It's about Damn time SOMEBODY made it clear!!!

[Ten Packs]

Courtesy of Jose Rodriguez at the Calgary Sun:

"Smoking is an ugly, vile vice. I should know, because I smoke. I am currently in between quitting and, God willing, one day I'll run out of excuses to light up.

With that in mind, perhaps I have a tarnished view on the whole idea of allowing governments to sue tobacco companies to recoup health care costs.

Because, the way I see it, smokers have already paid.

Since 1970, federal and provincial governments have collected an estimated $150 billion in tobacco taxes.

As much as 75% of the price of a pack of smokes goes directly to some form of government.

The federal Health Department estimates the cost of treating tobacco-related disease at $4 billion a year.
[Edit:"straight-line Math" would make that 140 Billion, btw, and that doesn't take into account Inflation and Increases in HealthCare costs - I'm Damn sure it wasn't 4 Billion in 1970....]

So, if you do the math, smokers pay for their expanded health needs and still drop an extra $285 million a year in taxes into government bank accounts.
[Further edit: so, BITE ME! - anyone who says smokers should pay extra for Health Insurance, or have limited coverage!]


For governments, suing tobacco companies isn't so much about recovering health costs, but rather washing their own hands.
It's a convenient way for politicos to sweep aside their own complicity in the health fallout from smoking.

If tobacco companies prosper, which they obviously do, they do so because Canadian parliamentarians and lawmakers have created an environment in which they can operate.

Not once did any governments say "this product is deadly, and based on our principles, we refuse to take any blood money in the way of taxes."

Not once did governments move to outlaw smoking.

Instead, they choose to continually hike taxes and take a bigger chunk of the profits. Call it the political equivalent of a guilty pleasure.
It's a bit like allowing your kids to play on a playground of broken glass and then acting surprised when they cut themselves.

It's irresponsible and hypocritical.

And the precedent set with any successful lawsuit against tobacco companies will only open the floodgates for a bunch of other don't-blame-me-style actions.

Who do we sue next?

Fast-food joints for our clogged arteries, cottage cheese thighs and fat children?

Breweries for creating alcoholics, drunk drivers and regrettable one night stands?

Perhaps it'll be motorcycle makers who produce vehicles that have proven unsafe in collisions with semi trailers and trains.

For anyone willing to shirk responsibility for their own actions, the opportunities are endless.
If you look hard enough, you'll always find someone else to blame for your poor decisions.

Now, I am not an apologist for big tobacco.

They have a long list of well-paid, well-placed lobbyists to do that.

And this column is not in any way meant to garner sympathy for smokers -- we have no one to blame for our addiction but ourselves.

But if tobacco companies are to blame for smoking deaths, then governments are at the very least equal accomplices.

The overwhelming responsibility for a smoking-related illnesses, however, rests with smokers.

To butcher a line from the U.S. gun lobby: Tobacco companies don't kill people, people kill people.

So if I die, don't blame the tobacco companies, don't blame the government and please don't launch a lawsuit in my memory.

I've already paid my tab.

If I die a smoker, blame me."


YUP! If I stand at the top rung of a Step-Ladder, that's my problem, not the Ladder's - and if I am willing to pay a huge chunk of money to mitigate such Foolishness, and someone willingly takes it...... ? ? ? ?


Well, I can't say it here, but it rhymes with "Duck Poo".

 

[Nascar_James]

I had heard about this earlier, Ten Packs. That is why the govn'ts don't abolish smoking altogether, overall it's money in the bank.

As for banning fast food and/or booze, it will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Many of us do not cook and fast food is the only choice for those who would otherwise not eat. This is particularly true for many single folks.

As for booze, it will surely never happen. This is probably the toughest one to ban. Unless it's a global effort, it will be impossible to ban all booze outright.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: It's about Damn time

They already tried to ban booze. It caused carnage.

What I don't about the smoking lawsuits is that if my ukrainian grandmother, who had about a grade four education, could intellectually grasp that smoking was bad for you, why can't the people launching the lawsuits?

I know that the tobacco companies did some underhanded things to get us addicted, and I keep hearing that they marketed to kids (not very effectively), but we all knew that it was bad for us.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

My sentiments exactly. Suing a legally constituted business for making and selling a legal product... somehow the logic of that escapes me. The same logic would lead us to sue auto manufacturers for all the vehicle-related deaths and injuries, fast food companies for making people fat (yeah I know, it's been tried), brewers and distillers for causing cirrhosis and some significant fraction of those vehicle-related deaths and injuries... Hell, might as well go all the way: sue authors and publishers for giving people ideas we don't like.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Is EVERYBODY a victim?

 

[GL Schmitt]

. . . It's irresponsible and hypocritical. . . . Who do we sue next? . . .

The hypocrisy runs both ways.

Those rugged individualists who insist on taking their chances and continue smoking, are quite aware that if/when their habit catches up on them, they will not be barred from receiving the health care that will maintain their life with as much dignity as possible, until their untimely deaths.

They may renounce their claims to this health care, but even if they are serious, the society we have produced would be deeply injured by withholding what care it can give, even as it realises that those unthinking citizens who do smoke, are burning up our society’s available health care at a level greater than their fair share.

Outright prohibition does not work. It only gives the prohibited substance a patina of desirability, and inflates the pockets of the criminals willing to contravene the law — note especially the American experience with alcohol and drug prohibitions.

What is left, is a two-pronged attack on the custom and practise of smoking.

First, supply as much information about the dangers of smoking, provide as many alternative ways to encourage smokers to quit, enforce as many laws to protect non smokers against the practitioners of smoking, to make smoking appear as unattractive as possible.

Secondly, make the actual cigarettes as expensive as possible with punitive taxes, while subsidising every effective method of quitting smoking. With onerous taxation and regulations, even punitive lawsuits — real or frivolous — force the manufacturers and promoters of cigarette smoking to disgorge as much wealth, which they have earned at the expense of public health, into the public coffers.

There is no one involved in the cigarette trade who has not had at least half a century of warning that the business in which they were involved was ruinous to their customer’s health. They had the length of a normal career to change to some other enterprise, but failed to do so.

I see no reason to offer the tobacco growers, cigarette manufacturers, or tobacco promoters any sympathy.


Finally, I can see no effective total ban on smoking. Tobacco is, after all, a natural plant. Anyone can grow it.

What is possible, is to insure that no one ever makes a profit from the noxious weed.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: It's about Damn time

They already tried to ban booze. It caused carnage.

What I don't about the smoking lawsuits is that if my ukrainian grandmother, who had about a grade four education, could intellectually grasp that smoking was bad for you, why can't the people launching the lawsuits?

I know that the tobacco companies did some underhanded things to get us addicted, and I keep hearing that they marketed to kids (not very effectively), but we all knew that it was bad for us.

By coincidence, my dad started smoking when he was a very young child (the WWII era). He (as well as others) had no clue it was bad for him, back then. He's been off the habit for some 15 years now, so no real harm was done (no apparent ill effects).

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Ten Packs, from your posting that article I would assume that you agree with this statement: People should take responsibility for their actions.

For anyone willing to shirk responsibility for their own actions, the opportunities are endless.
If you look hard enough, you'll always find someone else to blame for your poor decisions.

However, your response to the suggestion that smokers pay a user fee on smoking related health complications is a very eloquent "Bite Me".

Please choose a position and explain your stance.

 

[#juan]

I started smoking

let's just say, a good long time ago. When I started smoking, lung cancer was a terrible mystery. Heart disease was more mysterious shit that happened. As the years went by, the signs went up that smoking was bad for you. Smoking, it was said, caused Emphysema, Lung Cancer, and nicotine shrunk your blood vessels and caused heart disease. When the evidence got to the point where I could no longer ignore it, I quit. To be truthful, I quit after at least a hundred tries.

My point is, that there has been enough information out there for ther last twenty years to remove any doubt that smoking is killing us and those who continue to smoke certainly have some of my support because I know how hard it is to kick that habit. I don't think the taxes on tobacco come near to covering the health costs of smoking related illness but I'm no accountant. Life is too valuable.. but God, that first cup of coffee and a cigarette...sigh..Oh shaddup...

 

[Reverend Blair]

Please choose a position and explain your stance.

I can explain. We already pay more in sin taxes than smoking-related illnesses cost the government. That's not even taking into account that many "smoking-related" illnesses are clearly exacerbated by things like air pollution and food additives, which non-smokers are not taxed on.

 

[#juan]

Government of CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada / Agence de santé publique du Canada


Volume 18, No.1 -1997




Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)

The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991
Murray J Kaiserman

Abstract

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

I realise that this was done for 1991 but while the costs will no doubt have gone up, the percentages should stay roughly the same.

 

[zenfisher]

I see no reason to offer the tobacco growers, cigarette manufacturers, or tobacco promoters any sympathy.


Finally, I can see no effective total ban on smoking. Tobacco is, after all, a natural plant. Anyone can grow it.

What is possible, is to insure that no one ever makes a profit from the noxious weed.

Tobacco ( the plant) is a remarkable fertilizer. Which means it does have value outside of the cigarette industry.

 

[Ten Packs]

Re: RE: It's about Damn time SOMEBODY made it clear!!!

However, your response to the suggestion that smokers pay a user fee on smoking related health complications is a very eloquent "Bite Me".

Please choose a position and explain your stance.

Evidently, you and Schmitt are not mathematically gifted - WE ALREADY PAY OUR COSTS - in TAXES!

If the Government chooses to piss it away on broken, worn-out submarines, I ca't help that.

 

[Reverend Blair]

How many of those smoking-attributable costs would have been incurred anyway?

Think about it...if I get sick all the non-smokers say it's because I smoke. I don't get sick any more often than they do though, in fact I get sick a lot less and am less likely to go to the doctor than most of them.

How come smoking-related ilnesses keep on rising? People have been smoking at higher levels than today since the 1920s. The number of smokers has been declining since the 1970s. So why do the number of illnesses and the related costs keep going up.

How come second-hand smoke is such an issue today? It causes asthma and ear infections and allergies in kids. People my age grew up in a blue haze. All of the adults smoked everywhere all of the time. So how come nobody had asthma or allergies when I was a kid?

I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for you, but I am saying that everything they attribute to smoking is made much worse by pollution. I'm also saying that they diddle the numbers and the facts for political reasons.

I wonder how many of the costs attributed to smokers would decline if we improved our air quality? I wonder how many of those costs currently show up in both cost of smoking and cost of pollution figures? I wonder how come they don't give the figures on how many taxes a smoker pays before they incur any costs to the amount treatment costs? I wonder why they don't deduct the costs we don't incur, since we are less likely to linger in nursing homes for a decade, collect pensions for a shorter period of time, and so on?

If my generation was the first to smoke heavily as a group it would be different. We aren't the first though, the men of my great-grandparents' generation was...a legacy of the First World War. By my grandparents' generation, the women were smoking too...a legacy of the Second World War. My parents generation smoked everywhere all of the time. So did the boomers who follwed them. By the time it got to my generation, we were smoking less.

So why the multi-generational gap between cause and effect?