You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Old_Gold comments on Open Thread, Feb 8 - Feb 15, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Elo 08 February 2016 04:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (215)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (215)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Clarity 08 February 2016 05:59:05AM -2 points [-]

Whenever I used to think of nationalising industries, I would think of industries relating to critical infrastructure or 'prestige industries'. Reading the following threw my intuitions overboard!

A tobacco industry buy-out

In the current model, the tobacco industry has a corporate mission of selling unhealthy products so as to profit its shareholders. Its aims and purposes are intrinsically misaligned with the public good and will ever remain so. However, if the tobacco industry were nationalised, with the intent of winding down operations, the interests of those providing tobacco and public health would be aligned.

For the amount of health harms caused, the tobacco industry is not highly profitable. The total profit of the three major tobacco companies in Australia in 2007 was $600 million on assets of $3.6 billion.27 The profit per tobacco related death was approximately $20 000. Profits must decline in time as smoking rates fall as intended. Based on asset base and a reasonable profit to projected earnings multiple, a buy-out in Australia might cost in the range of $5 billion. Estimates of the cost of nationalisation in Canada range from $0–15 billion.28 Purchase could be sweetened by protection from civil litigation. Even if it costs of the order of several billions, it would rapidly return that in terms of quantifiable reductions in healthcare costs.

-http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2012/november/towards-an-endgame-for-tobacco/

Would the tobacco industry be for or against this? Would there be an opposition except from deontological libertarians?

Comment author: Old_Gold 09 February 2016 01:24:41AM 3 points [-]

Here's a hint, replace "tobacco" with "marijuana", or some drug that's currently fashionable. Note, how your intuition changes.

Comment author: Clarity 09 February 2016 06:08:53AM 1 point [-]

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

Comment author: Old_Gold 10 February 2016 01:52:18AM 3 points [-]

Do you think the people advocating for marijuana legalization would be satisfied with legalization under the terms you proposed for tobacco?

Comment author: Clarity 10 February 2016 02:02:35AM *  0 points [-]

I think there were be different strata of marajuana legalisation advocates who would be satisfied with different things. But when I put forward a policy position, it isn't to maximise political tractability, but rather to maximise public health gains. Political tractability can itself be advocating for with spin, coalitions, maneuvering and other such politics.

The fact is. marajuana is not tobacco. They are not interchangeable, in the same way that meth and marajuana aren't interchangeable, or chocolate for that matter. They all have different weights of costs and benefits.

Comment author: Old_Gold 10 February 2016 02:13:56AM 5 points [-]

But when I put forward a policy position, it isn't to maximise political tractability, but rather to maximise public health gains.

So why didn't you simply propose a ban?

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 02:18:13AM 4 points [-]

So why didn't you simply propose a ban?

Oh, maximising public health gains would probably require force-feeding vegetables (in prison, if necessary) and mandatory exercise (ditto). But in the meantime you can start by banning sugar.

Comment author: Clarity 10 February 2016 04:29:32AM *  -1 points [-]

why

keep things simple, but never simpler than they are

force-feeding vegetables (in prison, if necessary) and mandatory exercise (ditto). But in the meantime you can start by banning sugar.

because that wouldn't maximise public health gains. Would people be overall less or more happy? It's pretty obvious and that's a pretty dumb solution.

Bans are bad because smoking is addictive and withdrawal is harmful. It would be cruel. This kind of black and white thinking and slippery slope argumentation is really suprising to see on LW.

edit: maybe you're on to something. Take a read of this about options for a tobacco endgame. The number of good options available to the regulatory community is sufficient to make any gentle-nudge policy researchers and advocates feel like they're wasting their time (and maybe they are!)

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 09 February 2016 04:40:31PM *  1 point [-]

You realize that there are pretty relevant differences between tobacco and marijuana other than the latter being "currently fashionable"? (assuming it actually is -- it doesn't look like it's much more popular than tobacco or than it was 50 years ago to me, at least here in [country redacted])

Comment author: Old_Gold 10 February 2016 01:53:45AM 3 points [-]

(assuming it actually is -- it doesn't look like it's much more popular than tobacco or than it was 50 years ago to me, at least here in [country redacted])

I said "fashionable" not "popular". I have no idea which is more popular, I mean fashionable in the sense of high status.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 10 February 2016 08:21:15AM 0 points [-]

Marijuana is... high status?

Comment author: Old_Gold 11 February 2016 07:45:11AM 3 points [-]

Yes, all the cool kids are doing it.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 11 February 2016 08:15:14AM 0 points [-]

And not tobacco?

Comment author: Old_Gold 12 February 2016 03:06:20AM 3 points [-]

No, tabacco is the stuff those old guys smoke.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 12 February 2016 08:21:34AM *  1 point [-]

Are you seriously saying that there is a sizeable fraction of people who regularly smoke marijuana but not tobacco? I haven't met many, whereas I have met plenty of people who smoke both or neither.

EDIT: I think what's going on might be that you noticed that many young people smoke marijuana and think it's cool and many young people don't smoke tobacco and think it's old people's stuff, but didn't notice they aren't the same people. But just because Muhammad is a common first name and Wang is a common last name doesn't mean Muhammad Wang is a common full name.

Comment author: Old_Gold 13 February 2016 01:40:24AM *  3 points [-]

I'm not sure that distinction is relevant to the point under discussion, which isn't about reality so much as it is about how perceived "coolness" informs people's ideas about what policy proposals are reasonable.

Comment author: Clarity 10 February 2016 04:57:47AM *  0 points [-]

Marajuana is only high status in certain sub cultures and low status in others and among the general public, unless it's for medicinal use. I'd estimate it's overall far more less status.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit