1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + + + +
Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back? (view source)
Revision as of 17:47, July 22, 2008
, 17:47, July 22, 2008→Yes, They Should Be Tightened
== Yes, They Should Be Tightened ==
== Yes, They Should Be Tightened ==
Frankly, there's no legitimate reason smoking should be legal, because the science that shows it to be deadly has even been accepted by the tobacco companies, which focus on smokers-rights instead. The government does not allow the sale of any consumable product that is comparably harmful, and only permits smoking because of the potential outcry of voters addicted to it, and because of the tax revenue that would be lost.
These are cowardly reasons to permit its continued sale. All of society pays a cost for smoking, specifically in assuming the medical expenses for the underinsured, and lost productivity due to illness and death. As for parallels, a light consumption of alcohol (like a few glasses of red wine per week) has been shown to have overall health benefits, while comparable addictive substances that sharpen the senses and suppress appetite, like cocaine, have been banned.
The arguments for lost taxes fall short because that money would be spent elsewhere. Figures from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids assert that smokers cost the economy $97.6 billion a year in lost productivity because of premature death. Per the same source, an ''additional'' $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined, and each American household spends $630 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking, whether they smoke or not.
The cost of a pack of cigarettes averages $4.49, including taxes. Using this number, a pack-a-day smoker burns through about $31.43 per week, or $1,635 per year. That's higher than the average incentive check the government sent out this spring, and would be an ongoing stimulus to the economy if spent. Alternatively, a 40-year-old who quits smoking and puts the savings into a 401(k) earning 9% a year would have nearly $250,000 by age 70, relieving some of the burden on Social Security, Medicare, etc.
To recap, there is no overall benefit to society from allowing smoking, but every American suffers from the negative impacts in an economic sense. When the voluntary actions of some citizens cause harm to all, there is no rational justification to roll back regulation of the action. Regulation should be tightened with a national goal of ending tobacco sales in this country in the next couple of decades. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
== No, They Should Be Rolled Back ==
== No, They Should Be Rolled Back ==