MP
Doug, the question was one of the welfare effects of the taxes. The
question you ask makes any answer more complex. Bombarding a child with
advertisements makes rational decision making somewhat unclear. If, I
were to assert that high cigarette taxes were a legitimate way were a
Just by the by. Cigarette ads are banned in Canada. In fact the government
spends a bundle on negative advertising re smoking. Smoking is also banned
in many buildings. I believe the stringency of restrictions varies from
province to province. In a small city near me, smoking is even banned in
And, most people will incur extraordinary medical
expenses at the end of their lives whether they are
dying sooner from lung cancer (or some other tobacco-
induced illness) rather than later. The "saving money"
argument comes from reduced social security outlays.
Barkley Rosser
Max, you are correct in your first point below. Hypocracy abounds on all
sides.
With regard to health costs, the health costs for smoking comes at the end
of life. Those costs are high regardless of whether the person dies young
or not. John Shoven, 20 years ago?, said that smoking deaths
Be serious. THe idiotic policy implication does not follow at all. Smoking
decreases the quality and length of life for the smoker and others. The
point of the argument is to refute the claim that there should be a charge
against tobacco companies and users because smokers cost the medical system
