tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post6838004741235435627..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: A footnoteEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-41951480881270206732012-05-25T11:12:40.028+12:002012-05-25T11:12:40.028+12:00The public case for the anti-tobacco is still the ...The public case for the anti-tobacco is still the costs on others. Turia keeps citing the $1.9b figure; getting harder to find folks at MoH who actually think that number is worth anything. <br /><br />Treasury and others coming out and saying that smoking doesn't impose extra burden on the crown pushes the debate back to whether paternalism is warranted.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-55257118398735959272012-05-25T06:22:19.490+12:002012-05-25T06:22:19.490+12:00Nice to see some recognition of these facts from T...Nice to see some recognition of these facts from Treasury; nonetheless, I'm not sure how relevant the issue of net life-cycle health costs is. As shown by the Government Response to the Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on Tobacco (which doesn't even mention externalities), excise tax increases are now openly based on a paternalistic rationale and aimed at deterring smoking rather than at internalising externalised costs to the health system. Tobacco use has been stigmatised to a point where policymakers and special interests do not feel the need to justify themselves on a liberal basis with a Pigovian argument.kiwi davehttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.com