Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.consumers,net.politics
Subject: Re: The Hidden Costs of Smoking
Message-ID: <356@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 10:02:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.356
Posted: Mon Jan 20 10:02:48 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 07:43:15 EST
References: <162@decvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.med:3200 net.consumers:3947 net.politics:13062

> Martin Minow
> [ mentions many unavoidable externalities associated with smoking,
> including increased health insurance, preventable fires, opportunity costs ]
> The report estimated that "the annual medical
> bill for lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other ailments
> directly attributable to smoking runs between $12 billion and $35
> billion annually." 

I too assumed that we would all benefit (on the average)
if smoking could somehow be prohibited.
I assumed the unavoidable externalities of smoking were negative.
The lead article in the November issue of Scientific American
describes cancer, its causes, and its treatments.
Prevention, and consequently antismoking campaigns
are inevitable topics.
The authors give a hypothesis I hadn't previously considered.
By chopping seven years off the average life span,
smoking reduces the cost of social security and medicaid.
You and I would have to pay more, in social security,
if an antismoking campaign were even slightly successful.
Perhaps the government should hand out cigarettes free!
Everyone dumb enough to smoke hurts themselves voluntarily,
and effectively puts more money in my pocket.
Is this the reason our government virtually encourages smoking?
I don't know.

Were the authors wrong?
Is this positive externality artificial,
derived from an idiotic social security system that provides benefits
when people reach a magic age (62?), instead of 
basin eligibility on the inability to do useful work?
I can't believe the "real" externalities of smoking are positive.
It *must* be in our interest to discourage this expensive addiction.
Can somebody comment on this?
-- 
	Why don't we do it in the road?
			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad