Ouch! That's more expensive than pot (I'm told). Have the bootleggers come in yet??? Won't be long, I suspect, at those prices. Already happening here at $5 a pack.... nothing big time yet, but still.

The thing is, that just to get the government to break even (tax revenue vs health costs) the tax on a pack of cigarettes would need to be closer to $20. If you assume that the average smoker would cause only $100,000 in health issues to themselves and/or others over a thirty year period, then financing that at 5% interest would be about $17.89 per pack at a pack a day.

Of course, $100,000 is an arbitrary and very likely low number considering the larger number of sick days that smokers take before being diagnosed with a problem that by itself can cost well over $100,000, not to mention second hand illnesses.

How is the government being charged all these healthcare costs again? Are you just talking about medicare?
If I get cancer from smoking I have private insurance that gets that bill.
If I miss work and take sick days, my company incurs those costs.

:D
You should pay more attention to the health care debate in the US! One of the major goals is to stop insurance companies from dropping the policies of sick people because when they do, the government ends up paying the bills.

You have health insurance at work, and so you think you're covered. The reality is that if you get an expensive illness like cancer, there are a myriad of ways for your insurance company to drop you. They can drop your entire company, or raise the company's rates so high that they'll cancel the policy, and you'll likely end up losing your job and Cobra is far too expensive, etc.

I remember reading a while ago that some German companies give non-smokers extra days paid holiday, to compensate them for all the goof-off breaks they aren't taking.

I think the economic argument is a non-starter in the sense that if smoking shortens life spans, the costs incurred for late-life health care and drugs go to zero and compensate (given all the taxes collected from smokers) for the increased costs earlier. A non-smoker stands to live longer and will incur those late-life costs.

"We smokers are people too!"
"Yes, but for not as long"

That assumes that late-life costs don't apply to smokers. They not only apply, since smoker deaths are not quick or cheap, but the smoker has has less time to contribute to society, making those costs are greater for society.

...sigh... I had a great comment, but I deleted it. Logic doesn't seem to apply to this conversation (and I'm not just referring to cwtnospam).

Seriously people, are we really going to have another debate on this? I'm yet to see anyone change their opinion on the subject, why waste your breath (or finger power).

Excellent point, Jay. Recall that in my original post in this thread I said:

You haven't? Years ago, more than half the population smoked, you couldn't find a restaurant that didn't reek of the stuff, and even at work you had to put up with it! Seems like lots of people have changed their minds about it.

Here's a more conservative estimate of the costs of smoking:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medica...okingcosts.htm
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...and_Cancer.asp

Using those numbers we still get higher costs than tax revenue:
Population 300,000,000
Percent who smoke: 20%
Number who smoke: 60,000,000
Cost per year: $167,000,000,000
Cost per smoker/year: $2,783.33
Cost per smoker/month: $231.94
Cost per pack: $7.48

Honestly, my first thought on reading that was that the article was meant to deflect attention away from smoking as an issue. Better to cast it as a smokers rights issue where the poor smoker is being abused. It's been tried before, but it never sticks because it's just not believable.

You're a conspiracy theorist, CWT. :)

I'm simply not that sly. I thought the article was interesting because it pointed out who was hurt, but not dissuaded, by high tobacco taxes. Jay is right -- like a lot of current issues (and past ones two) there is really no middle ground -- folks tend to be binary, fer it, or agin it.

I can't say I buy the argument that the poor are more likely to smoke because it's an appetite suppressant and they can't afford to risk obesity.

It doesn't require a conspiracy theory. People will naturally use popular arguments to back up what they want. It's to be expected that smokers will try to use any means to slow or stop restrictions on smoking and/or taxes that affect it. It's unlikely that if you weren't a smoker you would even have been interested in the article. Most nonsmokers just want smoking to go away, when they think about it at all.

Sigh...!
 

.
Folks, I seriously propose that we not expand this thread into yet another general discussion on smoking and health care. Been there, done that.

As Jay points out – that’s a waste of breath. (And some of us need our breath more than others.)

Please go back to NovaScotian’s initial post and limit it to that topic.

-- ArcticStones
.

I think you're missing the point. The original post amounted to: here's an argument in favor of smokers and smoking, but please don't argue against it!

As for it being a waste of breath, I've already pointed out that over time (and through millions of discussions) the tide is shifting away from smokers. That's a good thing.

.
What say ye?
Is it best to take a holiday from this topic? ;)
.

Agree, ArcticStones;

We've all had our say on the article and don't need to discuss smoking itself any further.

Adam