>Uhhhmmm, actually you would want to total all costs involved as well
>as all the costs that are avoided in looking at this issue.
have you done this? i didn't think so....
To argue
>that since families incur large finacial burdens thus so does society
>is fallacious reasoning.
actually, he mentioned the rising costs of medicade and health insurance....
so even if he doesn't have any numbers on the issue, his reasoning is hardly
fallacious....
and as for commenting on final comments, nice touch steve, you're really
showing your true colors....
spirit
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: Consumption & Sustainability]
>Uhhhmmm, actually you would want to total all costs involved as well
>as all the costs that are avoided in looking at this issue. To argue
>that since families incur large finacial burdens thus so does society
>is fallacious reasoning. As is the appeal to pity at the end of your
>post.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>---Alan Nichols <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as someone who has had a parent die of cancer, I would like
>to point
>> out that very rarely do cancer patients simply drop dead. More
>often, there
>> is a period of intense suffering from which death is a welcome
>release.
>> As this is the case, smoking actually causes quite a financial
>burden on
>> society, either through higher insurance rates or increased Medicaid
>costs.
>> But I am sure you were/are aware of this and were/are merely trying
>to be
>> funny. And as we all know, there's nothing funnier than people
>dying of
>> cancer. If you weren't trying to be funny, then it strikes me that
>you well
>> may be suffering from some cerebral shortcoming. Either way, your
>comments
>> were incredibly insensitive and offensive.
>>
>>
>> Alan Nichols
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >_________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today
>at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|