Doug Casey on Tobacco

[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.