Should e-cigarettes be taxed? Great common sense, fact based article.

[Kent C]

I wish I could find it now. Stupidly, I didn't print it out when I first ran across it back in 2003 or 2004, but it's since been deleted. I know I read it. And Charles Krauthammer mentioned it several times in passing, both in print and on the air. And my internist mentioned the study to me. So I'm sure it wasn't a figment of my imagination.

The article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is peer-reviewed and generally regarded as authoritative. The authors, whose names escape me, were all well-regarded epidemiologists.

The principal point was that, if everyone quit smoking, or tobacco had never existed, and all other epidemiological factors were held even, the national health care bill would be about 18% higher than it was at that point, with 20% of adults smoking.

The majority of our health care expenses are concentrated in end-care, the last year(s) of life. And smokers tend to die cheaply: lung cancer (few operations, and the chemotherapy regimes are relatively inexpensive), critical cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (heart attacks and strokes, which require intensive but extremely short-term care), etc. Smokers tend not to die of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other long-term degenerative conditions, which require long-term, 24/7, extremely expensive care.

The Krauthammer article seems to be gone or edited. He wrote an article on how 'preventive medicine' increases costs of healthcare - exactly opposite of what has been promoted by the healthcare system and government. I suspected he also noted that obesity and smoking reduced costs because of early But the NEJM study still exists:

"However, in the mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, smoking-related diseases account for only 19 percent of total costs among men and 12 percent of total costs among women, and the costs of all the other diseases have precisely the opposite relation. In a population of smokers, the costs associated with all the other diseases are less than those in the mixed population: 14 percent less for men and 18 percent less for women."

MMS: Error

 

[mostlyclassics]

You "discovered that it was deleted"? OR.... you just couldn't find it.

squee and Kent C, I tried a bunch of different keywords in their search engine the last time I looked for the article. But it never came up. Maybe it was the relatively primitive search engine they had the last time I looked, which was in 2007 or thereabouts. For instance, back then, the "advanced search" function gave you few options. But when I just went there, I used the "advanced search" function to find it instantly.

Thanks!

I retract the statement that this article had been deleted. And I also made notes in my previous posts to see this post.

But, just in case, I've now printed out the article and added it to my big notebook of tobacco, etc., studies.

 

[Kent C]

squee and Kent C, I tried a bunch of different keywords in their search engine the last time I looked for the article. But it never came up. Maybe it was the relatively primitive search engine they had the last time I looked, which was in 2007 or thereabouts. For instance, back then, the "advanced search" function gave you few options. But when I just went there, I used the "advanced search" function to find it instantly.

Thanks!

I retract the statement that this article had been deleted. And I also made notes in my previous posts to see this post.

But, just in case, I've now printed out the article and added it to my big notebook of tobacco, etc., studies.

Took me a while to find

The Krauthammer article in WaPo is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/13/AR2009081302898.html?sid=ST2009082502612

... but no smoking mentioned so I'm guessing it was an earlier article or it was edited out. WaPo might not have wanted to 'encourage smoking or obesity'.

 

[shelzmike]

One thing that gets me is how government has been riding on the backs of the tobacco users for years now and it only keeps getting worse...and here they are thinking about doing it again and it is ridiculous. Why should nicotine users and smokers have to contribute so much more to the government coffers. And they try to say it is to curb usage and get people to stop smoking but then they support inflated costs of NRT's and now are trying to do the same to eCigarettes. And I am less worried about them being banned and more so about regulation and taxes out the wazoo. Big pharma and tobacco make WAY too much money off of smoking addiction to just give that up. The government cannot be trusted to make many decisions effectively on topics such as these.

Mike

 

[mostlyclassics]

Took me a while to find

The Krauthammer article in WaPo is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/13/AR2009081302898.html?sid=ST2009082502612

... but no smoking mentioned so I'm guessing it was an earlier article or it was edited out. WaPo might not have wanted to 'encourage smoking or obesity'.

I remember that column, and he mentioned the gist of it several times on "Special Report." FWIW, I have his book on order and will look for what I referred to. Maybe he mentions it in one of his WaPo columns. It's also possible he mentioned it in an article for another publication.

 

[Vaslovik]

They will get around to billing us for oxygen soon enough, just wait and see. Then they will tax us for the C02 we exhale. I've been expecting that for a long time now. This is why I am against any research into anti-gravity. If they can turn it off they can bill you for it!

Just imagine you go out to the street after work and there is a guy hanging onto a parking meter, feet in the air, trying not to sail away into the sky as a group of kids torment him and try to pry his fingers loose. He didn't pay his gravity bill on time, and they cut him off.

Then you go over to a friends house for dinner and when you walk in everyone is on the ceiling. Ah, didn't pay your gravity bill eh? You pull them down and strap them into chairs bolted to the floor so they can eat dinner. I tell ya, it's coming, and don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[VapieDan]

Great article, Tweeted earlier today by Greg Conley:
Should e-cigarettes be taxed? - Economics - AEI

"They conclude that e-cigarettes should not be subjected to tobacco taxes at this time, because the current medical evidence does not point to any significant adverse health effects."

By the way health risk is not a reason to tax but a justification for a tax to avoid repercussions from voters. In other words an excuse.