🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:35:12 GMT, "Ivan Satori" <satori@cgocable.net>
wrote:

>
>Scott Willing <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
>news:8W5s6.5186$tn1.67410@news1.mts.net...
>>
>> Doug Craigen <dcc@escape.ca> wrote in message
>> news:3AABEA44.9E54AA46@escape.ca...
>> > No objection to much of the list, but two items stand out:
>>
>> [snipped to one item for a personal rant]
>>
>> IMHO you should be able to smoke, ingest or inject anything you like, but
>> only if
>
>A bit of a problem how to keep track and effectively enforce ...
>
>> (a) you sign a waiver releasing taxpayers from financial responsibility
>for
>> negative affects on your health,
>> (b) your supplier provides you with the most accurate and current
>> information available concerning known risks, and
>> (c) your supplier is required to put a portion of the product cost into a
>> health and liability insurance fund, as well as research into mitigating
>the
>> negative effects of the product.
>
>I've heard about some stats published in B.C. which concluded that smokers
>cost the system and taxpayers noticeably less than non-smokers. - Some of
>the factors: lower life expectancy (not drawing pensions that long), much
>faster mortality in age related health complications (shorter stay on life
>supporting equipment) , ... - wasn't able to get my hands on the article or
>publication myself, so it's just a hearsay.


Nothwithstanding the fact that the total government 'take' on
cigarettes, including direct taxes, income taxes paid by the
corporations and the employees, direct and indirect job creation tax
revenues far exceeds monies spent on smoking related health matters.
The 'antis' like to say otherwise, but that's only because when they
spout their numbers they only use the direct tax on a package of
cigarettes, not the cumulative take on the creation of the product.