. Maybe.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

…maybe its time for people to wake up, remember that, and put boots to some of our own politicians’ @$$e$!?
(PSA:….’figuratively speaking’….)

easyt65 on March 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Qui nannies in nannies?

(Who nannies the nannies?)

ProfShadow on March 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM

If a Mayor can’t do things to make his city’s populace healthier – what’s the point of his job?

To govern, you limey moron, not to use the government’s monopoly on force to strong arm people into living their lives according to his standards and values. You really don’t get that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness stuff, do you?

RadClown on March 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Can you imagine in any other age a man saying that he has a “Mommy need” and not being ridiculed.

He is th very essence of a Poltroon. (look it up)

Bulletchaser on March 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM

No one seriously believes Bloomy’s soda ban will do much to improve New Yorkers’ health. If you’re serious about that, you have to do more.

Bans are ridiculous. If you want to affect behavior, taxes are a more reasonable path to follow. For states facing an unacceptable increase in obesity and/or child diabetes, other countries have found that higher taxes on certain products do influence buying decisions. Just as tobacco and alcohol taxes have cut back on general consumption of some products, the same rule can be applied to sugar… although it’s too early to categorize sugar as a comparable threat to human health (although some researches already conclude it is).

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Morgan’s found his niche: professional troll. He just picks out liberal positions that have sub-25% levels of support in the US and comes out strongly in support of them. Keeps him in the news.

LukeinNE on March 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM

The Obamacare Tax Penalty opened the door for the Federal Government to levy all kinds of taxes design to be ‘negativwe re-enforcement’ to do just that — strong arm people into living their lives according to the govt’s standards, values, and ideological agenda. A ‘fat tax’ has already been proposed to be placed on ‘junk food’. I read Libs are drafting an Ammunition Tax intended to ‘punish’ anyone from buying ammo for the guns the govt can’t outlaw. Get ready for more and more….

easyt65 on March 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Many of you want the govt to be in charge of pregnancy, so your hypocrisy is amusing.

Nanny state, indeed.

Moesart on March 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Here’s some hypocrisy for you:

Noted Climate Change Crusader Has A/C Window Unit Installed On His SUV/Limo To “Beat The Heat”

Nanny state hypocrisy, indeed.

:-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:09 PM

. If you want to affect behavior, taxes are a more reasonable path to follow. For states facing an unacceptable increase in obesity and/or child diabetes, other countries have found that higher taxes on certain products do influence buying decisions.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM

What happened to Denmark’s “Fat Tax”?

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Mayors are not elected to be my physician. Nor do we need him for an education secretary. Just keep the potholes fixed and keep the subway running on time.

Otherwise, SHUTUP!!!

artman1746 on March 12, 2013 at 3:15 PM

If a Mayor can’t do things to make his city’s populace healthier – what’s the point of his job?

Any other Community fans out there? Dean’s “It looks like my news has incited some doings and if that’s not my job, what is?” answered with, “Well, you’re also supposed to… administrate the school.”

calbear on March 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

It must be a bit%h, coming all the way across the pond to escape pissants like Morgan, and he makes the same leap.

:O| <—– Resist We Much

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Denmark said Saturday it would scrap a fat tax it introduced a little over a year ago in a world first, saying the measure was costly and failed to change Danes’ eating habits.

“The fat tax and the extension of the chocolate tax — the so-called sugar tax — has been criticised for increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies’ administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk,” the Danish tax ministry said in a statement.

“At the same time it is believed that the fat tax has, to a lesser extent, contributed to Danes travelling across the border to make purchases,” it added.

“Against this background, the government and the (far-left) Red Green Party have agreed to abolish the fat tax and cancel the planned sugar tax,” the ministry said.

Denmark’s centre-left minority government is made up of the Social Democrats, Social Liberals and Socialist People’s Party, and requires support from other parties to pass legislation in parliament.

The government and the Red Greens reached the agreement as part of their negotiations on the 2013 budget bill.

The previous right-wing government introduced the fat tax in October 2011 to limit the population’s intake of fatty foods.

According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47 percent of Danes are overweight and 13 percent are obese.

“Now we need to try to do something else to address public health,” Food Minister Mette Gjerskov said, news agency Ritzau reported.

The fat tax has been levied on all products containing saturated fats — from butter and milk to pizzas, oils, meats and pre-cooked foods — in a costing system that Denmark’s Confederation of Industries has described as a bureaucratic nightmare for producers and outlets.

The measure added 16 kroner per kilo of saturated fats in a product.

So, let’s review: Taxes that are designed to change people’s behaviour:

1. Don’t work;

2. Are a bureaucratic nightmare for business; and

3. Cost jobs.

Now, if you are a deranged Socialist or an Absolute Shall with Borderline Puritan Disorder (BPD), then, well, none of that matters. So, damn the fat & sugar tax torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM

. If you want to affect behavior, taxes are a more reasonable path to follow. For states facing an unacceptable increase in obesity and/or child diabetes, other countries have found that higher taxes on certain products do influence buying decisions.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Did your taxes go up fighting the AIDS epidemic?

hawkdriver on March 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM

It must be a bit%h, coming all the way across the pond to escape pissants like Morgan, and he makes the same leap.

:O| <—– Resist We Much

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Yeah, but unlike Morgan, I am still welcomed in Britain! LOL!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Mayors are not elected to be my physician. Nor do we need him for an education secretary. Just keep the potholes fixed and keep the subway running on time.

Otherwise, SHUTUP!!!

artman1746 on March 12, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I don’t know if you saw this, in the Green Room – but – meet thy physician:

A Pile of ObamaCare

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Did your taxes go up fighting the AIDS epidemic?
hawkdriver on March 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM

LOL Right on target!!

BeachBum on March 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I still say that you should be a HotAir contributor.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM

What happened to Denmark’s “Fat Tax”?
Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Why does it matter other than to prove you read conservative blogs? You’re cherry picking one country when many tax foods with high sugar content. Denmark took a different path.
Anyway, there’s scant scientific evidence that foods high in fat, when part of a healthy diet. Most physicians will acknowledge this today, esp. given the latest data from comprehensive health and diet studies.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Anyway, there’s scant scientific evidence that foods high in fat, when part of a healthy diet, cause obesity.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Idiot.

That’s the best I can do.

BacaDog on March 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Sugar is already taxed. It is why we use corn syrup and other sweeteners. Sugar is far healthier than corn syrup.

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Anyway, there’s scant scientific evidence that foods high in fat, when part of a healthy diet, cause obesity.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Not much evidence that obesity causes disease. Then again, science has been degraded quite a bit these days…

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I think people need the nanny state occasionally

Pierce, so if we demand that you stuff a thick sock into your fat mouth for the benefit of society, you’ll do it?

Once again, the nanny state is for the “common people” only.

Kingfisher on March 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I still say that you should be a HotAir contributor.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Seconded!

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Qui nannies in nannies?

(Who nannies the nannies?)

ProfShadow on March 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Someone with a better pay and pension program than I…

nextgen_repub on March 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

“Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky: It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.”

- Mark Twain

“After Prohibition, after everyone had seen how devastating it was to morals, to policing, to government. It was really a failure. People are picking up the pieces trying to make sense of it. The key thing, though, about this picking up the pieces after Prohibition, was the same God that laughs at our folly — and there was folly in Prohibition — still holds us responsible, still wants us to build a better society, to build a better world, and doesn’t disdain human endeavour. And, I think that post-Prohibition, you were picking up the pieces trying to find a moral framework to build a better America, but without quite so much of the pride, arrogance and self-assurance that the Prohibitionists had.”

- Martin Marty, Theologian

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- CS Lewis

“Very little good has ever been done by the Absolute Shall.”

- Anonymous American clergyman, 19th century

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Only an adult baby would need a nanny. Why don’t you go back to England and sip some tea you pompous dweeb.

RDE2010 on March 12, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Not all of us Piers.

Just You, Peter Griffin and other 0bama voters.

LegendHasIt on March 12, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Not much evidence that obesity causes disease. Then again, science has been degraded quite a bit these days…

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM

There is little doubt as to the cause of diabetes in children. Science has not been degraded by anyone except for the right’s attempts at scientific revisionism.

So, let’s review: Taxes that are designed to change people’s behaviour:

1. Don’t work;

2. Are a bureaucratic nightmare for business; and

3. Cost jobs.

Last time I checked, a few tenets of economics were predicated on a relationship between prices and demand. You are introducing an impressive number of ground breaking principles today.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6112a1.htm

On a personal note, I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Evidently, Morgan’s idea of a well-run government is Singapore where one can be caned for not properly disposing of gum. They wouldn’t be debating private ownership of high-capacity soda cups.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Speaking as someone who had several pairs of her expensive shoes ruined by some idiot’s melted gum on the sidewalk, I’m all for caning for improperly disposing of gum. ;) Your point, however, is well-taken vis PM.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 3:56 PM

On a personal note, I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Not a single one of the smokers I know has quit with price increases, though all have threatened to do so. Besides, the states would fall apart without the tax revenue. The alternatives are more expensive, so I’ve been told. Nope. People quit smoking when they are ready and no amount of nannying or expense is going to change that.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Just as tobacco and alcohol taxes have cut back on general consumption of some products

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM

According to CDC, American cigarette consumption between 2005 and 2010 only declined very slightly-between 4% and 5%.

And one ethnic group saw absolutely no decline in the number of smokers between 2005 and 2010. I’ll let you find out which group that was.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6035.pdf#page=21

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Why does it matter other than to prove you read conservative blogs? You’re cherry picking one country when many tax foods with high sugar content. Denmark took a different path.
Anyway, there’s scant scientific evidence that foods high in fat, when part of a healthy diet. Most physicians will acknowledge this today, esp. given the latest data from comprehensive health and diet studies.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Denmark was the FIRST country in the world to pass a fat tax. It repealed it PDQ because it was a FAILURE!

PS: We already tax sugary foods and I haven’t seen any decrease in consumption as a result.

PPS: I wasn’t aware of the fact that AFP, which stands for Agence France-Presse, was a “conservative blog,” but anyhoo!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM

People quit smoking when they are ready and no amount of nannying or expense is going to change that.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM

CDC and others have reached different conclusions. As for new smokers, especially the young, it’s often become a prohibitively expensive habit to adopt.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6112a1.htm

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Not one smoker I’ve known over the decades has quit because of the increasing prices. All have quit because of health issues.

A dear friend of mine has been smoking all of her adult life. She now gets around the high cost by investing in the equipment to roll her own.

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM

On a personal note, I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I don’t know a single person, who quit smoking in either London or New York, because of the taxes. Not one.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I don’t know a single person, who quit smoking in either London or New York, because of the taxes. Not one.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Prices affect aggregate demand in capitalist economic theory. Unless you’re a socialist, this shouldn’t be a point of contention.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I wasn’t aware of the fact that AFP, which stands for Agence France-Presse, was a “conservative blog,” but anyhoo!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Anything that refutes a liberal assertion is considered by them to be Conservative. Though I haven’t seen mention of it, I would bet dollars to doughnuts the judge who kicked out Bloomie’s soda ban is considered by some on the Left of being a right-wing extremist.

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Denmark was the FIRST country in the world to pass a fat tax. It repealed it PDQ because it was a FAILURE!

You missed the point. The concept of a ‘fat tax’ in inherently, scientifically flawed, based out outdated assumptions about the nature of a healthy diet.

Increasing prices will affect aggregate demand over time. Period.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM

According to officials from City University of New York, a full 80 percent of high school graduates in New York City who are headed to CUNY colleges can’t read properly, write or do basic math when they graduate.

Why doesn’t Bloomie do something useful and work on this?

INC on March 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Lack of basic educational skills will do far more harm to the quality of life of New Yorkers than the size soda that they drink.

INC on March 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM

No, it’s not. There’s no difference.

blink on March 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Yes it is. You can taste the difference moron. It processes similarly to sugar, but sugar digests slower than corn syrup. Corn Syrup is already broken and thus gets put into the blood stream faster and thus ingesting equal amounts in a similar period of time means the corn syrup boosts blood sugar faster and higher.

I know, if I drink a throwback dew compared to a hfcs dew the spike in sugar in my blood is about triple.

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Last time I checked, a few tenets of economics were predicated on a relationship between prices and demand. You are introducing an impressive number of ground breaking principles today.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6112a1.htm

Teen smoking rates rise

The report from the Schools Health Education Unit shows trends in young people’s attitudes to smoking between 1983 and 2001.

The findings reveal that 40 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds admitted they had tried cigarettes in 2001. This rose to 60 per cent among 14 to 15-year-olds.

That compares to 30 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds in 1990 and 57 per cent of 14 to 15- year-olds.

The average price for a pack of cigarettes in the UK is about $11 and higher than that in London. About 77% of the cost of a pack of f@gs goes to the Treasury. Smoking is on the rise.

Surgeon General’s “shocking” teen smoking report sparks call for action

Nearly one in five high school-aged teens smokes, a rate that’s down from earlier decades but the rate of decline has slowed, the report showed.

“The numbers are really shocking,” Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, told USA Today. “It’s a problem we have to solve.”

The average cost of a pack of cigs in the US is around $5.51 and $14 in NYC. About 20-25% of American adults still smoke.

It hasn’t been the increase in taxes that has had the greatest impact on smoking. It has been education and the advent of smoking cessation products.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:14 PM

I still say that you should be a HotAir contributor.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Seconded!

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Thank you both very much. :-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Increasing prices will affect aggregate demand over time. Period.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Not with addictive substances, genius. See the US illegal drug trade for an example. Increasing prices affect what people will do to get the money to satisfy their addiction. Nicotine is an addictive substance and that’s why the taxes haven’t worked. People quit for reasons other than taxes.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM

It hasn’t been the increase in taxes that has had the greatest impact on smoking. It has been education and the advent of smoking cessation products.

At least you’re revising your comments and no longer claiming that prices no longer affect the rate of smoking. It’s a sign of progress I guess.

And yes, teen smoking rates are not guaranteed to remain at a specific or entirely consistent rate over time.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM

And yes, teen smoking rates are not guaranteed to remain at a specific or entirely consistent rate over time.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM

According to you that is true, but they should always be declining with increased taxes, which seems to be the case…

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 4:21 PM

“I think people need the nanny state occasionally,” he says.

Speak for yourself you incompetent moron.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2013 at 4:21 PM

How can we tax, unhealthy sexual promiscuity? I know, we’ll pay for abortions with federal money and fund STD clinics.

hawkdriver on March 12, 2013 at 4:27 PM

How can we tax, unhealthy sexual promiscuity? I know, we’ll pay for abortions with federal money and fund STD clinics.

hawkdriver on March 12, 2013 at 4:27 PM

The best tax is the self imposed tax of being made to pay for their actions on their own or to personally go begging from family, friends and charities to pay for it.

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM

It hasn’t been the increase in taxes that has had the greatest impact on smoking. It has been education and the advent of smoking cessation products.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:14 PM

And health problems.
My Dad smoked his whole life, from the age of about 15 into his early 70s. The cost of cigarettes never made a difference in his smoking habits (or heavy drinking either). Then he needed surgery for a leaking aneurism on his aorta. We all thought from his coughing that he had all the symptoms of emphysema or lung cancer, but the x-rays and surgery showed no sign of any of that – healthy lungs after 50 years of heavy smoking. After the surgery, he tried to smoke again, but the coughing was so painful on his chest (where he was split open) he couldn’t handle it – so he finally quit smoking – in his 70s. He died last October, a week short of his 85th birthday – with no signs of cancer or emphysema (he did have a stroke about 5 years ago).

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Increasing prices will affect aggregate demand over time. Period.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Not with addictive substances, genius. See the US illegal drug trade for an example. Increasing prices affect what people will do to get the money to satisfy their addiction.

Can we stop the assault on free market economics?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12976&page=17

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM

You missed the point. The concept of a ‘fat tax’ in inherently, scientifically flawed, based out outdated assumptions about the nature of a healthy diet.

Increasing prices will affect aggregate demand over time. Period.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Oh, brother! But, a tax on sugary drinks is scientifically sound and increasing prices will affect aggregate demand…ceterus paribusbut, of course.

So, like, when New Jersey raised taxes, public employees in Trenton didn’t really, really move to Pennsylvania and like, um, ya know, Massachusetts residents never, ever, ever travel to New Hampshire to buy cigs and beer and other purchases because, like, that state doesn’t have an, um, sales tax. THAT NEVER HAPPENS!

‘Cuz, ya know, the “but, of course” does actually exist in the real world and “cerebus paribus” isn’t really only found in economic theory because, ya know, like, um, human beings don’t actually adapt to changing conditions and travel elsewhere to make their purchases like they did when Denmark tried their Fat Tax. That’s just a conspiracy theory that some crackpot, conservative blog named Agence France-Presse is spreading. Non, ce n’est pas la version française d’Associated Press. C’est vraiment un site du web à la Alex Jones. Vraiment! My Dear Leader, Paul Krugman, has told me so! Sérieusement!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:33 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM

A large aspect of the cost of drug use is that I end up paying for it in the end as the users move onto the welfare dole. What part of that is free market?

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Can we stop the assault on free market economics?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12976&page=17

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Excuse me?
You regularly assault free market economics in support of your Dem/commie policies.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2013 at 4:34 PM

At least you’re revising your comments and no longer claiming that prices no longer affect the rate of smoking. It’s a sign of progress I guess.

And yes, teen smoking rates are not guaranteed to remain at a specific or entirely consistent rate over time.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I’m not revising my comments. I said that I know of NO ONE that has ever quit smoking because of f@g taxes. Does that mean that not a single person has ever quit because of taxes? No. Luv, I can come up with a scenario where cigs have saved a life.

Just one life…

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:36 PM

And yes, teen smoking rates are not guaranteed to remain at a specific or entirely consistent rate over time.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Why? Aren’t taxes behaviour modifiers?

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I’m not revising my comments.

Yes you did. Your previous claim was that taxes, i.e. higher prices, do not affect behavior and demand. Such a claim is absurd to anyone who’s studied free market economics.

human beings don’t actually adapt to changing conditions and travel elsewhere to make their purchases like they did when Denmark tried their Fat Tax

So what? That doesn’t change the underlying calculus of reduced aggregate demand as a consequence of higher taxes. The Denmark tax you continually cite, while ignoring food taxes in other countries, basically increased taxes on all foods, which meant that it effectively had no way to influence demand (people have to eat).

As it did with tobacco, a tax on sugar will affect aggregate demand.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Anything that refutes a liberal assertion is considered by them to be Conservative. Though I haven’t seen mention of it, I would bet dollars to doughnuts the judge who kicked out Bloomie’s soda ban is considered by some on the Left of being a right-wing extremist.

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Oh, they sooooo tried yesterday. Some even called him an “unelected,” “FoxBot” judge appointed by some sleazy, Republican politician in New York, who is forcing his “FauxNews” opinions on everyone and overturning the will of the people and an “elected” board.

Well, guess what?

The Board of Health is not elected.

Judge Milton Tingling IS elected.

He’s a Democrat.

A Liberal Democrat.

He’s from the Bronx.

Charlie Rangel was the Honourary Chairman of his campaign.

Mayor David Dinkins, New York’s first – and only – African-American mayor was a campaign supporter and adviser.

(You probably know what is coming next)

He’s an AFRICAN-AMERICAN!

Can’t you just see Tingling, Rangel, and Dinkins – like a male version of Macbeth’s The Three Witches – stirring the pot of discontent and adding a huge pinch of Fox News to the bubbling cauldron just to pizz off all of the Progressive Democrats for spite?

“Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air…Double, double toil, and trouble.”

Yeah, me neither.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Are you arguing that “if you want less of something, tax it”?

How does that gel with your demand to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenues?

I love this.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Liberals are so predictable, and often speak without knowledge.

I wonder, though, how libs like Bloomberg explain how Egyptian mummies have been found to suffer hardening of the arteries. Only the wealthy, royalty, and priests were mummified, and surely had the best food available. Maybe they had the disease because they didn’t have a Mayor Bloomberg to guide, nurture, and shepherd them?

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM

k r, I agree. I very rarely respond to them, but I made this exception.

Are you still in the Durant area?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I’m not the K R you are looking for. ;)

kim roy on March 12, 2013 at 5:00 PM

The concept of a ‘fat tax’ in inherently, scientifically flawed, based out outdated assumptions about the nature of a healthy diet.

Reuters, tax soda, pizza to cut obesity researchers say – 8 March 2010

Archives of Internal Medicine news release – 8 March 2010

The study found that a 10 percent tax on soda led to a 7 percent reduction in calories from soft drinks, and a 10 percent tax on pizza led to a 12 percent reduction in calories from pizza. These researchers believe that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 104 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 2 pounds (0.9 kg) per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.

3 years! I love how things become “outdated” when they aren’t useful to you any longer.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 5:02 PM

resulting in a weight loss of 2 pounds (0.9 kg) per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.

Two pounds per year in weight loss. Sounds like a big win to me! /

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM

PPS: I wasn’t aware of the fact that AFP, which stands for Agence France-Presse, was a “conservative blog,” but anyhoo!

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM

In the words of rogerb, “Well Played.”

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Nicotine is an addictive substance and that’s why the taxes haven’t worked. People quit for reasons other than taxes.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Nicotine’s as addictive, if not more so, than heroin.

My dearest aunt, who is now 82, smoked like a chimney for 50 years. The only reason she quit was because she got lung cancer and very nearly died.

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I think I finally figured him out. It’s been 200 years since the War of 1812. He carries a grudge and hasn’t got over it, or the Battle of New Orleans.

I picture him stomping around the lonely halls of CNN shaking his fist at the air and muttering “‘Ole Hickory’, my ass! Damn that Andrew Jackson! Daaaaaammmmn himmmm!”

kurtzz3 on March 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Duffey’s team analyzed the diets and health of 5,115 young adults aged age 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.

They compared data on food prices during the same time. Over a 20-year period, a 10 percent increase in cost was linked with a 7 percent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.

No taxes involved, just 21 years of changes and 21 years of massively increased options. Not a very scientific study.

astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Two pounds per year in weight loss. Sounds like a big win to me! /

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Oh, I agree with you! I just love how a study that was released 3 years ago to great fanfare is now based on “outdated assumptions.” You’ll also note that bayam ignores elasticity in demand. Once again, he/she/it assumes that human beings react to changes in prices in the same manner. That’s untrue. It depends on the product. An increase in petrol can reduce consumption because there are few alternatives. There are alternatives to sugary drinks that are just as fattening – and in Doomberg’s ban, there were alternative sellers that were not covered under the ban – and can easily act as substitutes. A 20 oz venti with 50% milk, whipped cream, sprinkles, and 4 tsp of sugar is more fattening than a 20 oz Coke; yet, the former was not subject to the ban. If people wanted to consume “sugary drinks,” there were highly accessible replacements, which would negate any behaviour modification a tax might generate.

I believe that “light” and “low tar” cigarettes were the result of tax increases on “regular” cigs. People just switched products. They still smoked.

In the words of rogerb, “Well Played.”

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Merci beaucoup. :-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

3 years! I love how things become “outdated” when they aren’t useful to you any longer.

Sorry I didn’t mean to talk over your head. More recent research has cast doubt on the validity of the traditional food pyramid and the role of fatty foods in a healthy diet.
It has nothing to do with studies regarding the cost of food.

Such unflagging confidence

So, let’s review: Taxes that are designed to change people’s behaviour:
1. Don’t work

Time to flip it

It hasn’t been the increase in taxes that has had the greatest impact on smoking.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Doesn’t Pier’s pontificating presence in these United States violate the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine?

Ace ODale on March 12, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Moesart on March 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on March 12, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Can we stop the assault on free market economics?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12976&page=17

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Do you even read what you link? Addiction and other forces make simple supply/demand and pricing models difficult to predict in illegal drug markets. Jeebus. You link to page 17 of a multi-page document and don’t bother reading what’s written on the very next page. Or you’re cherry picking. Whatever. You haven’t refuted my point about addictive substances and taxes as a deterrent to use.

To quote the article (page 18, btw): “Illegal drug markets are also characterized by complex features, such as addiction (which means responses to increases and decreases in prices may differ) and high search costs (so that consumers must invest time in finding information about the product) that are sometimes found in legal markets but that are difficult to incorporate in simple models.”

totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Sorry I didn’t mean to talk over your head.
bayam on March 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Do you even read what you link?
totherightofthem on March 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

bayam doesn’t have a clue what he/she/it is talking about – just grabs handy Dem talking points. And despite it’s over-inflated self-opinion, is incapable of keeping up with a conversation based on facts and logic, let alone talking over anyone’s head….

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Yep. I was referring to the aggregate. Yes, I could find someone, I imagine, that quit smoking because of taxes, but I, personally, know of no one that has done so even though I’ve lived most of my life in two cities with some of the highest f@g taxes in the world.

You believe that raising taxes will reduce certain behaviours while increasing taxes on income and investment doesn’t likewise have an impact on behaviour. I will tell you that sin taxes do not have the impact that their proponents believe, but that tax increases on income and investment always have the impact that their proponents swear will never occur. If you do not believe me, then please see the French financiers and CEOs setting up shop in The City and businessmen – primarily, so-called “Wall Streeters” – in NY, who are leaving for TX, FL and places offshore. In both cases, they are moving because of taxes. Nanny Doomberg’s sugary drink tax would have resulted in consumers only moving to a grocery or 7-11, which are not covered, or consuming a sugary-milky venti, also not covered, if they wanted a sugar rush.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I think Trace Adkins had the right idea what do about old Piers

PJ Emeritus on March 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013

You wouldn’t know where to pi ss without big government.

So dimwit (just kidding-right?)– you agree taxes hurt sales and the markets. Good to know.

CW on March 12, 2013 at 6:05 PM

You believe that raising taxes will reduce certain behaviours while increasing taxes on income and investment doesn’t likewise have an impact on behaviour. I will tell you that sin taxes do not have the impact that their proponents believe, but that tax increases on income and investment always have the impact that their proponents swear will never occur. If you do not believe me, then please see the French financiers and CEOs setting up shop in The City and businessmen – primarily, so-called “Wall Streeters” – in NY, who are leaving for TX, FL and places offshore. In both cases, they are moving because of taxes. Nanny Doomberg’s sugary drink tax would have resulted in consumers only moving to a grocery or 7-11, which are not covered, or consuming a sugary-milky venti, also not covered, if they wanted a sugar rush.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Good post. Brayam’s a joke.

CW on March 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM

On a personal note, I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Yeah, genius, all those taxes go (supposedly) to fund children’s health initiatives. Wonder just what will be the next “evil” to be taxed (perhaps soda) to make up for the lost revenue from people who quit smoking?

It’s a rabbit hole, moron. The government NEVER does without any money it has been seizing, they just find another reason to seize it.

PJ Emeritus on March 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

“I think people need the nanny state occasionally,” he says. I say: Define “occasionally.” As with his crusade against “assault weapons,” his rhetoric frequently betrays much grander regulatory ambitions than what he’s ostensibly arguing for. If you’re going to give government a mandate to “make the populace healthier,” there’s no way you’re going to stop at a half-assed, almost completely arbitrary restriction on soda portions. You’re going to go further. What I want to know is, how much? Where is the point, whether on guns or on nutrition

-Allahpundit

Sorry, Ap–you’re missing the point. Beside the fact that it isn’t in any mayoral job description to regulate the size of any commercial product, this is overreach, no matter the excuses or questions.

Unless and until the power of the governing body, no matter whether it be municipal, county, state or federal is retracted to its original intent, there is no “how much.”

How much is what citizens allow.

That’s “the point.”

jersey taxpayer on March 12, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I still say that you should be a HotAir contributor.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Seconded!

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Thank you both very much. :-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM

…believe me!…there’s what you can call a “Silent Majority” at Hot Air… that agrees!

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2013 at 7:38 PM

I hate to disagree with such a thoughtful and erudite member of the media, but he’s full of it up to his eyebrows.

Maybe some of us never grow up into responsible adults, but the rest of us don’t bother to watch his pathetic show. One of the reasons that I couldn’t wait for adulthood was the fact that I was tired of being told what to do. I didn’t wish to exchange the nannyhood of my parents for one of the state. At 65, I hardly wish that to change. I will resist any attempt of the state to turn me into its baby girl.

You can have my share of the nanny state, Mr. Morgan. I want no part of it.

hachiban on March 12, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Oh for Chr!st’s sake, IGNORE PIERS MORGAN! He’s an internet troll given a TV show! Hot Air is just as bad for giving an additional forum to this dumb-ass.

Saltyron on March 12, 2013 at 9:30 PM

On a personal note, I think most ppl know someone influenced by the price of cigarettes to stop smoking. For a cash-strapped family, it’s a significant expense.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Here in sunny Australia, the Rudd government had the same idea a couple years ago, so it added an additional 30% tax on top of the existing tax on cigarettes. This new tax had cigarettes pushing $12/pack.

Guess what happened?

* Cigarette purchases declined slightly…but…
* Purchases of all other items sold in convenience stores declined severely.

Cigarettes are sold at relatively low margins by convenience stores to get customers to buy something, on the idea that they will buy other (that is, higher margin) items as well. So when Genius Rudd enacted this latest tax, convenience store owners where hammered as customers continued purchasing cigarettes but then purchased less of everything else.

Oh, and lower overall convenience store purchases = lower GST (sales tax) receipts.

Genius!

Wanderlust on March 12, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Oh for Chr!st’s sake, IGNORE PIERS MORGAN! He’s an internet troll given a TV show! Hot Air is just as bad for giving an additional forum to this dumb-ass.

Saltyron on March 12, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Lol, Allahpundit has had a gaping hole in his blog life since Rosie O’Donnell left The View. Piers Morgan is a reasonable substitute for comment trolling, I suppose.

Wanderlust on March 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Liberty requires personal responsibility.

Apparently Piers Morgan wants big brother to take that responsibility for him. Much like a welfare queen would want an Obamaphone with strings (and irresponsible voting) attached than get off an ample posterior and buy one with one’s own money.

viking01 on March 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

As stated by our esteemed VP, two words:

Total Friggin Moron.

ccrosby on March 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

OT

I’m on a plane to DC tomorrow for CPAC, anyone else going?

ccrosby on March 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM

You can taste the difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar.

Just make chocolate syrup with sugar and cocoa and compare it to the Hershey’s syrup (reformulated a decade or so ago) made with corn syrup. The aroma and flavor of the corn syrup product are similar to that of the shucks stripped from ears of whole corn… a sour, sickly, raw aroma. Pure cane sugar has a direct, sharp, cleaner taste.

viking01 on March 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM

What happened to Denmark’s “Fat Tax”?

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

They repealed it…last year I think.

workingclass artist on March 13, 2013 at 12:24 AM

You can taste the difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar.

Just make chocolate syrup with sugar and cocoa and compare it to the Hershey’s syrup (reformulated a decade or so ago) made with corn syrup. The aroma and flavor of the corn syrup product are similar to that of the shucks stripped from ears of whole corn… a sour, sickly, raw aroma. Pure cane sugar has a direct, sharp, cleaner taste.

viking01 on March 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM

You can still get cane sugar soda (including Dr. Pepper) in Dublin, Tx.

http://www.dublinbottlingworks.com/

workingclass artist on March 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM

workingclass artist on March 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Thanks. Next time I’m near Abilene or San Angelo anytime soon I’ll try to remember them… or in DFW or Temple if Dublin Bottling distributes there.

I’m pretty sure Sprecher’s and some of the other high-end nationally distributed soda makers use cane sugar too… and maybe Abita now that I hear they’re making soft drinks in addition to beer and ale.

viking01 on March 13, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Piers thinks to himself as he shaves in the morning, “How can I be the biggest twit in the media today?” He then turns on the TV to watch Nanny Bloomberg bloviate on issues of no concern to him … and he is inspired to tweet.

Support the moron, it’s good for ratings (and lord knows we need those)!

virgo on March 13, 2013 at 12:48 AM

Is ‘nanny state’ slang for ‘billy goat’ in his country?

We might be caught in a cross cultural miscommunication here

entagor on March 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM

Effeminate creep. No wonder the Brits cannot take on Argentina.

pat on March 13, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Say Piers, before you start extolling the virtues of a little bit of nannying from a Nannystate, howzabout you object to another Nannystate, that is the US Federal Government, subsidizing the production of sugar?

You can bemoan the eeeeeevvvvviiillllssss of sugar all you want, but before you do anything on prohibiting consumption through bans or taxes, why not stop paying the producers to produce cheaper and more sugar?

If you bemoan the effects then the cause is not those consuming the sugar but its non-market pricing via subsidies. You want people to eat less of it? Stop subsidizing it and let the true market cost get into play FIRST before you start trying to fix something that another government has already decided FOR YOU: that Americans shall have cheap sugar.

I know that means less government, Piers old boy, but sometimes less is more, youknowwhatimean?

ajacksonian on March 13, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3