HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 3, 2003 What if I were to tell you about a health threat so sever that the CEO of the American Cancer Society has dubbed it "the only weapon of mass destruction used against all people all over the world." and a University of Colorado cancer expert declares kills eight people every minute of every day? Or an insidious disease that will kill one billion people in the 21st century? Would that make you sit up and take notice? It would me. Now, if you were presented with data that claimed to support these dire warnings, what would be your first reaction? Eradicate it? Maybe. If you were a professional medical expert, however, your solution would be to…………tax it. A story today on CNN’s web site talks about policy recommendations passed at a weekend meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, which, among other things, promotes raising the federal tobacco tax by $2 on each pack of smokes. Now, this is neither the time nor the place to delve into all of the vast inequities involved in the demonization of "evil" tobacco that has taken place in the US in the last 10years or so. But a few thoughts do immediately come to mind while reading this story. The overwhelming thought when presented with the array of evidence in the story (which one assumes is even more extensive than what is in the story) is, to me, simple. Why not ban it if it’s that bad? One could certainly argue many legitimate points against doing that- black market, freedom, etc, etc, etc, but that is precisely the point. An intellectually honest recommendation from the very professionals that fight cancer caused by smoking every day should be nothing less than ELIMINATING THE CAUSE! Advocating higher taxes merely politicizes what should be a fairly simple scientific process and injects a whole host of side issues into the debate. If these same numbers were associated with AIDS or global warming, these same doctors would, and should be, advocating a worldwide crash program to ban the stuff in five years. Very curious. The numbers themselves seem a bit fuzzy, as well. Based on the findings presented by Oxford University professor Sir Richard Peto, 10 million people a year die from tobacco related illnesses. I’m not sure how they’re able to determine that with all of the multiple carcinogens floating around in the atmosphere, but even if that’s half right it still makes a compelling case for doing something a little more drastic than taxing it! It’s also interesting to note that apparently the ASCO employs a team of tax economists to help with public health initiatives. It also begs the question that if the ASCO has figured out that taxing something changes people’s behavior, why can’t the CBO or Democrats in Congress grasp that concept. But enough about that. Peto goes on to say that 70 percent of those who die will be in developing countries (read- dirt poor). How taxing Americans will help these people isn’t explained. Even if we accept all of the numbers outlined in the report, a highly regressive tax on the very people the good doctors purport to want to help is their number one solution. The other dangerous precipice these docs are perched on is the slippery slope of what to tax. I’m not one for slippery slope arguments in general, but if this is widely accepted, who knows what comes next. Tobacco has been the whipping boy of the legal vices for that last few years, but next thing you know, some American Society of Concerned Doctors Who Know More Than You Do will be advocating taxes on Big Macs, Tasty Cakes, and non-diet soda. And forget about beer- at least the alcoholic kind. Laugh if you like, but recently a trial lawyer in California tried to get OREOS banned in that state. Stay tuned………………. ------------ Email Jamie Moulthrop: jmoulthrop@earthlink.net Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
