IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, David Leonhardt argues for higher taxes on booze:

Each of the three taxes is now effectively 33 percent lower than it was in 1992. Since 1970, the federal beer tax has plummeted 63 percent. Many states taxes have also been falling.

At first blush, this sounds like good news: who likes to pay taxes, right? But taxes serve a purpose beyond merely raising general government revenue. Taxes on a given activity are also supposed to pay the costs that activity imposes on society. And for all that is wonderful about wine, beer and liquor, they clearly bring some heavy costs.

Nowhere in the discussion, though, are the — apparently quite significant — health benefits of alcohol taken into account. Shouldn’t there be some balancing? After all, the vast majority of people who drink will never kill anyone in a drunk-driving accident, yet most of them probably drink moderately enough to get the health benefits.

For that matter, people who die early of cirrhosis probably save the government money in Social Security and Medicare. I’d be interested in seeing a fuller accounting of costs and benefits. Given the questionable track record of “public health” interventions in recent decades, at any rate, I’m going to be skeptical of these proposals. When the parasite problem is solved, perhaps we can talk about further efforts in social engineering. Well, no, not even then.