One, Two, Three, Four
Let's Have a Blog War!

So I entered The Truth Laid Bear's New Webblog Showcase again. And--stupid, stupid, stupid!--I did not proofread, so the post I linked to is labeled as "In my dreams, sometimes I'm James Carvilee." I hit the wrong letter twice! Arrrrgh! [UPDATE: My post, along with a half-dozen others, has been dropped from the contest. Apparently, if you like read the rules and stuff, it turns out you can only enter once. Luckily, Romulus's post, below, is still fair game for me.]

But, in the spirit of helping competitors and to build traffic, I thought I would add three links here, quote from them, and then, try as I might, rip them to shreds in the hopes of starting a good old-fashioned blog war. I'm doing them one at a time, though, because I want to make sure my opening salvo in each war is good.

I'll start with Judicious Asininity and his/ her post Smoking Saves Lives. Before I start I need to point out that this blog links to something called the "Slutertarian," which seems to combine every male libertarian's two biggest fantasies: naked women and automatic weapons.

Anyway, the blogger, nick-named Romulus (after the founder of Rome or after the Star Trek guys with ears like Vulcans and minds like weasels? I dunno), first quotes at length from a secondary source (something I am loathe to do, except in situations like this). I won't reproduce the quote here, as I do not want to violate the original source's copyright and terms of use policy, unlike some bloggers I could name.

The quote itself concerns the costs of smoking and, as smokers pay tobacco taxes far in excess of what Britain's health care pays our for tobacco-related illnesses (the writer claims), how somehow smokers are contributing to the public good. Romulus writes,

That is certainly one way of looking at it and most likely this view contains a certain amount of truth that could easily be applied to the U.S. What some non-smokers who are anti-smoking should be concerned about is what form of behavior the anti crowd would choose as their cause should all smoking cease today. You know they have to have something to be against. It just might be your Big Macs, fat people, unhealthy diets, risky recreational activities, cell phones, dumb drivers, idiocy, couch potatos, or any other facet of life that strikes their fancy. So keep in mind that the anti-choice crowd may be targeting one of your choices when smokers are conquered.

Our poster advances two arguments here. The first, the idea that smokers contribute more in taxes than they drain in resources, is patently false, at least here on this side of the Atlantic. A quick Googling turned up, from RJ Reynolds's own web site (here and here), that the total revenue collected from cigarette taxes at the local, state, and federal levels is only $14.6 billion (and I rounded up). Now, that may sound like a lot, but consider this:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health care expenditures, caused directly by smoking, totaled $50 billion in 1993. Forty-three percent of these costs were paid by government funds, including Medicaid and Medicare. Lost economic productivity caused by smoking cost the U.S. economy $47.2 billion in 1990, according to the Office of Technology Assessment. Adjusted for inflation, the total economic cost of smoking is more than $100 billion per year. This does not include costs associated with diseases caused by environmental tobacco smoke, burn care resulting from cigarette smoking-related fires, or perinatal care for low-birth weight infants of mothers who smoke.

Did you catch my emphasis? That's right--not only do smokers not pay for their own health care in taxes; the rest of us share a nearly $25 billion burden through our FICA taxes to pay for it!

Plus, consider this statistic from the same source: "Even though smokers die younger than the average American, over the course of their lives current and former smokers, generate an estimated $501 billion in excess health care costs (1992 estimate)." Much of that cost is borne in higher insurance premiums for the rest of us. (I know smokers pay higher than non-smokers, often, but not enough to shift the entire burden from us.)

Just so you don't think I've picked and chosen too much, I found these statistics roughly verified here, here (warning--PDF), and a whole mess of links here.

Romulus's second argument has to do with the anti-tobacco forces and their needing something else to be against if they succeed in eliminating smoking. This is a specious argument. Those inclined to take seriously the idea that there is conspiracy in place to force everyone to adopt their morality (Bill Bennet, anyone?) will undoubtedly see truth in this. But more important is the need to acknowledge that the public health is a real and vital concern to every single one of us. So what if you decide to kill yourself with cigarettes, or fast food, or alcohol, or cocaine, or imitating the movie Jackass? The so what is the real cost--in dollars and in other intangibles to society.

Plus cigarette smoke is stinky.

[View/Post Comments]

P.S. Don't get all het up and say that Romulus is just making tongue-in cheek jokes. He (she?) is spreading disinformation (on the internet? No!) and only feeding a particular attitude that does nothing to serve the public interest. You know and I know (or hope) that the poster is only joking, but that does not mean I can't counter with the truth.