Classification Essay On Quitting Smoking
Anti-smoking activist Scott Ballin asserts that “There is no positive aspect to [smoking].The product has no potential benefits.” Not only does the Public Health school neglect subjective benefits of smoking, as evaluated by each individual, but it often reveals a confused notion of cost.S., Raynauld and Vidal in Canada, and Jean-Jacques Rosa in France) discovered that net transfers go the other way around if one factors in tobacco taxes paid by smokers plus the savings that their early deaths brings to public pension plans and other kinds of old-age care.Not only do smokers pay their way, but they actually subsidize non-smokers.Not all Public Health arguments were so simplistic.A more serious one was related to what economists call “transfers,” i.e., subsidies between different groups in society.The Public Health school adopts a radically different methodology.
Then, a new argument was proposed by World Bank economist Howard Barnum.Consider, for a moment, the similar cases of alcohol and sedentary lifestyle (i.e., lack of physical exercise).Research has shown that alcohol consumption transfers net costs to the rest of society because it is often a causal factor in automobile accidents and violent crimes.Why, asks British philosopher Antony Flew, did EPA bureaucrats not recommend that smokers eat fruit instead of foregoing tobacco?Yet, in general, the medical literature strongly supports the hypothesis that smoking is dangerous for the smoker’s health. Now, why does one fourth of the population continue to smoke?Yet, forcing the drunk to bear responsibility for the costs they impose would seem to be a more appropriate response than prohibition for everybody.As for sedentary lifestyle and obesity-related diseases, economists Willard G. write: “Surprisingly, the lifetime external costs of a sedentary life-style are actually higher than the external cost of smoking. We estimate that lack of exercise imposes external costs of 24 cents for every mile that sedentary people do not walk, jog, or run.” The fact that not doing something might impose “costs” on others illuminates the troubling implications of this kind of transfer argument.Why does the state try and persuade individuals to quit smoking, but not skiing?Why do we hear about the “social cost of smoking”—0 billion per year in the U.This was especially obvious in the Public Health literature of the 1970s and 1980s, which assumed that costs of smoking-related illnesses were of the nature of a “social cost,” borne by “society as a whole.” Typically, 75% of the so-called “social cost” of smoking was made of incomes lost by ill or deceased smokers.Now, if we consider, like economists, that “society” does not own individuals, such costs are private costs to smokers, not “external costs” transferred to others.