Less Than Zero: The Real Cost of Smoking

CarolASThompson, I honestly respect your efforts here, and if I sound testy, it is because you seem to want to insist that my conclusions have something to do with "big tobacco", in some manner, either by being a mouth piece for them, or now, some sort of dupe. Again, both cases are totally wrong! I was completely honest when I asked my original question, in that I pointed out my ignorance on the specifics of the issue that has now led to the debate we are engaged in. The simple truth is, I was totally relying upon my basic philosophies, gut instinct, and common sense, and if those items have led me to reach the same conclusions as "big tobacco", then so be it.

Now, I am going to try this one more time, then move on. I doubt I will convince you, but perhaps I'll give you something to consider in the future, and if it flies in the face of what your professors have taught you, then great; continue to trust them if you wish. However, as I tried to explain in an earlier reply, I refuse to allow socialists to frame a debate's parameters, for once one has permitted them to do so, then one has already lost the debate, for facts are disposable commodity to the socialists, without any permanent values, save for their ultimate socialist goal, and because of this, I always urge those opposing the socialists, to take a similar stance.

Now, let's assume that you have done some work for me, and now you have shown up to receive your pay for that labor. In one hand, I have a 5 dollar gold coin. In the other hand, I have a piece of paper, that has my assurances that it is worth 5 dollars, and you can take it to any store and use it just as you would the $5 gold piece. Now, are you going to seriously tell me that given that choice, you are going to take that piece of paper?

Unfortunately, we have allowed socialists to get away with this trick, and it has taken root everywhere, allowing them to get away with the sort of "fuzzy math" in the form of a flawed computer program that you take issue with on your website, to tax agencies assigning theoretical values to real properties, to convincing accountants and CEOs of large corporations that it is ok to cook their books with theoretical over inflated values.

Now, if you want to continue to insist that a "pig in a poke" has the same value as a "pig outside of the poke", that's up to you. Me? Well, I'll continue to insist that real value is not the same as theoretical value, and if that flies in the face of what is being taught as fact, then so be it!

Well, since getting involved in this thread, and going off in search for the answer to my original question, I can now at least understand why you wanted to think I was repeating the position of "big tobacco", as it does seem that they have reached similar conclusions as I independently reached.

Now, let me se if I can answer your latest "charges".

I'm going to take things out of order. Let's get to the good (aka: more agreeable) stuff first:

But this aspect of the issue is really not primarily economic: it is a matter of personal liberty to choose to buy tobacco, and then there is the issue of the conspiracy, fraud and racketeering that the anti-smokers have committed in order to manipulate the public.

I agree, to a certain extent, on your opening thought in this section, and completely with the second area. Yes, this is a personal liberty issue. However, we can not ignore the economics either, for the economics involve personal liberty as well. If I want to pay out money for a product that will probably wreck my lungs from its overuse, that's my business, and if I want to sell/produce a perfectly legal product for adult consumption, again, its my business. I also have no quarrel with people who want to try to get people to stop smoking, as long as it is a matter of free choice, and not of matter of force, and they want to use their money and their time to spread their message. And, as I said, I agree about the fraud, etc., aspects: the anti smoking crowd are trying to use the power of the government to force people to quit, via taxation and penalties through the court system, and are doing this with some phoney math, bad science, and other questionable tactics. To them, the ends justify the means. What's worse, they have used an easy target to hate, i.e., tobacco, to open the door up to using the same tactics with other products. This must stop!

Now to the disagreeable stuff:

You had better demonstrate that peoples' money will NOT go someplace else if they don't spend it on tobacco.

Now, now! What's next? When did I stop beating my wife? I admit, that I can not do this with any more COMPLETE certainty than you can with the assumption that you share with the anti smoking Nazis, which is precisely my overall point of "because of the unknown elements, use the actual figures" area of this disagreement. First, I had already stated that making this assumption, that SOME people will indeed spend their money on other goods, etc., is a good assumption. However, it is still an assumption, or a speculation if you wish, and no matter how good the speculation may be, there are still unknowns involved in it, so why go with that speculation, when factoring in the real economics can be done? I really am intrigue by this question of "Why has this substitution been made?" If this is suppose to serve as science, then it is being poorly done, when a known quantity is being passed over in favor of an assumption. Now, perhaps this is a standard practice, or perhaps there are other motives. Even I will agree that there are times when assumptions are practical. Let me go back to my scenario in an earlier post to explore this for a moment.

I asked a question involving a $5 gold piece verses a promissory note. Now, obviously, we all use these promissory notes in our daily lives, instead of the pieces of gold. We do so because we have decided the conveniences are worth the risks. Still, the risks are there, as we assume our paychecks are good, and that our court system is free enough from biases to make the proper rulings when those checks do turn up bad. Still, this is not science, but theory.

And so, again, I wonder, "Why?" It this idea, of not including the actual figures, one of conveniences, and if so, are there not side benefits to taking this convenience, namely, to further the demonization of "big tobacco", a side benefit that you seem to all too willing to constantly utilize yourself? Again, this is not science, and is a method to install Politically Correct thinking into the debate.

Let's consider for a moment a quote that I ran across last night, after seeing your reply, and deciding to respond this final time:

"The report ( a book called 'Tobacco Control in Developing Countries') provides fresh evidence to counter fears that a slump in tobacco sales would lead to millions of permanent job losses worldwide. Any impact on employment would be minimal and gradual, says Dr Prabhat Jha, Senior Scientist at WHO, and joint editor of the book.

"If tobacco consumption fell, most countries would experience no net job losses and some would even experience net gains, as money once spent on tobacco was diverted to other goods and services, creating new jobs," he said. "However, if global demand fell, a few tobacco-exporting countries—especially in sub-Saharan Africa—would experience job losses in the longer term and would need some assistance during the adjustment period," he cautioned."

AHHHHH! See how this works? The economics don't matter when they affect politically INcorrect targets, but then they come in to play when they affect PC interests! This is garbage, a matter of convenience, and not science.

Further, I take issue with your very question, as your are assuming that people will not be spending their money on tobacco, a point I covered earlier.

Let's consider a current news item: after communications were opened to those 9 trapped miners, their second question, following their starting one of "When are you going to get us out of here?", was "Can you send down some chew?" Now, what do you suppose they meant by that? That they wanted some ostrich jerky or dried peppers to gnaw on? Of course not. They wanted some tobacco (and, quite frankly, if I had to worked 240 feet beneath the ground, and couldn't smoke, I would probably take up chewing myself.)

See, it is just as valid for me (and "big tobacco") to assume that just because the price of the product is going to get increased to immense levels, it doesn't mean people will stop using the product. This causes several possibilities to come into play, including underground sales, items which the anti smoking Nazis like to dismiss as well. Again, question "WHY?" Society can't even stop the production of items like opium and cocaine, which come from plants that grow in somewhat limited areas, so how are we going to stop tobacco? We are not going to, and there are economic consequences to the distribution of underground tobacco, despite the anti smoking Nazis attempts to dismiss this as well.

As I said, the CRS also rejects that argument.

And, with all honesty, that was the first time I have ever read that report. Read again what I said about the report, specifically, how it answered SOME of my questions about just how the economics of tobacco where being included in the studies. I neither endorsed or supported the CRS, and I was not using it to support my contention that all the economic factors should be included, only that it was an answer to SOME of my questions. (However, the CRS has got me interested in trying to find out more.)

Otherwise you are insisting that harm to the economy in general would result if tobacco was not part of the picture. I think you are mistaking the narrow concerns of tobacco farmers and merchants in tobacco-growing areas for the general economic interest

YES, I am insisting! And I am incredulous that you can not see the harm. Obviously, anti smoking Nazi, Dr Prabhat Jha, Senior Scientist at WHO, whom I quoted above, sees the economic consequences, but dismisses them, because he is a socialist (I assume), and sees the anti smoking campaign as something that will benefit the socialist agenda.

But let's get back to you, for you seem interested only in the economic concerns of the consumers, and, as I pointed out above, you seem to care less about the economic interests of the producers, and are trying to not only dismiss the economic connection between these two factions, but also the economic impact to society as a whole in the process.

Once more, I will point to an area you did not address when I previously brought it up: tobacco currently funds numerous social programs, including programs that are not tobacco related. Once the revenues from tobacco disappear, just where do you think the replacement revenues will come from, or, are you naive enough to think that these programs will cease to exist? No, the programs will continue, and the costs will be shoveled onto other goods and services. Furthermore, as tobacco taxes increase to make up for the lost revenues, society's lower end legal tobacco users will be picking up the tab, with prices they can not afford, making the underground option even more desirable, and as the underground use grows, and revenues shrink, who will be paying for tobacco related health care costs then, not to mention all those other non related programs I spoke of? Heck, for that matter, who pays for all the illegal drug health care costs NOW?????? Shouldn't we be concerning ourselves with that issue even more so than tobacco? Even the most extreme anti smoking Nazis have to admit, however reluctantly, that tobacco currently does pay for at least part of its health care costs, through taxes (of course, they wish to dismiss the indirect areas). This option does not exist when it comes to illegal drugs, so why are we not discussing that issue with even more fervor than the tobacco one?

And even further, legal tobacco at least has some quality control, that in all likely hood, keeps health care costs down, verses what one would get with underground tobacco.

And I suppose I should even point out to you, your hypocracy, of YOU trying to force YOUR will over the farmers and merchants, while criticising the anti smoking Nazis for doing the same.

Anyway, this has been fun, and, I had to look up some stuff to get some answers, so it hasn't been a complete waste of time. But, I do need to get moving onto other things. See you!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.