Dr. Gilbert Ross is the executive director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer education-public health organization.
"re-define common words, such as "tobacco" and "smoke," is a slippery slope."
Let's play ball. Tobacco Control is derived from Tobacco and thus is a Tobacco Product. Zeller's group should be regulated as tobacco, all the way with mandatory gory graphics, ban from government buildings, no advertising to minors etc. Plus tax.
So, you see the new marching order from on high is 'Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em'.
Most folks that smoke 'em also buy 'em.They don't care if we smoke them, just that we continue to buy them and cover their stupidity.
They don't care if we smoke them, just that we continue to buy them and cover theirstupiditygreed and criminal financial malfeasance.
Just make sure you buy them in taxable 20 count packages. Buying/selling them individually can be deadly.Most folks that smoke 'em also buy 'em.
I take the view that dangerous activities like smoking tobacco, drinking or BASE jumping will incur higher insurance premiums and indeed taxes because of the likelihood of participants needing expensive medical care in future. Smokers' health insurance rates mirror this.
It depends what you read of course - tobaccofreekids.org naturally has figures that suggest smokers cost more over a lifetime.
It depends what you read of course - tobaccofreekids.org naturally has figures that suggest smokers cost more over a lifetime.
A USA today article i found suggests that thin, healthy people cost more because they live longer!
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com
I especially like the last line.
T
"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
I've never understood why health care costs should influence anything. People who die suddenly costs less over a lifetime than those who live into old age, so we should get rid of seat belts, helmets, vaccinations.
It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed.
I'm pretty sure the optimum would be to live healthy and productively until age 63 and then die suddenly. Unless of course you hold public office, because we all know they stay productive well into their 90's.The obvious solution from the point of view of the least healthcare expenditure would be to subsidise smoking and bad diets.
What a delicious irony; perhaps smoking could be re-branded as patriotic and we could see a return to those 1950's adverts with doctors recommending them!
It seems to me that government really hasn't decided whether it wants the population to live fast and die young, or stay healthy/get healthy and live longer, but in any event a little more honesty about the matter would be welcome.
T