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

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just by the by. Cigarette ads are banned in Canada. In fact the government
spends a bundle on negative advertising re smoking. Smoking is also banned
in many buildings. I believe the stringency of restrictions varies from
province to province. In a small city near me, smoking is even banned in bus
shelters, shelters that are not even completely closed in. Now I know why
Yoshie never comes to Canada to see me :)
     Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:51 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:4697] Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary


> Doug, the question was one of the welfare effects of the taxes.  The
> question you ask makes any answer more complex.  Bombarding a child with
> advertisements makes rational decision making somewhat unclear.  If, I
> were to assert that high cigarette taxes were a legitimate way were a
> legitimate means of counteracting advertisements, as well as product
> placement in the movies, then I guess I would be opening the door to host
> of social controls -- some of which I would find offensive.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 01:30:11PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > >True enough, but don't the adverse consequences of tobacco hit the
> > >working-class
> > >harder?  So, discouraging smoking by taxes might have positive
> > >consequences over the
> > >long run.
> >
> > Shouldn't people decide for themselves whether to smoke? Do you think
> > you should prescribe their diet too?
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>