Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxk.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611
From: rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <1043@ihuxk.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 13:03:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxk.1043
Posted: Thu Dec 19 13:03:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:18:47 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP> <295@ur-tut.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 46
Xref: watmath net.med:3012 net.legal:2656

> I don't see any first amendment problems.  It seems to fall within 
> the off-limits area of advertising a service which could be described as
> "helping people kill themselves" or "may we poison your child".
> I am not trying to be inflammatory, only to get you to see a different
> perspective. 
> 
> Most smokers think that they should be allowed their "pleasure" even though
> it can be demonstrated that it is harmful to them.  They feel that it is 
> not unfair to make everyone pay for their medical expenses through higher 
> insurance costs.  They believe that even though their habit is offensive 


Although I'm a non-smoker, and often am bothered by smoke in public places,
etc., I disagree with the contention that it is OK to ban an activity
(or the advertising of it) because it's harmful, even if there is a high
social cost.  It IS OK to try to persuade people to stop doing it,
or to even offer incentives to stop.  I also feel that it's not smokers'
problem if everyone else's insurance has to be higher to pay for the
smokers' medical problems.  We non-smokers are not forced to obtain
our insurance from companies that don't offer premium reductions for
non-smokers.  You might argue that insurance companies do not accurately
reflect the true cost of smoking in their premiums, but that's NOT the
fault of smokers, and not (in my view) any reason to ban smoking, or its
advertising.  

You could draw analogies to other bad health habits.  Should be ban
high-cholesterol diets, saturated fats, etc. since these cause
heart trouble, as well as obesity, which both result in higher
medical costs?  I don't think so.  As for the issue of smoke hurting
others in public places, I support no smoking rules as being up to 
the individual business establishment (ie., fine to have them, but shouldn't
force a busniess to establish them).  In government buildings, it
probably does make sense to ban smoking.


> If the money the government pays to tobacco farmers was converted to
> medical care over 2-3 years it would give the farmers a chance to change
> jobs.  But it still would not cover all the medical costs. 

Hear,hear!  I agree completely that the subsidization of tobacco prices
needs to be phased out as quickly as possible.

Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***