Lets see:
1.7 M deaths due to chronic disease.
430,000 deaths "attributed to smoking"
=25% (coincidental number)
25% of the population smokes. I say we must take actions and restrict the behaviour of the other 75% of the population that result in 75% of the deaths.
"Direct medical costs of smoking alone are more than $75 billion,"
Direct medical costs are paid for by the patient, or the patients insurance. Unless we have adopted a Nationalized health plan without my knowledge.
"$80 billion associated with lost production."
This is a bogus number that can not be proven.
"Cancer has ranked first in the cause of death since 1981."
Thanks for the information (all of it, I just didn't want to repost it.) It is a coincidence that about the time the anti tobacco push started, the rate of cancer began to climb in Japan. I would be curious to find out if that corresponded with an increase in US Agriculture imports....
"It's not about my approval its about paying for a bad habit - disproprotionately."
Yes, but who defines a "bad" habit. You fail to address that. If it isn't you, who will you authorize to decide? The majorit? (Tyranny) Or a chosen group/individual decision maker? (Fascism)
"Do the math smart guy."
You had not presented any actual data to "do the math".
But here it is for you:
From:
http://www.smokingsection.com/swafr.htm 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 SocietyBy David Ress, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune BusinessNewsMar. 27--If there's no such thing as a free lunch, is it possible to atleast get a free smoke?
Nope, says Duke University economist W. Kip Viscusi. In a recent paper forthe National Bureau of Economic Research, Viscusi took a hard look at thequestion of who pays for the costs smokers impose on society.
These include additional health-care costs, passed on to everyone in theform of higher health insurance premiums and taxes for Medicare. Theyinclude additional sick days at work; more fire risks and higher grouplife insurance rates.
Viscusi calculated the additional health-care costs for smokers at theequivalent of about 55 cents for every pack of cigarettes bought in theUnited States.
The added sick days, he figures, aren't that big a deal: he estimates theycost society the equivalent of a penny a pack.
Viscusi pegs the extra fire risk at about two cents a pack. This risk comesfrom those who smoke in bed or never listened to what Smokey Bear said aboutpitching lighted cigarettes in the woods.
The economist puts the added cost to group life insurance policies at 14cents a pack.
That adds up to social costs of 72 cents a pack. The federal governmentcollects 24 cents a pack in excise taxes, and the states average another29 cents. Taken together, that suggests 19 cents a pack of costs to societythat cigarette taxes aren't paying.
For Virginia, with its 2.5 cent-a-pack cigarette tax, the shortfall wouldbe 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 asaving to society equal to 23 cents a pack.
Smokers don't collect pensions and Social Security for as long as nonsmokersdo, 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 theequivalent of about 40 cents a pack.
Overall, though, as Viscusi counts it, the cigarette taxes smokers pay morethan compensate the rest of us for the additional costs they impose onsociety.
(end quoted article)
Viscusi's bottom line: a net saving to society of 83 cents per pack.
And absenteeism? This is largely a result of excessive drinkingand ensuing hangovers. Based largely on socio-economic differences, ahigher proportion of smokers drink than non smokers. Accordingly, if yousurvey absent workers and ask only the question "Do you smoke?", smokerswill appear to be absent more often. But it is alcohol which is primarilyresponsible. If only non drinking absentees were surveyed, there would beno correlation between smoking and absenteeism.
Apart from being wrong as to fact, however, the social cost arguments dependon 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 perfectprinciple 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.
Pay particular attention to the last paragraph "realpatriot"!
25% of the population smokes. I say we must take actions and restrict the behaviour of the other 75% of the population that result in 75% of the deaths. (?) No you have it wrong. "25%" are the percentage of people who died last year from chronic disease related to smoking :-)
Direct medical costs are paid for by the patient, or the patients insurance. Unless we have adopted a Nationalized health plan without my knowledge.
LOL - yeah it's called medicare and medicaid, not to mentioned all the uninsured that county and VA hospitals take care off. If everyone, smoker or not, were paying their medical bills you might have a point, but they're not, so you don't. :-)
This is a bogus number that can not be proven.
LOL - Oooops cannot counter this one, so it must be "bogus" :-)
Yes, but who defines a "bad" habit. You fail to address that. If it isn't you, who will you authorize to decide? The majorit? (Tyranny) Or a chosen group/individual decision maker? (Fascism)
None of the above - objective medical science and risk/cost analysis have shown that it is completely stupid for the government to continue to pay for people who are willfully and selfishly self-destructive.
You had not presented any actual data to "do the math".
Smoking is the single biggest self-controlable(?) contributing factor to chronic dz - the same diseases that cost the most amount of money to care for and treat.
(3/27/95)
A lot has happened since '95