Say Anything Blog

No, the tobacco industry isn’t wreaking havoc on anyone’s health. People are wreaking havoc on THEIR OWN health. The cigarette companies just supply the product. If people want to do something unhealthy, the choice, and it’s consequences, should be all on them.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

No, the tobacco industry isn’t wreaking havoc on anyone’s health. People are wreaking havoc on THEIR OWN health.

Did you ever hear of this thing called second-hand smoke? Further, they are wreaking havoc on all our pocket books. Do you have a clue as to how much money it costs non-smokers in health costs because of smokers? It is cost effective to take aggressive action to reduce smoking.

Besides this, a moral argument can be made.
Is it not immoral to produce and profit from a substance that kills?

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

Did you ever hear of this thing called second-hand smoke?

Utter bunk. Most of the chemicals in the smoke are absorbed into the lungs. The second hand smoke is mostly harmless. Certainly no more harmful than exhaust from a car, which we all deal with in bigger quantities every day.

Regardless, if you are breathing in meaningful quantities of second hand smoke and don’t move...that’s on you.

Further, they are wreaking havoc on all our pocket books. Do you have a clue as to how much money it costs non-smokers in health costs because of smokers?

Smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers. As such they tend to take less health care costs in general. Since most people in America are insured, that money isn’t coming out of your pocket books.

On the contrary, they pay money into Medicare and Social Security that they don’t get back. Postive growth on those two…

It is cost effective to take aggressive action to reduce smoking.

No it’s not.

We have spent more money on hearings and policing the tobacco industry when every last puff is CONSENTUAL.

Besides this, a moral argument can be made.

Appeal to emotion…

Is it not immoral to produce and profit from a substance that kills?

No. It’s not.
If I tell you, here, I will sell you this product for X number of dollars, but it could kill you, and you say deal and take it...that’s on YOU. If the risks are known in advance, and both parties agree, there is simply no immorality.

Furthermore, cigarettes don’t kill. They are a contributing factor to certain death types. A vast majority of people who die from cancer have other risk factors (such as the more influencial “family history” factor or other risky behaviors). Studies have been done to link cigarettes to car deaths:
http://www.carcrash.org/mediaweb/00022.pdf
And let’s not forget the “cigarette companies are responsible for house fires!” crap.

As another site points out, all the “stats” saying smoking is dangerous are lies to exaggerate the problem:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10150

Many products are dangerous if used wrong, in a much higher rate. Irresponsible aspirin use will lead to liver failure and an awful death. Alcohol kills more people a year (directly) that tobacco. Too much sugar can lead to diabetes, etc.

The moral argument is crap and shows you don’t have facts on your side.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Davinski - It is cost effective to take aggressive action to reduce smoking.

The cost of your “aggressive action” is a reduction of freedom.

“Cost effective”? Debatable. Those of us who prefer freedom would disagree.

Besides this, a moral argument can be made.

Oblivious to the moral concept of free choice.

Is it not immoral to produce and profit from a substance that kills?

Like beef and sugar? After all, heart disease is the number one killer in America.

Like beef and sugar?

Don’t be givin’ ‘em ideas, lik!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Kenny said to my remark that it is cost effective to take aggressive action to reduce smoking:

We have spent more money on hearings and policing the tobacco industry when every last puff is CONSENTUAL.

Pretty lazy refute, and flat wrong.

In a May 1993 report, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated that premature deaths from smoking (along with lost work-days and productivity) caused a loss of $47.2 billion in personal income in 1990 [10]. At current inflation rates, that amounts to $56 billion in 1995. At a 25 percent marginal tax rate, OTA’s estimated productivity loss would mean foregone income taxes of $14 billion, which might otherwise help to pay for national defense, environmental protection, drug enforcement, crime control, and other needed Federal services. As a “warm” economist, I cannot brush aside these hard-to-quantify external costs [11].

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

We have spent more money on hearings and policing the tobacco industry when every last puff is CONSENTUAL.
Pretty lazy refute, and flat wrong.

This was the weakest part of your argument and deserved the least time.

When you talk about the COSTS of something, you talk about how much it costs. The simple fact is that smokers who die early don’t collect their social security back. The costs of their care are usually covered by their insurance.

The estimate of how much money is lost in tax revenue is speculative at best. There are so many assumptions built in there...the person will stay employed, the person will stay in good health, the person will give more revenue than they will take in benefits (social security, medicaid, etc). You can’t count money that was never had as money lost.

And smoking is more a lower class habit, so it’s unlikely that a 25% rate would apply. It certainly wouldn’t be uniform. It doesn’t take into consideration all kinds of tax breaks, etc. It’s a sloppy figure.

So you realize your argument sucks and resort to this, which is in and of itself extremely lame and not terribly factual.

Hell it doesn’t even take into account the money we make from taxes on cigarettes, which is substancial, even on the state level.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/aug/06/collectedcigarettetaxes-fallfar-short/
Even taking the reduced figure of 8.5 million a month, that’s still 102 million for the state of Tennessee alone. That doesn’t include sales tax. Nor does it include the taxes that the government makes off of tobacco companies.

Even on the cost basis, your argument STILL sucks. Let alone the moral argument.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Your argument defies reality. Do you not realize your cost of health insurance is affected by others smoking? If tobacco has no added cost to our society, why are countless employers involved in employee programs to quit smoking? Why are countries throughout the world taking action to prevent its citizens from starting?
Smoking destroys health; it makes people less productive.

Your quick math on taxes proves nothing. To argue that tobacco has no economic burden on our society is beyond absurd, and your not admitting that production and profit of a substance that kills is not immoral only shows your blind love of all corporations which make a profit.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

The cost is also included in free emergency room visits by:  illegal drug users, motorcyclists not wearing helmets, homosexuals engaging in risky sexual behavior, fat people eating more fatty foods, illegal aliens killing innocent civilians by drinking and driving, they being given get out of jail free cards.
I could go on and on, but in this country, we should be free to choose a behavior if we pay for the unwanted consequence ourselves.
The UN has no right or authority to tell a free country what to do.  They can’t even handle Africa.

Communism is evil

Davinski,

While I agree with Kenny that your second-hand smoke argument is mostly specious and irrelevant (where exactly are innocent people subjected to second-hand smoke anymore?) and certainly with Lik that the cost of your cure for the largely self-destructive personal behavior of some of us is far to high in loss of personal freedom for us all, the biggest mistake you make is the unspoken premise supporting your entire anti-smoking diatribe.

You assume that we are all jointly responsible for the healthcare costs of each of us.  And that is neither true, nor right.  The very foundation on which this country was founded was maximized personal freedom, with institutionalized, constitutional safeguards to ensure that freedom, along with the concomitant personal responsibility for the consequences of individual personal actions.

If we as a society are indeed saddled with ballooning healthcare costs because of personal tobacco use, the proper course of action would be to unburden all of us from the costs of the consequences of the actions of some of us.

If I decide to smoke tobacco, a lawful product, the cost of doing so is my responsibility and mine alone, not the rest of society’s.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If I decide to smoke tobacco, a lawful product, the cost of doing so is my responsibility and mine alone, not the rest of society’s.

Agreed.  Further, no one has the “right” to force their tobacco smoke on me.  If I don’t choose to smoke, it shouldn’t be forced on me.  I doubt that second-hand smoke is so harmless as you would like to imagine, but the fact that it interferes with my choice to not smoke is enough, IMO.

Smokers could have headed this off long ago by being less arrogant and more considerate.  No problem, no need for a solution.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

R108,

As an ex-smoker, I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written.  But these are, in fact, two separate issues.  Manners, thoughtfulness, courtesy, and consideration for others are the responsibilities of being a member of society.  They should not be the basis for legislation… nor should they have to be.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

You ask where am I subjected to second hand smoke?
While visiting my local pub.
While in restaurants which offer non smoking 3 feet away from the smoking area. While going to work daily- hundreds standing there getting their last puff before entering the work area.

My article did not say anything about banning your right to smoke, its emphasis is a ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship to deter young people around the world from taking up smoking.

I am not trying to be sarcastic my friend, but key words like UN and ban seem to shut your objective thinking down. As a lefty, I too, should be aware of that. I am sure some words get me worked up, also.

We have successfully prevented magazines and TV from tobacco ads and stats show over the years it has helped reduce the habit. In countries where they have done similar things to what the UN advocates, rates went down by 16%.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

They should not be the basis for legislation… nor should they have to be.

As I said, it has come to legislation simply because of the arrogance and insensitivity of smokers toward those who are irritated, inconvenienced or even made sick by their actions.  When the crack dealers start to make deals in broad daylight in front of the houses of ordinary citizens, the police are called and the Neighborhood Watch Programs start up.

Action=reaction.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

My article did not say anything about banning your right to smoke, its emphasis is a ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship to deter young people around the world from taking up smoking.

Davinski,

Fair enough.  Your article did not address a ban on tobacco products.  But you have not addressed my stated primary concern: the assumption underlying all that you’ve written on the subject that the healthcare costs of each of us are the collective responsibility of all of us.  Instead of recognizing that concomitant to individual freedom is the responsibility for the actions we take and the decisions we make, you are suggesting that we limit those freedoms while absolving individuals of their personal responsibility.  As Kenny, Likwidshoe, and I have each pointed out, that trade-off is unacceptably costly.

Incidentally, while I very much appreciate your civility and lack of sarcasm, I would be remiss not to note that the words that get you lefties (your adjective!) “worked up” seem to pertain most to the notion of individual freedom and responsibility.  Curious!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

When the crack dealers start to make deals in broad daylight in front of the houses of ordinary citizens, the police are called and the Neighborhood Watch Programs start up.

R108,

Of course, the crack dealer you refer to deals in an illegal substance.  His trade is outlawed… unlike tobacco.  Perhaps the answer to both your concerns and those of Davinski would be to ban tobacco outright, rather than collectively socializing the cost of its legal use.

Whether as a society we have the political will to do so is certainly debatable.  I doubt it, not least because of the huge amounts of tax revenues generated for both state and federal coffers.  But banning tobacco would certainly be less of a violation of all of our freedoms than the compromise suggested so far.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Banning tobacco products raises the ugly spectre of the Prohibition Era when bootleggers and organized crome made HUGE profits and millions of Americans got drunk 24/7/365 on cheap, bathtub gin.

Nothing will spur the distribution and use of tobacco like the banning of it.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Nothing will spur the distribution and use of tobacco like the banning of it.

ppaarets,

No doubt!  But then “bootleggers and organized crime” are already making “huge profits” on tobacco in general and cigarettes in particular, simply because of the very same taxes I mentioned above.

My suggestion about banning was rhetorical… an attempt at an elegant solution to the concerns of both Davinski and Robert108, both of whom I respect.  I am more struck by the irony of their mutual concerns from such disparate points of view than any likelihood that tobacco would be banned.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Banning tobacco products raises the ugly spectre of the Prohibition Era…

The subject of this thread is the banning of tobacco advertising, not “tobacco products”.  If you want to prevent a replay of Prohibition(if that’s really a possibility), I suggest putting the matter to a vote.  Prohibition happened because minority pressure groups got their way.  Although breaking the law shouldn’t really be glorified, should it?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Of course, the crack dealer you refer to deals in an illegal substance.  His trade is outlawed… unlike tobacco. Of course, the crack dealer parallel was hyperbolic on the level of criminality, but not on the level of putting behavior in other peoples’ faces.  I think you know what I meant here. Perhaps the answer to both your concerns and those of Davinski would be to ban tobacco outright, rather than collectively socializing the cost of its legal use. I would put that up to a popular vote, and make it very regional, perhaps even on a community basis.  It’s the American Way.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Bat, pp: I could be wrong, but didn’t Prohibition occur right after Women’s Sufferage?  Couldn’t it be regarded as the first act of militant feminism?  Just askin’…

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108:  Can’t argue with that. A whole bunch of nanny-state initiatives can be traced back to women’s suffrage.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

There’s even a guy(I should look it up for a Reader Blog submission) who apparently makes a case for tracing the era of big govt to women getting the vote.  According to him, it predates the New Deal.
Ann Coulter has also mentioned this.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Agreed. It was either Rush or Glenn who talked about the man’s study - now published in a book - last week.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

I still believe that the original idea that only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote has merit.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Screw the UN Health Agency and the American Cancer Society.
This is a free society. If we want to kill ourselves, that is our basic right. If there is collateral damage, tough!

If there is collateral damage, tough!

Wrong.  While freedom includes harming yourself(if you are that stupid), it does not include harming others(which is a crime).  Like a typical leftie, you understand neither freedom nor responsibility.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

This is a free society. If we want to kill ourselves, that is our basic right. If there is collateral damage, tough!

To translate from the moronese:

In a free society, we are free to hurt others (while we kill ourselves). It is our right.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

If there is collateral damage, tough!

If you think about it, isn’t that the attitude the makers of cigarettes must have? Quite a shameful statement.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan