Juan Non-Volokh framför en viktig poäng om alkoholskatter:

Yet Kleiman seems to ignore the substantial benefits of moderate alcohol consumption (see also here, here, and here). Insofar as taxation would reduce drinking by non-problem drinkers, it will also reduce the sizable benefits that many of these drinkers would receive from alcohol. While Kleiman asserts the external costs of alcohol consumption are significant, this figure is meaningless unless he also includes the benefits of alcohol consumption. The typical drink not only has external costs of zero – as Kleiman admits – it probably also has net benefits that are greater than zero.

Varje år publicerar DN Debatt nykterhetsaposteln Anders Johnsons kalkyl över alkoholens kostnader. En skandal varje gång, eftersom han inte beaktar alkoholens intäkter (i vid mening). Se även min lilla text ”The Cardinal Error of Paternalism” på detta tema samt Henrik Jordahls analys av förslaget att införa en fettskatt.