Re: Smoking laws

#2435

Author: Joe Dawson
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:00

221 lines
11859 bytes

Fred Winterer (bankreef@ais.net) wrote:

: Dr Alexander Grey wrote:
: 
: > Smoke longer, live shorter!,...die happy, save tax payers money,
: > 
: > The cost of supporting Americans who live longer outweighs the
: > medical costs of smokers who die early.

: -- Unless you're speaking with tongue in cheek, pease supply the
: data to support your allegations. --

Gladly.


Numerous "studies" purport to show that smokers are costing "society"
amounts which vary from 22 cents to $4.80 for each pack they smoke.
That the estimates vary so widely is already a clue that the authors
select data which pleases them and ignore the rest.

Apart from accidents, smokers and nonsmokers alike die mostly from
heart disease, cancer and strokes. Smokers just get them sooner, on
average. By living longer, non-smokers incur more in medical and old
age expenses, not less. In addition, smokers' shorter lifespans mean
they cost less in Social Security and pensions. Finally, they pay more
taxes during their lives. Thus it can be shown that smokers, rather
than costing money, actually pay into the system more than they take
out.

Stanford economist Timothy Taylor, an anti-smoker, made these points
in the San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 1994, and agrees that tobacco
taxation cannot be justified by the social cost theory.

In a recent paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Duke
University economist W. Kip Viscusi calculated a net saving to society
of 83 cents per pack.

In 1995, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service updated a
1986 Manning study on smoking costs originally published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association. The CRS recalculated
Manning's 1986 dollars into 1995 dollars by using the GNP deflator for
some costs and a medical services index for others, recognized
increased cigarette taxes and added ETS effects. The result: a net
saving to society of 15 cents per pack in 1986 became 33 cents per
pack in 1995.

But what of the Centers for Disease Control's much-publicised figure
of $50 billion? A proper economic analysis must include ALL external
costs: health care, sick leave, life insurance, nursing care, pension,
fires and effect (if any) of ETS. The  CDC arrived at their $50
billion figure as follows:

	EXPENSES
	$26.9 billion, hospitals
	$15.5 billion, doctors
	$4.9 billion, nursing homes
	$1.8 billion, prescription drugs
	$900 million, home health care

	TOTAL
	$50 billion

	PER PACK
	$2.06

	TAXPAYER BILL
	$21.6 billion, or 89 cents per pack 

What is important in this list is what is not there. No mention is
made of offsetting taxes, nor of social security savings, nor of the
extra cost of old age.

Also, they produced the numbers above not by adding up what was
actually paid, but by adding up the the total list price of procedures
recommended by the book for such illnesses as they declared were
caused by smoking. In real life many of the procedures are skipped,
what is actually paid by insurance companies is a discounted amount,
and some illnesses go largely or completely untreated. As a result,
the "costs" they used bear little resemblance to those of Taylor,
Viscusi, Manning or the CRS.

A recent issue of the New Yorker magazine had a short article on
smoking and health costs. Its take-off point was the recent Florida
law which authorizes the State to sue tobacco companies for its cost
of providing health care to smokers. Some of the arguments seem worth
quoting:

   ...there is something slightly off about Florida's arithmetic -- and,
   more broadly, about the whole notion of health care as an exercise in
   bargain-hunting. Florida says that it has spend a billion two hundred
   million dollars over the past five years in Medicaid payments for
   smoking-related illnesses. But that figure is misleading. While
   smokers use a lot of state-sponsored health care, and about three and
   a half billion dollars a year of federal Medicare money, they also
   tend to die around five years earlier than nonsmokers. That means five
   fewer years of the heavy health-care burdens of old age, five fewer
   years of nursing-home care, and five fewer years of drawing a federal
   pension.

   In fact, for those inclined to such ghoulish calculations, the easier
   case to make is that smokers save society money. Around a third of the
   Americans who die from smoking related causes die before the age of
   sixty-five, and that means that after paying into Social Security
   throughout their working lives many of them will collect little or
   nothing from it. In effect, they subsidize the pensions of nonsmokers.
   How great is the subsidy? The shortened life span of just those
   smokers born in 1920, according to a recent study by three Stanford
   University researchers, will end up saving the Social Security system
   fourteen and a half billion dollars. All told, they conclude, smoking
   will reduce the obligations of the system by 'hundreds of billions of
   dollars.' And, while it's true that smokers are out sick more
   frequently than their more virtuous fellowcitizens, it's also true,
   alas, that illness and death, with their attendant costs to the health
   industry, come to us all.

And the French have discovered the same thing:

   PARIS (AP) -- Smoking, long considered a costly health care burden,
   actually reaps the government an annual profit, according to a study
   released Friday by Paris' Institute of Political Science. High tobacco
   taxes and social security savings gained by premature deaths made the
   French government a net profit of 18.5 billion francs (dlrs 3.5
   billion) in 1990, the study revealed.
   
   The study, by Professor Jean-Jacques Rosa, attacks the idea that
   smoking creates "a considerable social cost." "Premature deaths of
   retired smokers benefit society because the government no longer has
   to pay their social security benefits or their healthrelated
   expenses," the professor said.
   
   According to the study, French smokers have a life expectancy of about
   67 years, which is six years less than the average French citizen. The
   study estimated smokingrelated medical expenses to cost the government
   about 26.5 billion francs ($5 billion).

   However, the combined profits from tobacco taxes and the annual
   savings brought about by premature deaths total about 44.9 billion
   francs ($8.5 billion). "Consuming alcohol and tobacco, just like
   reading or going to the movies, must be left to individual choice, and
   not be considered a social cost," Rosa said.

Finally, an article on the Viscusi study from the San Jose Mercury
News (3/27/95):

   Study Looks at Who Pays for Costs Cigarette Smokers Impose on Society
   By David Ress, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune
   Business News

   Mar. 27--If there's no such thing as a free lunch, is it possible to
   at least get a free smoke?

   Nope, says Duke University economist W. Kip Viscusi. In a recent paper
   for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Viscusi took a hard look
   at the question of who pays for the costs smokers impose on society.

   These include additional health-care costs, passed on to everyone in
   the form of higher health insurance premiums and taxes for Medicare.
   They include additional sick days at work; more fire risks and higher
   group life insurance rates.

   Viscusi calculated the additional health-care costs for smokers at the
   equivalent of about 55 cents for every pack of cigarettes bought in
   the United States.

   The added sick days, he figures, aren't that big a deal: he estimates
   they cost society the equivalent of a penny a pack.

   Viscusi pegs the extra fire risk at about two cents a pack. This risk
   comes from those who smoke in bed or never listened to what Smokey
   Bear said about pitching lighted cigarettes in the woods.

   The economist puts the added cost to group life insurance policies at
   14 cents a pack.
 
   That adds up to social costs of 72 cents a pack. The federal
   government collects 24 cents a pack in excise taxes, and the states
   average another 29 cents. Taken together, that suggests 19 cents a
   pack of costs to society that cigarette taxes aren't paying.

   For Virginia, with its 2.5 cent-a-pack cigarette tax, the shortfall
   would be more like 45.5 cents a pack.

   But wait. Smokers don't live as long as nonsmokers. That, says
   Viscusi, means they spend less time than nonsmokers do in nursing
   homes. That's a saving to society equal to 23 cents a pack.

   Smokers don't collect pensions and Social Security for as long as
   nonsmokers do, Viscusi adds. There's a saving to society equivalent to
   $1.19 a pack.

   Society does lose out, though, in tax collections. If smokers lived
   longer, the additional taxes they'd pay on their income would
   translate to the equivalent of about 40 cents a pack.

   Overall, though, as Viscusi counts it, the cigarette taxes smokers pay
   more than compensate the rest of us for the additional costs they
   impose on society.

Viscusi's bottom line: a net saving to society of 83 cents per pack.

But what of absenteeism?. This is largely a result of excessive
drinking and ensuing hangovers. Based largely on socio-economic
differences, a higher proportion of smokers drink than non smokers.
Accordingly, if you survey absent workers and ask only the question
"Do you smoke?", smokers will appear to be absent more often. But it
is alcohol which is primarily responsible. If only non drinking
absentees were surveyed, there would be no correlation between smoking
and absenteeism.

Apart from being wrong as to fact, however, the social cost arguments
depend on a dangerous proposition: that when society, through taxes or
insurance, shares costs and spreads risks it thereby becomes entitled
to regulate, control and even prohibit behaviors deemed "costly". This
is the perfect principle with which to transform a free society into a
nation of brothers' keepers, since there is virtually no human
activity to which it cannot be extended.

-- 
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time
 he will pick himself and continue." 
                     - Winston Churchill

Re: Smoking laws

#2431

Author: Thomas Muckley
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:00

18 lines
1891 bytes

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:

>There are good arguments against smoking, but the anti-smoking
>movement has acquired strong elements of a persecution and attracts
>people with inclinations to persecute other people.  Many of us
>non-smokers find the movement more objectionable than other people
>smoking.  Moreover, people who practice persecution on smokers may
>enjoy it enough to look for other targets and do even more harm.

>I think the movement should be encouraged to lay off.

>-- 
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

Amen.

Re: Smoking laws

#2432

Author: S.D. Lantos
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:00

20 lines
2137 bytes

I completely disagree that non-smokers movements are too hard on smokers, 
for the simple reason that anyone who risks another's life by some 
unnecessary action must be made aware and stopped. Having asthma makes it 
difficult to go places where there are smokers; I do not relish the 
thought of dying a long, slow, painful death of cancer because of living 
with a smoker, nor do I really need the hassle of asthma attacks simply 
because I want to go out for an evening.

I also think that parents should NOT be allowed to smoke around their 
children: one of my friends had childhood cancer directly connected to 
both her parrents smoking, and she suffered greatly. 

My .02$

-Xanna
-- 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do"
"The giving of love is an education in itself"
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@-Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962

Re: Smoking laws

#2426

Author: Scott Nudds
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00

20 lines
2080 bytes

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: There are good arguments against smoking, but the anti-smoking
: movement has acquired strong elements of a persecution and attracts
: people with inclinations to persecute other people.

  What forms of persecution are you referring to Mr. McCarthy?  
Persecution in the form of not being forced to consume the smoke created 
by others?  The persecution of having their stay in the hospital partly 
paid by non-smokers?

  You realize Mr. McCarthy that if your words create an environment in 
which more people are prompted to smoke, then by your own <logic>, and in 
your case I use the term with reservation, you will have to consider 
yourself guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and/or murder.

  I would hate to think that you have one set of rules for yourself and 
another for others.


--

Re: Smoking laws

#2427

Author: DaveHatunen
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00

49 lines
3822 bytes

In article <4ikbhj$ofi@sanews1.morgan.com>,
Kenneth Wolman <kwolman@is.morgan.com> wrote:

[...]

>I am old enough to remember the not-so-slow transition of smoking from an
>acceptable practice to one which makes the smoker a pariah.  I find it curious,
>let's say, that sometime in the Seventies, all of a sudden all these people
>suddenly appeared with a host of respiratory ailments that they never seemed to
>have before.  Were these emboldened asthmatics who now had social morality on
>their side?  How DID these people survive before, when smoking was permitted in
>interior public places?

I think it far more likely that, given the belligerency shown by
smokers and their defenders, and here displayed by you, asthmatics and
such meekly accepted their place on the sidelines of society. But then,
in the 1970s at a time when "empowerment" was a buzz word and the ill
effects of smoke were becoming publicized (having already been
well-known and suppressed by the tobacco companies) they realized that
they were being denied their rights to be in assorted public and
quasi-public places, and demanded their rights.

[...]

>No, ma'am, I will not smoke around YOUR children.  It is your right to insist on
>that.  If you or one of your little Republic of Virtue friends tries to stop ME
>from smoking around MY children, you will have more than asthma to worry about.

It never ceases to amaze me how perfectly rational people, who wouldn't
dream of subjecting their children to the risks of the emissions from
some oil refinery, or steel mill in the same concentrations, will
insist on their right to foul up the air *inside* their homes with
similar emissions on the grounds that its *their* children and *their*
home and they'll damn well do as they please, rather as if the home and
the children had equal standing as forms of property.

And I do plead guilty to having made the same sort of rationalizations,
which in restrospect I can only ascribe to an addict's irrational
defense of his right to another hit.

I am removing sci.energy from the followups as this seems to have
little to do with the subject.
-- 

    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Re: Smoking laws

#2433

Author: John McCarthy
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00

35 lines
2922 bytes

In article <4ij7gm$2t0@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: There are good arguments against smoking, but the anti-smoking
: movement has acquired strong elements of a persecution and attracts
: people with inclinations to persecute other people.

What forms of persecution are you referring to Mr. McCarthy?
Persecution in the form of not being forced to consume the smoke created
by others? The persecution of having their stay in the hospital partly
paid by non-smokers?

You realize Mr. McCarthy that if your words create an environment in
which more people are prompted to smoke, then by your own <logic>, and in
your case I use the term with reservation, you will have to consider
yourself guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and/or murder.

I would hate to think that you have one set of rules for yourself and
another for others.

A good point. I did think quite a while before making
anti-anti-smoking pronouncements. My opinion is that the danger from
self-righteousness is larger than the danger from smoking, but there
is also a simple desire to speak what I see as the truth about a
psychological characteristic of a part of the anti-smoking movement.

The persecution of not allowing any restaurants in Palo Alto to allow
smoking. You could require such a restaurant to display a sign with
a warning on it.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

Re: Smoking laws

#2434

Author: Kenneth Wolman
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00

48 lines
4181 bytes

In article <4iiogn$g1j@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, u9216523@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (S.D. Lantos) writes:
|> I completely disagree that non-smokers movements are too hard on smokers,
|> for the simple reason that anyone who risks another's life by some
|> unnecessary action must be made aware and stopped. Having asthma makes it
|> difficult to go places where there are smokers; I do not relish the
|> thought of dying a long, slow, painful death of cancer because of living
|> with a smoker, nor do I really need the hassle of asthma attacks simply
|> because I want to go out for an evening.

This statement is filled with some interesting assumptions, not the least of
which is an implicit stereotyping of smokers as people who are perfectly
prepared to blow smoke in your face, ignore "no smoking" signs in indoor
facilities, and behave boorishly. Do you really think that you would
live with someone who would smoke in your presence, knowing it bothered
you? Either you don't love carefully or you are setting up a deliberate
straw-man, probably the latter.

I am old enough to remember the not-so-slow transition of smoking from an
acceptable practice to one which makes the smoker a pariah. I find it curious,
let's say, that sometime in the Seventies, all of a sudden all these people
suddenly appeared with a host of respiratory ailments that they never seemed to
have before. Were these emboldened asthmatics who now had social morality on
their side? How DID these people survive before, when smoking was permitted in
interior public places?

|> I also think that parents should NOT be allowed to smoke around their
|> children: one of my friends had childhood cancer directly connected to
|> both her parrents smoking, and she suffered greatly.

Thank you for finally coming clean: you are a Puritan and your objection is not
health-related, but religious. America has a gift for the Mrs. Grundy or Anthony
Comstock mentality that takes personal offense and raises it to the level of
public policy, PC, or whatever else you want to call it. I call it invasion of
privacy masquerading as child protection: it is no less invasive in that sense
than the CDA, also launched by hiding behind children as a smokescreen. You base
your silly, fascistic statement on a friend who suffered from cancer because her
parents smoked? Where is your evidence to support this? Can you do better than
a non sequitur anecdote?

No, ma'am, I will not smoke around YOUR children. It is your right to insist on
that. If you or one of your little Republic of Virtue friends tries to stop ME
from smoking around MY children, you will have more than asthma to worry about.

--
Kenneth Wolman Information Technology Morgan Stanley Inc.
750 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10019 212-762-1685
No external communications should be construed to represent Morgan Stanley,
any of its clients or associated companies, or anyone but myself.

Re: Smoking laws

#2428

Author: Scott Nudds
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00

35 lines
2873 bytes

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: My opinion is that the danger from
: self-righteousness is larger than the danger from smoking, but there
: is also a simple desire to speak what I see as the truth about a
: psychological characteristic of a part of the anti-smoking movement.

  What metric do you use to measure the danger of "self-righteousness" Mr 
McCarthy?  I would like to see the numbers you used to evaluate the inequity.

  A number that I remember hearing today is that about 23,000 people die 
yearly in the U.S. as a result of smoking.  Please provide the number of 
people you estimate die in the U.S. due to "self-righteousness" along 
with the methods you used to abtain your numbers.


: The persecution of not allowing any restaurants in Palo Alto to allow
: smoking.

  Language abuse seems to be one of your specialties Mr McCarthy.  The 
term "persecution" is not appropriately attributed to protecting 
someone's health.  Please provide us with the logic behind your 
misapplication of the term.


: You could require such a restaurant to display a sign with a warning on it.

  And you could force Jews to wear a star of David.  Persecution?

  I await your numbers Mr. McCarthy, but I suspect that as always, you 
don't have the numbers, are therefore incapable of doing the arithmetic 
and are typically talking nonsense.



--

Re: Smoking laws

#2429

Author: Dick Lavinthal
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00

21 lines
2283 bytes

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:

>In article <4ij7gm$2t0@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>  
>  John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>  : There are good arguments against smoking, but the anti-smoking
>  : movement has acquired strong elements of a persecution and attracts
>  : people with inclinations to persecute other people.

I have joined the movement seeking to have *smokologism* taught in
schools alongside with smoking, so that students can recognize that
smokologism is a belief that many people still hold dear.   After all,
there's no guarantee that cigarettes evolved from apes.  



^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
Public Relations, Public Affairs, Media Relations Counsel
Vidocq Society Member and Editor Of The Vidocq Journal
DICK LAVINTHAL                  a/k/a rlavinth@i-2000.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Smoking laws

#2430

Author: S.D. Lantos
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00

12 lines
1631 bytes

Just like to point out: I am NOT from the USA. And take offense to the 
suggestion. 

This is probably at the root of our disagreement.

S. L.
-- 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do"
"The giving of love is an education in itself"
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@-Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962

Re: Smoking laws

#2424

Author: George Boggs
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00

59 lines
3790 bytes

In article <4ilq34$j0l@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:

> John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
> : My opinion is that the danger from
> : self-righteousness is larger than the danger from smoking, but there
> : is also a simple desire to speak what I see as the truth about a
> : psychological characteristic of a part of the anti-smoking movement.
> 
>   What metric do you use to measure the danger of "self-righteousness" Mr 
> McCarthy?  I would like to see the numbers you used to evaluate the inequity.

And what "metric" do you use for your opinions, Mr. Nudds? Do you quantify
all your opinions. I shall save your posting. I think I will enjoy
revisiting it when you get on one of your rants.

> 
>   A number that I remember hearing today is that about 23,000 people die 
> yearly in the U.S. as a result of smoking.  Please provide the number of 
> people you estimate die in the U.S. due to "self-righteousness" along 
> with the methods you used to abtain your numbers.

Death is not the only possible consequence of behavior. You are remarkably
unobservant.

> 
> 
> : The persecution of not allowing any restaurants in Palo Alto to allow
> : smoking.
> 
>   Language abuse seems to be one of your specialties Mr McCarthy.  The 
> term "persecution" is not appropriately attributed to protecting 
> someone's health.  Please provide us with the logic behind your 
> misapplication of the term.

You should certainly be an expert at spotting it, Mr. Nudds. You are
well-known for being an arrogant asshole.

> 
> 
> : You could require such a restaurant to display a sign with a warning on it.
> 
>   And you could force Jews to wear a star of David.  Persecution?

Christ, I knew we'd get the Nazis in this discussion somehow. Not
surprised it's from you, Nudds. Where else would you get content?

> 
>   I await your numbers Mr. McCarthy, but I suspect that as always, you 
> don't have the numbers, are therefore incapable of doing the arithmetic 
> and are typically talking nonsense.

While we await Mr. McCarthy's numbers, why not post your numbers? I'm sure
you have them at your fingertips. After all, I think you are the person in
rec.environment who called a simple quotient the "mathematics". God.

-- 
G. Boggs                     I'd rather be rich than stupid.
                                                 J. Handey

🚀 go-pugleaf

Thread View: sci.energy

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Re: Smoking laws

Thread Navigation