Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

["Max Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> . . .  I am of two minds about tobacco taxes. On the one hand it may to
some
> extent discourage use. But surely governments are hypocritical to condemn
> its use and then profit from its sale. The huge suits for health care are
in
> my opinion a total farce.

mbs:  chances are the tax rates exceed the point where
they discourage use and are simply punishment and a
regressive revenue raiser.

My reading of the suits is opposite, in a sense.  The
money is absurdly little, in light of the purported rationale--
defraying public health care costs associated with smoking.
This does not contradict my previous statement re: the
tax rates unless we see the tax as a health care charge
on the user, rather than a discouragement of smoking
behavior.  But tobacco tax revenues go into general
revenues and are basically fungible, so there is no real
channel of tobacco revenues to health care spending.
By the same logic, we would have special taxes on
people that genetic research could identify as susceptible
to certain diseases.

> . . . Researchers paid by tobacco companies claim that total costs for
smokers are
> actually less-since they die early. Of course no leftist believes this
> because they accept the ad hominem argument that if it is research paid
for
> tobacco companies it is not sound. The same type of ad hominem is
ubiquitous

There is research here to the same effect that is not
supported by the tobacco companies.  The idea is pretty
simple -- if you die earlier from tobacco you forego the
extraordinary medical expenditures that are routine for
the very old in the last two years of life.  The real issue
is not the budget calculation, but the idiotic policy implication
-- that smoking is some kind of public service because it kills
off people at an earlier age.  That is completely separate
from the simpler matter of reduced health care spending
that results from people dying at a younger age.  In general
things that help people live longer are preferred to those
that don't.  Most people, at any rate.

mbs