Smoking and the Cigarette Controversy

The Resource for the Opinionated

Here is a simple, non-political solution to the cigarette controversy. Let the FDA write a 20-page, scientific report about every known negative effect of smoking. Let the cigarette companies send it to every person in the United States (at their expense). The last page of the booklet would contain a release form, stating that the reader is over 18 and has read and understood the report (appropriate sessions would be organized for people who cannot read). Now everyone who wants to smoke, signs the release and mails it back with their social security number and picture. Then, they are issued a special picture ID, which will be required to buy or use cigarettes.

Hopefully, that will limit the lawsuits. You don't sign a release, you don't smoke. No more "I didn't know" whining. No more greedy lawyers.

The government could still increase cigarette taxes, or ban smoking altogether. But they would have to take political responsibility for it. Smokers may be a particularly unpopular minority, but they do have a vote.

It occurred to me that this pending cigarette "deal" could be used as a model to rid society of a more serious annoyance: guns.

Guns can be harmful, and manufacturers have known it all along. Guns kill more innocent people than criminals. They are routinely abused by minors. Their availibility costs billions of tax dollars in additional law enforcement. The treatment of gunshot wounds is busting the budgets of public hospitals.

I propose that the states sue the gun manufacturers and make them pay up. I also propose that the FDA regulate the sale of ammunition: by the year 2007, all live bullets should be gradually replaced by blanks.

Of course, some people like guns, but that is too bad for them. Nobody cares about people who like to smoke either.

This whole cigarette "deal" is based on the premise that cigarettes cost the states a lot of money in health care. Maybe. But everybody seems to be overlooking one aspect: retirement benefits. If it is true that cigarettes cause premature death, and if that premature death happens to be close enough to the average retirement age, cigarettes may actually save the respective governments and pension funds a whole bundle.

I wouldn't go as far as claiming that the savings in caring for retirees offset the cost of caring for working people who are ill. But knowing that massive retirement is going to be the single biggest strain on government resources in the years to come, the true net cost of smoking may be much less than commonly assumed.

It may sound morbid, but numbers are numbers. I am surprised that nobody brought it up.

Numbers about health effects of smoking (1 in 4 dying of health-related illness) are typical example of statistics manipulation. Other one is drunk driving (not adjusted for accidents that would have happened anyway + fact that usually young people, usually at night etc).

Cigarette policy. Clinton shot himself in the foot. Too bad, because I liked him. But he deserves it. Big government.

If smokers should pay for treatment, you could say the same thing about people who don't, say, run 5 miles a week.

A lot of people did not seem to take the cigarette issue seriously, probably because they figured they could still smoke cigars. The problem is that I don't like cigars.

The cigarette deal fell apart because of a mix of greed and intolerance. Some people wanted to tax the cigarette industry, others wanted to ban it. The problem is that you cannot tax and kill at the same time.

FDA analysis was found flawed in court (second-hand smoke). I knew it. It made no sense. The cigarette industry said so too, but nobody would listen. Government was too busy justifying the conclusion already made.

John McCain: every morning getting up, I think: "let's go beat up the cigarette industry a little more today". Does that sound like responsible politics?

What responsible adults need from the FDA, is a simple 3D chart, showing the probability of lung cancer as a function of age and equivalent number of packs-years. Same thing for heart disease. Just send to every smoker. Problem solved.

The cigarette settlements were not an example of democracy. The whole thing was decided by lawyers and politicians, with virtually no input from the first ones concerned: smokers.

I don't get it. They want to tax cigarettes, in order to "help" smokers? They want to tax cigarettes to protect smokers from the big, ugly nasty cigarette companies? And they want to do so without asking smokers for any type of input on the matter?

If cigarette companies should be liable for cost of health care, gun manufacturers should be liable for cost of violent crime.

If something is bad for people, why can't the government simply inform them, instead of outlawing? This is a patronizing, insulting attitude.

I used to hesitate to say that cigarettes were addictive. That statement could be misused and give extra ammunition to those who want to ban smoking. By now, it does not matter anymore. The cat is out of the bag. "Sin tax"

Why should we feel "sorry" for smokers, and feel compelled to enact legislation to punish cigarette companies? We don't feel sorry for cocaine addicts either.

In Japan, cigarette taxes are so high, that it is considered patriotic to smoke. You never see any anti-smoking ad.

First, one should realize that not all cigarettes are equally harmful. Muratti Embassadors are not comparable to red marlboro's. One smarter way to solve the cigarette issue, would have been to tax high tar brands higher.

Health insurance already charges more for people who smoke. But if you push this concept too far, you stat defeating the whole premise of insurance.

Keeping kids from smoking by raising taxes on cigarettes for everyone else, makes no sense.

Most people have no clue what really their risk is of contracting lung cancer, smoking or non-smoking.

The cigarette controversy is an excellent example of government out of control, or of how government should not operate. It is also an example of what can happen when greed and lawyers ente piblic policy.

Tips for low risk smoking: smoke light cigarettes (B&H, Muratti) no more than 5-10 a day social smoking only (takes discipline) smoke cigars quit at 30 or 35

Whether cigarettes, drugs or alcohol, it is my belief that reliable scientific information should be the basis of sound public policy. There are so many fallacies around, that government policies have lost all credibility. The cigarette "deal":

Cigarette smoking has been associated with oral frustration. I read a report that most prostitutes in Nevada brothels smoke. It may have to do with the fact that the ladies don't get to kiss as part of the job.

I agree that smoking is addictive. But I do not agree that it is a chemical addiction, like with certain illegal drugs. Actually, the physical side effects of quiting smoking are almost non-existent. Instead, the addiction is much more of an addiction to pleasure. Addiction to cigarettes is probably not much different from addiction to food.

The solution to the cigarette controversy, is to create a new cigarette company, that would not be subject to the "Big Tobacco" settlements. The new company could not possibly be found guilty of past criminal behavior either.

The cigarette controversy shows what can happen when petty intolerance is pushed to an extreme.

The "criminal damages" imposed upon cigarette manufacturers are really nothing but an undemocratic (because it was never voted on), extremely non-progressive tax.

A free economy has a tendency to take acre of a lot of societal dilemmas. If people really want bars and restaurants to be smoke-free, would one not expect that those establishments would spontaneously decide to go that way in order to win more custoimers?

The International Hotel and Restaurant Association's "Courtesy of Choice" symbol. The concept and symbol reflect the centuries-old philosophy that acknowledges differences while allowing them to exist together in harmony.