Cash Crop

Anti-smoking campaigns in the past loved to trot out the numbers relating to the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. It is actually a pretty good argument. Up to a point. Nobody wants to ban the automobile because of the costs of treating accident victims. Nobody proposes euthanizing the citizenry at the age of 65 because of the negative cost-benefit analysis as retirees begin the inevitable slow march towards death.

But it was popular when it came to tobacco. But those days should be over now. Apparently, with the last tax increase on cigarettes, the tax revenue now exceeds the health care costs associated with smoking. Smokers are now revenue-positive for the government. Should we keep an eye open for changes in Ottawa? Will there be a gentler tone towards tobacco from the Du Maurier House Of Commons?

Now here's a quesiton about cigarettes that's always eluded me. They say that the harmful effects of smoking come not from the tabaco itself, but from additives. If that's the case and anti-smoking campaigns are really based on health matters not social programming, why, instead of raising taxes, why don't they simply ban the additives that are harmful? The counter-argument is that this would make cigarettes taste like a soiled monkey's behind and people wouldn't want to buy them anymore. But isn't the whole point of raising taxes and smoking bans in public places to try to get people to not want to buy them anymore?