In article >,
"Ozgirl" > wrote:

> How does regulating a size cut health care costs? Or putting high taxes
> on cigarettes and alcohol? People will still drink and smoke the same
> amounts regardless of personal cost or difficulty in obtaining a
> product.

that's just wrong. you only have to look at the general downward trend of
smokers in states that tax tobacco heavily. in addition, while it may not have
an immediate effect, there are incremental decreases due to these high costs to
deter new smokers. finally, while the higher cost might not deter specific
individuals on their own due to that cost, as the disposable income becomes
scarcer in "relationships", the pressure is increased on the smoker to quit by
the "spouse"



I know, I wasn't going to get into this argument. There is no
> realistic way at this point in time to cut universal health costs by
> putting regulations on things that make us obese or prone to ailments
> and illnesses brought on by use of illegal drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or
> food/drink/ prescription drug intake. Its just something we have to suck
> up, watching our tax dollars get used for things we may not partake of.
> Other than health there are many tax payer provided stuff that I have no
> or little interest in. I don't as a rule use public transport, the next
> tax payer does. I don't do government supported theatre or art
> galleries, the next person does. I use public libraries, my neighbour
> might not. And so it goes on.