Report suggests smokers may be less costly to society after all

The Register-Herald ^ | 3-1-04 | Fred Pace

[SheLion]

Gov. Bob Wise wants to raise the cigarette tax again. Pushed by Wise, lawmakers in 2003 raised taxes on cigarettes from 17 to 55 cents a pack. The money was used to help plug holes in the state Medicaid budget. Without a tax increase again this year, programs will have to be cut.

Smokers say it's unfair to keep increasing taxes on them whenever the state needs money. But the governor and other politicians seem to be claiming smokers cost the state additional money in medical costs. Smokers, they say, should be the ones forced to pay the increased costs the state faces when smokers get sick.

Sounds logical, but is it true?

A professor at the University of South Florida and his colleagues report the net costs to society of cigarette smoking have been grossly overestimated.

Sure, smokers are less productive and get sick more. ?????????? We know that. That's why the tobacco industry in 1998 settled lawsuits from 46 states, agreeing to pay $206 billion over 25 years.

Yet there's a less-considered side to the balance sheet.

Smokers die early - and save the rest of us a bundle. ???????????? We don't have to pay them Social Security ????????????? or corporate pensions. They no longer are a drain on Medicare or Medicaid. Repugnant, maybe. True, nonetheless. ??????????????

Non-smokers live longer and rack up extra medical costs. Smokers spare us all those later doctor bills, thanks to their early exit.

Has Gov. Wise considered these facts? Or are these calculations too gruesome for government to consider? You bet - we have all been reluctant to consider them.

In a recent news story, a Mississippi court flatly refused to talk about such savings, calling it "utterly repugnant to a civilized society."

These findings are summarized in an article by Gabriel Picone, an associate professor of economics, in the newsletter of the University of South Florida's Center for Economic Policy Analysis. They'll be published in an upcoming book, "The Private and Social Cost of Smoking Over the Life Cycle."

It should be stressed the researchers were not trying to defend smoking. They were just trying to apply intellectual honesty as to how we calculate the costs.

What did the findings conclude? Smokers are a burden to the state initially with smoke-related illnesses, but many reports show people are living longer with more acute illnesses and diseases. Such people are more costly to the state than smokers.

Will these findings send the wrong message? I don't think so. Smoking is bad and there is no doubt about it.

However, the total net cost smokers have on society is a lot smaller than the numbers used by politicians to support increasing taxes on cigarettes. In reality, those who live longer are more costly to society. Does this mean we increase taxes on senior citizens?

I didn't think so.

[SheLion]

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society

[SheLion]

We are SICK MORE? We die EARLIER??

I don't THINK so! What a bunch of hooey!

[Conspiracy Guy]

What would society do without all the tobacco tax I pay?

CG

[xkaydet65]

Do the Math. A dead smoker who never saw 60 compared to an 85 year old non smoker who's suffered from Alzheimers for the last ten years. Which one costs society more dollars?

[SheLion]

What would society do without all the tobacco tax I pay?

SUFFER

[Conspiracy Guy]

They would have to have a Big Mac tax to displace the loss of my cigarette taxes.

CG

[Puddleglum]

If the rationale is to tax risky behaviors that impose a cost on society, maybe there should be a tax on certain "lifestyle" choices that lead to diseases of an incurable nature... "Why, if you're suggesting what I think you're sugesting, that's outrageous!"

[Puddleglum]

I also suggest a federal consumption (sales) tax on states that receive more federal tax dollars than they give into the pot. This would discourage congressmen from raking in the gravy for their constituents and make states live within their means, attract business to boost their tax base - you know, anti-socialist stuff.

[Gabz]

That would be discriminatory to single out one group to cover medical costs for all just because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices.

[aruanan]

You should indicate when you have added emphasis to a story. Even when it's obvious you did. And, yes, smokers do, on the average, die younger than the general population and suffer more of certain illnesses (respiratory, including lung cancer and emphysema). Even Walter Williams admits this and uses it as a point in fact to counter the argument that smokers are laying a financial burden on society. Black males in the U.S. are also another group that, on average, almost never taps their Social Security funds: they die too soon (and not all from drugs and gang activity, should someone want to drag that red herring into the matter).

[codyjacksmom]

And, what about those of us that have our own insurance? These idiots are just making stuff up as they go along so they can justify their discrimination against us.

[Grit]

Do the Math. A dead smoker who never saw 60 compared to an 85 year old non smoker who's suffered from Alzheimers for the last ten years. Which one costs society more dollars?

That is not Math. You are talking about two specific people. Your statement could as well be reversed. Or just replace "smoker" and "non-smoker" with "person". It is irrelevant.

And of course, in a perfect world, neither would cost "society" one thin dime. Regardless of whether or not I smoke - my health and/or death will not cost society anything.

[SheLion]

And, what about those of us that have our own insurance? These idiots are just making stuff up as they go along so they can justify their discrimination against us.

I have the BEST insurance possible! NO one will have to pay MY way! You got it!

[SheLion]

You should indicate when you have added emphasis to a story.

Yes SIR Mr. Perfect!

Also, your misguided diatribes are ridiculous.

[codyjacksmom]

To me, this IS a lifestyle choice. At least I'm not out doing the unnatural gay thing of fudge packin.

[SheLion]

To me, this IS a lifestyle choice. At least I'm not out doing the unnatural gay thing of fudge packin.

I understand what you mean. But oh my Gawd! DON'T SMOKE! ~sarcasm off

[freekitty]

"Without a tax increase again this year, programs will have to be cut."

This is total bs. That's right; pass the buck. Continue your scam and sham that we need more taxes to make up the deficit that they caused by their cheating, lying and stealing greed.

[codyjacksmom]

;^D~

[Vigilantcitizen]

To me, this IS a lifestyle choice. At least I'm not out doing the unnatural gay thing of fudge packin.

I should hope not codyjacksMOM. :^O

[codyjacksmom]

Thanks for the smile. I should have expounded on that thought a little bit. At least my lifestyle isn't going to give me AIDS.