Thread by @mattyglesias

I think this discourse tends to reflect both a failure to reckon with cost-benefit analysis but also a lack of consideration as to what a the plausible role of public health expertise in a democratic society.

An example distant from infectious diseases — US public health outcomes would clearly improve if nobody in the country every drank any alcoholic beverages.

But what actual *policy recommendation* follows from that is very unclear.

We live with a quantity of cirrhosis, of drunk driving, of alcohol-fueled domestic violence and other problems that I think is much higher than it should be.

I try to convince people that we should raise alcohol taxes and try to mitigate these issues.

slowboring.com/p/booze-tax

One reason I focus specifically on taxes is that I think the country is facing some future fiscal policy choices in which *all* the available options are politically unpalatable, so I'd like to see this particular unpalatable idea in the mix.

slowboring.com/p/a-totally-of…

But even if I got my way on that, there would still be significant public health problems related to alcohol.

You could try to solve that with blanket prohibition but (a) voters wouldn't stand for it and (b) as we know enforcement is challenging.

On pandemics, as on alcohol, we need ideas that are ambitious but also realistic — not just endlessly crashing our heads into the same wall.

There are so many politically plausible areas for progress.

slowboring.com/p/we-should-ex…