Doug Casey on Tobacco

[NeverBend]

Doug Casey on Tobacco (excerpted from a longer interview)

I get emails from Casey Research. It's a stock advice rag with a political bent and though I don't agree with Doug Casey (himself) on some issues, I find him intelligent and he often presents a clear case for his opinions. This excerpt is from an 'interview' with Casey that I received today. Stay with it, worth the time.

L = Louis (the interviewer).
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/09.11/images/Doug-Casey.jpg
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

L: The parallels with tobacco are obvious. It's another victimless crime that Big Brother and all his busybody supporters have decided has got to go.

Doug: Yes, they're ratcheting up the anti-tobacco rhetoric in the same way these other substances were demonized before they were made illegal. I generally don't believe in conspiracy theories, even though everybody and his dog conspires, simply because it's hard enough to get four people all to agree on what movie to see, much less how to commit a giant malfeasance. But, clearly, people of bad will often think alike. And if they see some group of do-gooders has a new agenda, it's monkey see, monkey do. The anti-smoking hysteria is worldwide at this point.

L: I'm not a smoker either, and frankly, I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. But it's striking to me the way that habit is being rebranded in such a negative way. The little smoker's booths are bad enough, but making it illegal to smoke in bars, which are private property where people want to go smoke and drink – and even in your own house in some places – is taking the anti-smoking witch-hunt beyond apartheid to persecution.

Doug: It's actually insane. And a violation of property rights – the owner of the establishment should make the rules; the customers can abide by them or go elsewhere. People have become such whipped dogs in accepting government decrees. There's a cigar bar in Vancouver, right across from the Terminal City Club. They sell good Cuban cigars, and they have a tastefully appointed room that's air conditioned, filtered, sealed, etc., set up so people could smoke cigars without affecting a non-smoker's most delicate sensitivity in any way. But the Vancouver government has outlawed any smoking in any commercial establishment. So, here we have a state-of-the-art cigar bar where you're not allowed to smoke.
It's just incredible. Stupid and destructive. It's a depressing sign of how degraded the average person has become that people are not out in the streets with pitchforks and torches, storming the busybodies' castles. And, of course, the police enforce any and all laws, like robots.
Back in the 1980s, when I flew the Concorde…

L: They let you fly one?

Doug: [Laughs] No, although I did fly a Cuban airliner once. It was a Russian Antonov-1, which is a gigantic prop plane. I went up to greet the pilot, who didn't speak very good English, and my Spanish wasn't very good at the time. He asked if I was a pilot, and I said yes, which was true, albeit for little Pipers and Cessnas, and he invited me to take over the plane. My friend Ben Johnson had the same thing happen to him in Russia on a Tupolev jet airliner… but that would not likely happen on a British Airways Concorde.

L: No, I wouldn't think so.

Doug: Anyway, not only could you smoke on the Concorde in those days, but they actually passed out a selection of Cuban cigars for you to smoke after your dinner.

L. Wow...

Doug: That's a genuine fact. And earlier, back when I was in high school, stewardesses would pass out free sample packs of cigarettes to all the passengers who wanted them, courtesy of the cigarette companies.

L: Things sure have changed…

Doug: Radically. It seems like all these chimpanzees get a new meme in their heads, and that becomes the new way it is. Fashion totally overrules principle.

L: It's like that thing about, first they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist; then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I'm not Jewish, etc., then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Doug: Pastor Martin Niemöller, referring to the National Socialists, of whom, incidentally, he was an early supporter. That's exactly right. First they came for the smokers…

L: What would you say to people who don't want to breathe other people's smoke? Isn't it a violation of their rights when a smoker fills the air with fumes they don't want to breathe?

Doug: It might be, but it might not. It's a matter of property rights. If someone comes into your house and blows smoke in your face, that certainly is a violation of your rights. But if you're in a restaurant or airplane and the owners are okay with smoking, no one is violating your rights. You have the right to leave or fly another airline, but you don't have a right to impose your personal air quality standards on others, in their places. In these types of situations, it's not the smoke that's the problem, it's unclear property rights.

L: Fair enough. So, what's your favorite cigar?

Doug: Well, I have to give the nod to the Cubans. I used to argue with my old friend Jose that the Dominicans were just as good – but he was right. Too bad they're illegal in the U.S. The best in the world is probably the Trinidad, and it's also the most expensive at close to $50 a copy, for some models. Next is the Cohiba, especially the Esplendido and Lancero. During the cigar boom of the late '90s – and cigar booms always coincide with tops in the stock market, it's uncanny – Castro idiotically put out a directive to triple production. Needless to say, quality collapsed; he almost single-handedly destroyed the industry. But Cubans are now back up to snuff.
I think there's much more variation in quality and taste in cigars than in liquors. And marketing also is a major controller of price. Once, when I visited perhaps the best cigar store in Havana, I mentioned to the manager, who was a real aficionado, that I really like Cohiba Lanceros but didn't like the $20 price. He suggested El Rey del Mundo, Grandes de España. As far as I could tell, it was the same cigar – but at $4 a copy. The cheapest place I know to buy Cubans is at the Duty Free in Buenos Aires. The most expensive is anywhere in the UK – including the Duty Free at Heathrow, where they're over twice the price they are in Buenos Aires.

[allusred]

Thanks Pete, amazing how some now find cigarette, cigar smoke to be so offensive, deadly that even at a distance of twenty yards they must let you know, often shrilly just how offensive they find your smoking. Odd tho when they so often stink of cheap perfumes etc. Complain of a smoker in a nearby apartment while burning cheap strongly scented candles and/or filling their apartments with sprays of all sorts.

[AlanS]

Funny. All the local do gooders and tree huggers are out to save us and our planets eco-system, most of our bike riders here smoke cigs if they havent started vaping.

[Chad Vegas]

Good point! It is silly to point the finger at smokers when they have a soda in one hand and a bag full of fast food on their lap. The health complications from religiously consuming fast food and soda far out weighs the damage you do by smoking a stick!

[Cardinal]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis

Mr. Lewis was a smart man.


Odd tho when they so often stink of cheap perfumes etc. Complain of a smoker in a nearby apartment while burning cheap strongly scented candles and/or filling their apartments with sprays of all sorts.

No kidding. Can those foul, reeking candles really be any better for you than a few wisps of second-hand smoke that drift past you outside? I really don't get the second-hand smoke thing, except as a mechanism to demonize smokers. If second-hand smoke really killed, no more than a handful of children would have survived the 50s-60s-70s.

[allusred]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis

Mr. Lewis was a smart man.



No kidding. Can those foul, reeking candles really be any better for you than a few wisps of second-hand smoke that drift past you outside? I really don't get the second-hand smoke thing, except as a mechanism to demonize smokers. If second-hand smoke really killed, no more than a handful of children would have survived the 50s-60s-70s.

May be mistaken but I think any other than pure Beeswax candles will be loaded with some bad things. yet so many fools think that having many candles burning in one or more rooms is just fine, along with a few buckets of Potpouri. That is great air quality,overlaying he wonderful scent of the insect sprays,hair sprays, detergents,polishes,etc.
Your mention of kids somehow defying the odds (according to todays anti smoking nazis) to survive growing up in the 50s-60s-70s is right on the mark.
I cannot remember any men who did not smoke cigars,cigarettes,pipes,do remember several chewers. Can only recall when I was a kid one or two aduilt Women who smoked
at all,and that was seldom.Having been born in the first half of the '30s my recollection is that people smoked virtually everywheres. The cigar lighter in the dashboard was used to light up your smokes. Now theyre converted into powering cell phones, Ipads etc.

[droy1958]

May be mistaken but I think any other than pure Beeswax candles will be loaded with some bad things. yet so many fools think that having many candles burning in one or more rooms is just fine, along with a few buckets of Potpouri. That is great air quality,overlaying he wonderful scent of the insect sprays,hair sprays, detergents,polishes,etc.
Your mention of kids somehow defying the odds (according to todays anti smoking nazis) to survive growing up in the 50s-60s-70s is right on the mark.
I cannot remember any men who did not smoke cigars,cigarettes,pipes,do remember several chewers. Can only recall when I was a kid one or two aduilt Women who smoked
at all,and that was seldom.Having been born in the first half of the '30s my recollection is that people smoked virtually everywheres. The cigar lighter in the dashboard was used to light up your smokes. Now theyre converted into powering cell phones, Ipads etc.

It's pretty hard to find an ash tray in a vehicle these days, but you çan find 3 charging ports. Hell, I remember when you had to actually drive inßtead of playing with two or three TV's, DVD's, phones and navigation systems. It's a friggin' miracle we were able to find our way to a destination back in the "old days". Sometimes you couldn't get a radio station and people actually talked to each other. (Shiver) It was frightening....

[NeverBend]

People tend to complain about what they don't care about or don't participate in or in the direction that they media aims them. When the culture shifts to distance itself from something, people become critical of it. When the culture embraces it they embrace it too. It's quite fashionable to feel justified to abuse smokers, even one on one, because it's culturally accepted. Similarly, it was once culturally acceptable to abuse people based on race or religion.

My sister-in-law (one of them) burns candles and incense in her home to the point that I don't want to enter but she claims (feigns) an allergy to tobacco smoke. She's an example, as are others you guys have made, but the problem is beyond personal peccadillo.

Cigarettes, cigars and pipe (tobacco) are all legal to buy and governments, at all levels, enjoy spectacular tax levies on their sales. Indeed, all prospective tobacco tax legislation is accompanied by costly reports of the anticipated revenue from the taxation. When we buy tobacco we provide revenue but are not afforded protection under law for its use. Indeed, government at all levels seem intent on 'teaching us' but the fact is that we're just cash cows to sustain their bloated existence.

It would stand to reason that if there's a tax on it then the government has given its approval for the products use and they (of course) want a piece of the action. Certainly changes in the Marijuana laws in Colorado and other states manifests this notion but the social acceptance of Marijuana and the vilification of tobacco would seem to be quite ironic and hypocritical.

Consider that no one calls for cars to be outlawed because of their impact (substantial) in polluting our air. Go to Elizabeth NJ, or Ashland KY and look at the pollution being spewed into the air by the refineries there. The automobile and their associated industries have (probably) polluted more in a day than all the smokers throughout history in their lives but everyone drives a car so there will be no public outcry to outlaw their use and tobacco smokers are made scapegoats.

When you buy tobacco products you will have been taxed on some or all of these levels:


Personal income tax
Sales Tax
Customs duty (possibly)
Tobacco Taxes at federal and state levels.


Soon I will have purchased all the tobacco that I ever anticipate purchasing and then, effectively, I will be off the tax roll (regarding tobacco). I hold no false hope that I will ever be represented in any government entity regarding taxation (of any kind) and we, as a community, remain collectively unrepresented, yet I imagine that there are still many representatives who want their mistress to blow smoke in their face while she grinds her heel into their leg.

[droy1958]

People tend to complain about what they don't care about or don't participate in or in the direction that they media aims them. When the culture shifts to distance itself from something, people become critical of it. When the culture embraces it they embrace it too. It's quite fashionable to feel justified to abuse smokers, even one on one, because it's culturally accepted. Similarly, it was once culturally acceptable to abuse people based on race or religion.

My sister-in-law (one of them) burns candles and incense in her home to the point that I don't want to enter but she claims (feigns) an allergy to tobacco smoke. She's an example, as are others you guys have made, but the problem is beyond personal peccadillo.

Cigarettes, cigars and pipe (tobacco) are all legal to buy and governments, at all levels, enjoy spectacular tax levies on their sales. Indeed, all prospective tobacco tax legislation is accompanied by costly reports of the anticipated revenue from the taxation. When we buy tobacco we provide revenue but are not afforded protection under law for its use. Indeed, government at all levels seem intent on 'teaching us' but the fact is that we're just cash cows to sustain their bloated existence.

It would stand to reason that if there's a tax on it then the government has given its approval for the products use and they (of course) want a piece of the action. Certainly changes in the Marijuana laws in Colorado and other states manifests this notion but the social acceptance of Marijuana and the vilification of tobacco would seem to be quite ironic and hypocritical.

Consider that no one calls for cars to be outlawed because of their impact (substantial) in polluting our air. Go to Elizabeth NJ, or Ashland KY and look at the pollution being spewed into the air by the refineries there. The automobile and their associated industries have (probably) polluted more in a day than all the smokers throughout history in their lives but everyone drives a car so there will be no public outcry to outlaw their use and tobacco smokers are made scapegoats.

When you buy tobacco products you will have been taxed on some or all of these levels:


Personal income tax
Sales Tax
Customs duty (possibly)
Tobacco Taxes at federal and state levels.


Soon I will have purchased all the tobacco that I ever anticipate purchasing and then, effectively, I will be off the tax roll (regarding tobacco). I hold no false hope that I will ever be represented in any government entity regarding taxation (of any kind) and we, as a community, remain collectively unrepresented, yet I imagine that there are still many representatives who want their mistress to blow smoke in their face while she grinds her heel into their leg.

While I'm not critical of grossly overweight people (it's their choice, not mine), it does piss me off when I get some sm@rt@$$ person bitching or coughing when I'm outside smoking in the parking lot and they're hauling off a sack with a triple cheeseburger, half pound of fries and a quart drink of cola from the Carl's Jr. etc. That's happened at least three times in the last few years to me. I've just bit my lip and pretended I didn't hear it. I would like the same respect for my choices as I allow them...

[Ropey]

I just see it as an economic thing, especially as the gov't takes over health care more and more. The gov't doesn't want to pay for preventable illnesses. Same with mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, etc. It all comes down to money. Even with taxes, tobacco related illnesses not only cost the gov't direct cash but also loss of production and consumption.

I don't really judge whether laws like that are universally bad or good. I'll leave that up to the pundits.



Consider that no one calls for cars to be outlawed because of their impact (substantial) in polluting our air.

True but cars have a socioeconomic value that presumably outweighs their cost (pollution, injury, death). The argument against tobacco is that its socioeconomic cost (disease) is greater than its value.

Compare that with alcohol which has an extremely high social cost but which is so pleasurable that attempts to ban it have been largely unsuccessful. It might be tobacco's downfall that it doesn't produce more of a "high!"

Finally compare that with marijuana, which has been shown to have less social cost than the old reefer madness days of the mid 20th century. No, your daughter isn't going to sell her innocence for a couple of tokes on a joint.

Just do the cost-benefit analysis and you can easily determine what will be legal and illegal in the years to come.

But for the interviewee in the OP to call such regulations "insane" shows that he doesn't seem to know much about macroeconomics. There's nothing societally "insane" about regulating private behavior -- governments have been doing it since the dawn of time and will do it as long as human societies exist.

To think that you're immune to it just because you live in the US is a shortsightedness that boggles my mind. It seems like the guy is just throwing a tantrum. I support people's right to smoke but by understanding all sides of the argument one can better get more of what one wants.

To wit, instead of whining about how evil the government is, conduct some studies showing either 1) the social cost of smoking is not as high as previously thought, or 2) the social value of smoking is higher than previously thought.

Take some clues from NORML and the gay rights movements to see how to do it. Their efforts have made behaviors that were outlawed at one time to be more or less perfectly OK in the span of just a few years.

[Cardinal]

I just see it as an economic thing, especially as the gov't takes over health care more and more. The gov't doesn't want to pay for preventable illnesses. Same with mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, etc. It all comes down to money. Even with taxes, tobacco related illnesses not only cost the gov't direct cash but also loss of production and consumption.

I don't really judge whether laws like that are universally bad or good. I'll leave that up to the pundits.



True but cars have a socioeconomic value that presumably outweighs their cost (pollution, injury, death). The argument against tobacco is that its socioeconomic cost (disease) is greater than its value.

Compare that with alcohol which has an extremely high social cost but which is so pleasurable that attempts to ban it have been largely unsuccessful. It might be tobacco's downfall that it doesn't produce more of a "high!"

Finally compare that with marijuana, which has been shown to have less social cost than the old reefer madness days of the mid 20th century. No, your daughter isn't going to sell her innocence for a couple of tokes on a joint.

Just do the cost-benefit analysis and you can easily determine what will be legal and illegal in the years to come.

But for the interviewee in the OP to call such regulations "insane" shows that he doesn't seem to know much about macroeconomics. There's nothing societally "insane" about regulating private behavior -- governments have been doing it since the dawn of time and will do it as long as human societies exist.

To think that you're immune to it just because you live in the US is a shortsightedness that boggles my mind. It seems like the guy is just throwing a tantrum. I support people's right to smoke but by understanding all sides of the argument one can better get more of what one wants.

To wit, instead of whining about how evil the government is, conduct some studies showing either 1) the social cost of smoking is not as high as previously thought, or 2) the social value of smoking is higher than previously thought.

Take some clues from NORML and the gay rights movements to see how to do it. Their efforts have made behaviors that were outlawed at one time to be more or less perfectly OK in the span of just a few years.

There are actually a bunch of studies showing that smokers cost less in the long run than non-smokers, simply because smokers tend to die younger and thus avoid the almost unfathomably expensive end-of-life health care costs that most other people accrue in their last couple years. That particular field is my dad's specialty, and we've talked a lot about it over the years.

That's part of the reason why the anti-tobacco crusade sometimes feels more like a witch hunt or trendy cause celebre than a rational pursuit.

Either way, your last piece of advice is good! I just don't know how we'd do it.

[Rocket Scientologist]

It would stand to reason that if there's a tax on it then the government has given its approval for the products use and they (of course) want a piece of the action. Certainly changes in the Marijuana laws in Colorado and other states manifests this notion but the social acceptance of Marijuana and the vilification of tobacco would seem to be quite ironic and hypocritical.

That's a good point regarding marijuana. Marijuana is practically celebrated, but tobacco is still shunned?

[c.ortiz108]

I'm something of a hypocrite when it comes to smoking, because I seriously cannot stand people smoking cigarettes around me. The smell is cheap and nasty, and even secondhand it clings to your clothes. If I'm downwind of cigarette smokers in a park or walking down the street, it actually does make me cough. Probably the chemicals rather than the tobacco. If there's an outdoor event where people are drinking you have to walk through clouds of this harsh chemical smoke. But the experience makes me sympathetic to people who don't want to around my cigar or pipe smoke, even though I consider it a totally different thing.

[NeverBend]

Hi Ropey,

Well expressed response.


I just see it as an economic thing, especially as the gov't takes over health care more and more. The gov't doesn't want to pay for preventable illnesses. Same with mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, etc. It all comes down to money. Even with taxes, tobacco related illnesses not only cost the gov't direct cash but also loss of production and consumption.

Predatory taxes on tobacco long predate the discussion on universal health care. As Tim (@Cardinal) points out, there are studies that challenge the notion that smokers are a burden to healthcare costs. Seat belt and helmets aren't lifestyle choices, it's common sense that in no way prevent a person from driving a car or motorcycle. A ban on smoking in public places (indoors) is, to me, also common sense (and common courtesy) but that shouldn't prevent me from engaging in an otherwise legal activity. Making a smoking ban on private gatherings or on personal property is simply an attempt to force smokers to live as others see fit and that seems highly un-American. Excessive taxing of any product, especially one that is addictive like cigarettes, is simply abusing a defenseless portion of the population and there's little evidence to support the idea that it curbs behavior. Just for the record, I am in favor of educating children about the harmful effects of smoking. I believe that education is more related to the decline in smoking than economics.


True but cars have a socioeconomic value that presumably outweighs their cost (pollution, injury, death). The argument against tobacco is that its socioeconomic cost (disease) is greater than its value.

If I wasn't clear, I agree that cars and the burning of fossil fuels (in home or industry) have great social value but they also cause most of the pollution. This is ignored because, as in my first point (my previous post), people embrace what they do. It's also a multi-trillion dollar (with a "T") industry. It would be naive to believe that big oil doesn't spend money to avert the social discussion on their pollution.

You make a good point that the tobacco industry, despite having financial muscle, has done a poor job of supporting smoking. They were focused on avoiding responsibility and eventually agreed to a huge settlement that swept less (medically) damaging smoking of cigars and pipes in its wake. They're the poster boys of what NOT to do and NORML and Gay Rights groups have been far more successful but for tobacco, I think the ship has sailed.



There are actually a bunch of studies showing that smokers cost less in the long run than non-smokers, simply because smokers tend to die younger and thus avoid the almost unfathomably expensive end-of-life health care costs that most other people accrue in their last couple years. That particular field is my dad's specialty, and we've talked a lot about it over the years.

That's part of the reason why the anti-tobacco crusade sometimes feels more like a witch hunt or trendy cause celebre than a rational pursuit.

Either way, your last piece of advice is good! I just don't know how we'd do it.

In my second life I was a database programming consultant who often did statistical analysis and the fundamental rule is to find (or manufacture) statistics that support the organization or its objectives. Give me enough data and I'll prove that the moon is made of cheese.