ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
Smoking, smoking, smoking.
That's the answer. As Americans have quit smoking, they have gotten fatter. What's the everage weight gain for a quitter, 15 pounds? How much weight has the average American gained over the last 30 years (a time when smoking rates have plunged)? 15 pounds!
Coincidence? I don't think so.
The dirty little secret about cigarettes is that if you can get past the "little" problem of them causing lung cancer (for instance, if you have some genetic trait that protects you from lung cancer), then smoking might acutally be good for you. It keeps you thin, which wards off the obesity related problems.
How about we sue all the do-gooders that fought the war on cigarettes for the costs related to the unintended consequences of ex-smoker related obesity!
Interesting comment by Eric. I'm surprised I've never heard it before.
The cost of health care for all ailments, especially preventable ones, should be assumed by the individual - or altrusts who might want to help on their own initiative.
One of my great fears about socialized medicine is that it will justify and even neccesitate government interventions in just about every part of our lives! Seatbelts, motorcycle helments, smoking? That's just the beginning! Fast food, salt, tie-shoes (podiatry),... That's still the beginning.
Imagine society where lights are out at 9pm, and a strenuous exercise regime begins at 6am, followed by a bland breakfast (no coffee), limited time at the keyboard (what's the word for 'care of the hand'), ... until evening when you get *exactly* 2.34 glasses of wine (red only) with a fish (oily fish only) dinner, etc.
I don't think that reduced smoking is the whole story. As an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly points out, the obesity epidemic is worldwide. I don't think other countries have clamped down on smoking as hard as we have, so I am inclined to go with the usual suspects of less exercise and increased food supply.
I think that the original posting states the problem in morally absolute terms that may not be helpful in dealing with the problem. I thought that Richard Posner's point is that the best way to solve social problems was to make the person who could deal with them at the lowest cost responsible for solving or reducing the problem. It very well may be that the obese individual is the person who can deal with the problem at the lowest cost. But no evidence has been introduced to prove this. The very analysis is more like a preacher and less like a social scientist.
Arnold,
I don't doubt that there are many factors to the trend toward obesity. But smoking is a BIG factor.
http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/obesity.doc
Arnold,
I don't doubt that there are many factors to the trend toward obesity. But smoking is a BIG factor.
http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/obesity.doc