MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Apr. 09, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Who really costs us money?

We've heard it before, over and over again from the Nanny Staters.

Smokers and drinkers and (insert vice here) are a burden on society, particularly because of the strain they place on the health care system. Therefore, heavy-handed regulation of such behavior -- through punitive taxes or other means -- is justified.

Most Popular Stories
  • J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
  • EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie
  • LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy
  • LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?
  • LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money
  • LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'
  • LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity
  • EDITORIAL: Gays in uniform




    • There are two major problems with this mind-set.

    First, the above premise is a prescription for tyranny. A government operating under such a premise is a government that will soon run roughshod over individual freedom in the name of safety or caution.

    Second, it's all a crock.

    "It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases," said Vanderbilt economist Kip Viscusi this week. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects."

    What Mr. Viscusi means is that, as a group, smokers and others who engage in risky behavior die much younger than their more risk-averse neighbors, potentially saving the government billions in Medicare and Social Security expenses.

    But such logic was nowhere in sight last week when the House approved a bill allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco products -- nor when a measure increasing the federal cigarette tax by almost 200 percent became law on April 1. Instead, congressional do-gooders touted the idea that smokers are responsible for more than $100 billion each year in health care costs.

    Maybe, but that's not the whole story.

    "We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Willard Manning, a University of Chicago professor who two decades ago published a paper concluding smokers were not an overall burden to society. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."

    Mr. Manning's findings were replicated by both Mr. Viscusi, who found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country saves 32 cents, and by Dutch researchers who last year concluded that smokers cost society about 30 percent less in lifetime health care costs than nonsmokers.

    Of course, none of this is what the Nanny Staters want to hear. The 2004 surgeon general's report on smoking argued that "any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."

    But shouldn't the opposite also be true then? Especially when the primary argument driving the creation of more and more laws regulating individual behavior is, in fact, a fallacy?

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 33 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    GrumpyRetiree wrote on April 09, 2009 09:58 PM: This whole thing is much bigger than just increasing the taxes on smokes. How 'bout the government raises tax on gasoline so we won't drive so much and cause more polution, or tax us for the miles we drive our vehicles so we will use mass transit (where it exists) and also reduce polution. Or add a hefty tax on electricy so we won't use so much power and cause the power plants to polute the air. How 'bout they put a big tax on having children to cut back on population polution.

    All sounds silly, doesn't it. Still it's a sign of the times. When you (not me) voted for "Change", you didn't really understand that "Change" could have a negative impact, did you?


    Leric Goodman wrote on April 09, 2009 05:17 PM: Only the EB would dig up a single 20 year old study to "prove" its point. Frankly, it is pathetic to see the EB sticking to a no-tax-increase ideology. But hey, if you are a smoker and a drinker and on the Editorial Board of what was formerly Nevada's largest newspaper and the crown jewel of a whole newspaper chain, why not use your soapbox to protect your wallet?


    K G B wrote on April 09, 2009 05:16 PM: All great points Douglas. However most new taverns have spectacular state of the art air systems. Some better than most "clean" rooms in hospitals.
    You might be able to smell the smoke, but inhale less than a small portion of it.
    I wish we could make everyone happy in this country, but you and I know that this is the "its all about me" generation.

    There are plenty of non-smoking establishments in Las Vegas. This has gotten to the point where people just want to make it impossible for smokers regardless of whether they will be there or not.

    In 2008 the Netherlands passed a law banning smoking tobacco in all public places, while they continue to open more establishments that are solely for the smoking of marijuana.


    douglas wrote on April 09, 2009 04:59 PM: the issue continues to be that a *licensed* premise must protect the health, safety, and welfare of patrons. that means no spoiled food, not dirt kitchens, no contaminated air.

    either *all* health regs must be observed, or none should. it can be argues that no building code, fire department, or health codes should be enforced if the business is "private".

    that would extend to casinos regs that prohibit minors or those on the list of excluded persons.

    those who continue to rationalize that contaminated air is okay but not contaminated food are to be polite "less than honest".


    la grande lumiere wrote on April 09, 2009 04:25 PM: I don't smoke and I don't like to be around smokers. However, I agree with the nany state philosophy about this whole issue. There are more important issues to get upset about.

    People's personal rights are shriveling up and disappearing. If a motorcycle rider doesn't want to wear a helmet, then why is it the business of the government to make a rider wear a helmet? If I don't want to buckle my seat belt why should I have to?

    The erosion of our personal rights began with the above issues that I mentioned. Those laws should never have been allowed to pass. I'm sure there are other nanny state type issues that have been made illegal but the helmet and seat beat laws are two that sprang to mind.

    Anyway, we're eventually going to lose all personal rights because most people just don't want to get involved. The freedom of speech is already being erroded. It is probably considered politically incorrect to defend smoker's rights. However an illegal immigrant can cost the system billions of dollars and some libtard is worried about somebody smoking. It's all a smoke screen (no pun intended) to divert people's attentions from the real issues.


    douglas wrote on April 09, 2009 03:39 PM: again and again...

    the excuse that to intentionally ignore a health regulation by simply posting some "enter at your own risk" sign is astounding. why should any single health issue be ignored, allowed, winked at, and not *all* others ? surely no intelligent citizen continues to believe that tobacco smoke isn't harmful.

    should for example, a *licensed* premise lacking fire exits be penalized but the same venue serving spoiled food, well that should be okay ?

    think of the savings to any business that could avoid health, safety, and welfare concerns for their patrons. no more of those "caution wet floors" cones. watching some dude do the *ss over tea kettle back flip on a wet floor could be cool. and a regiment of cockroaches marching in formation over your plate of nachos would be interesting to watch.


    Gene wrote on April 09, 2009 03:08 PM: I wonder how much money Viscusi has taken from tobacco companies over the years. One word: PLENTY.

    LEt's looks at his "study," which the LVRJ obvously hasn't done; it just swallowed his swill whole.

    He claims to cover "all" costs??? Ha!

    So how do you quantify the loss of a child's education from a parent who dies early? From a grandparent no longer there to give wisdom and guidance, to ease the strain on a parent? Just 2 factors Viscusi somehow misses.

    Viscusi is utter BS, a tobacco-paid hack, and utterly despicable.

    Let's see his next study argue that colonoscopies shouldn't be given, as it helps people live longer.

    And let the LVRJ editorialize about it!


    K G B wrote on April 09, 2009 02:23 PM: Marcus: If someone chooses to open an establishment that allows people to spit on other people's dinner plates, wipe thier greasy hands on their clothes, or continuously expel gas because they enjoy doing it.

    Im all for it. I simply wont go there. Im sure not going to try and pass a law to stop you from enjoying the things you like simply because I dont like it.


    K G B wrote on April 09, 2009 02:17 PM: douglas wrote on April 09, 2009 11:44 AM:
    the spin is amusing.

    perhaps i should just avoid restaurants that have signage out front that say:

    "unsanitary kitchen"

    "no employee has a health card"

    "our toilets are plugged up"

    "all food served is past safe date"

    Talk about spin. So as far as you are concerned Douglas, all of the above mentioned, dont exist unless they put out a sign?


    Herb wrote on April 09, 2009 01:24 PM: The ironic twist is that Nanny staters are the first to throw out the "strain on the healthcare system" card yet they are the ones that most want Socialized medicine to begin with.

    I believe in the free market. There should be no nanny state laws against smoking. However if you get sick you should pay for all costs out of your own pocket. If you don't have insurance, tough luck you should suffer with no treatment unless you can find a charity to help you.

    I am 100% for freedom. No Nanny State and no Socialism!


    Read All Comments