I'm temporarily on NOMAIL so won't see comments on this posting but,
before I deleted this older message from Steve, I have a comment for
consideration.
We have several problems here in the USA of, (like most of the world),
overpopulation and, in addition, we have shortfalls in our funding for
medical care and social security payments to our older folks.
I submit that, either as a built-in human instinctive adaptation to global
problems or just plain stupidity, tobacco smoking is helping solve all of
the above problems. Just think, while these smokers may have extra outages
during their working career due to early indications of future early death
from cancer or other tobacco related diseases, they mostly live into their
late-40s to late-50s and work to improve the economony and pay into the
Medicare and Social Security funds and then, years before their normal life
expectancy, THEY DROP DEAD and leave all those funds available for the rest
of the old folks.
No one ever computes how many years would be added to the life expectancy
in the USA if everyone suddenly quit smoking or how quickly the acturarial
calculations of funding versus life expectancy would really fall apart.
Myself, I'm waiting for our tobacco industry to lose one of state law suits
on the early deaths from smoking and then turn around and sue the federal
Government for recovery of those funds on the grounds of saving the
retirement programs by reducing overall life expectancy.
Fred Schaff
>
>Ahh, we have definition problem here. I do not equate an individual's
>overall welfare with their phyisical health. Eating chocolate is for
>all intents and purposes an unhealthy activity, but to totally remove
>it from my life would make me worse off. A similar argument could be
>made for cigarettes. I have a friend that likes to experiment with
>drugs. He has found that nothing gives him a rush like smoking a
>cigarette on the way to work. He knows it is unhealthy, but he likes
>to do it and he says it makes him feel better (well at least for
>now...40 years from now who knows). By your arguments here are some
>items people should not be allowed to buy
>
>1. Fatty foods--they may taste good, but they may eventually kill you.
>2. Alcohol--may taste good and being buzzed may be fun but it may
>eventually kill you or another.
>3. Cigarettes--may be fun and cool, but may eventually kill you.
>4. Knives--after you cut yourself, you realize you would have been
>better off not having the knife and not chopping those carrots.
>5. Cars--Could kill you or another, and contributes to pollution.
>
>In fact, all of the above goods probably have large negative
>externalities associated with them (except maybe for the knife). Is
>this also sufficient to prohibit their production.
>
>
>Steve
>_________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|