Monday, March 18, 2013

Does this guy just sit around all day thinking up new ways to live peoples' lives for them???

Posted by dkuehn at 2:21 PM
My God he's doing it again.

I used to like Bloomberg because he seemed like a real common sense kind of guy, but this is unbelievable.

10 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM

    This isn't "new", this is already policy in my country?

    ReplyDelete
  2. CurrentMarch 18, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    We already have this law in Ireland too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phillosopher at SeaMarch 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM

    It's mandatory for supermarkets in the UK too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave ChurvisMarch 18, 2013 at 8:19 PM

    Oh, how I wish the punchline in this comic weren't getting truer every day...

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2879#comic

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 18, 2013 at 8:45 PM

    In my home state of Ohio (round on the sides and high in the middle), this hiding of tobacco products has been in force since the 90s. However, that is the least troublesome portion of this new resolution. Here are some other provisions contained within the bill:

    •Increasing penalties for retailers who evade tobacco taxes or sell tobacco without a license.

    •Prohibiting retailers from redeeming coupons or honoring other price discounts for tobacco products.

    •Creating a minimum price for cigarettes and little cigars, which are virtually identical to cigarettes, at $10.50 per pack
    .
    •Requiring that cheap cigars and cigarillos be sold in packages of at least 4, and little cigars be sold in packages of at least 20. Cigars that cost more than $3 each are exempt from the packaging rule.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob MurphyMarch 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM

    Oh I thought you were going to link to Krugman talking about the need for banking regulation...

    ReplyDelete
  7. UnknownMarch 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    Daniel,

    I don't know whether the choice was by accident or informed, but it is sound policy, if you knew anything about addiction.

    Merely seeing cigs makes it many many times harder for a former smoker to avoid lightening up.

    Instead of wasting time on Libertarian events, why don't you pursue an education and go talk to doctors who know about addiction, about patient compliance, etc.

    Learn a little about how the mind associates. For example, merely driving past a bar can wreck an alcoholic, etc.

    Did you ever stop to think, Why does Marlboro continue to run the same kinds of ads?

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownMarch 19, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    Daniel,

    I don't know whether the choice was by accident or informed, but it is sound policy, if you knew anything about addiction.

    Merely seeing cigs makes it many many times harder for a former smoker to avoid lightening up.

    Instead of wasting time on Libertarian events, why don't you pursue an education and go talk to doctors who know about addiction, about patient compliance, etc.

    Learn a little about how the mind associates. For example, merely driving past a bar can wreck an alcoholic, etc.

    Did you ever stop to think, Why does Marlboro continue to run the same kinds of ads?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallahMarch 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      "Merely seeing cigs makes it many many times harder for a former smoker to avoid lightening up."

      I can think of someone who needs to start lightening up!

      I don't care too much about this policy one way or the other, but it is silly nonsense to declare something "sound policy" solely based on some addiction study, as if psychological studies are the one and only thing policy should ever be based upon!

      Delete
    2. UnknownMarch 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM

      Gene,

      Not some addiction study. Unlike economics, when one gets into things like addiction, there is actual science involved. Real processes taking place, subject to observation and experiment. And, thus an entire body of work on addiction. What to do if addicted. What events cause relapse,etc.

      Thus, you quickly and appropriately pass into irrelevance, having admitted you know nothing useful to the discussion.

      My comments were directed toward Daniel's frame that, which was that not permitting display of cigarettes shows a lack of common sense. To the contrary, common sense would direct us toward public policies that aid people with unhealthy addictions.

      BTW, this body of knowledge also supports not banning substances as well. There are a considerable number of people, for example, addicted to cigarettes and for which the addiction is so powerful, etc., that to stop them from smoking is a cure worse than the disease.

      In sum, the problem is a common sense one, calling for common sense solutions, stuff right down the middle like high taxes, but putting the stuff behind the counter or only permitting sales in certain size cups, or banning smoking in lots of locations, second hand smoke, etc.

      Delete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)