Alberta suing the tobacco industry

[Senator Clay Davis]

Go for it, its not like this province (or any province) couldn't use an extra $10billion. And if they lose, its fodder for the opposition. Seems like a win-win to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Please elaborate on this statement because I have no idea as to how you came to that conclusion.

After you quit smoking your risk factors for Cancer, stroke and heart disease start to drop. At some point it equals that of a never smoker. Therefore if you quit early enough you likely will have no cost impact to the health care system.

Just doing a quick google search i found the following which backs up what I had previosly read.

After 5 years your stroke risk is that of a non smoker
After 15 years your risk of heart disease is that of a non smoker

http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/StayAw...oking-benefits

And from the link below if you quit smoking before you are 50 by age 54 you will have the same risk of dying as a non smoke (not sure if i believe that one though as if you quit at 49 your risk at 54 should still be greater than a non smoker).

http://understandingrisk.cancer.gov/a_lung/03.cfm

[Northendzone]

If smoking is this bad why don't they make it illegal?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm cool with them taxing the living hell out of it to make it a difficult habbit to support. It definitely is a drain on a health care system that will be under siege in the coming years with the aging population. Make up the money lost from people quitting smoking by of course legalizing the herbal medicine.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

If smoking is this bad why don't they make it illegal?

The last thing the government wants to do is put more money in the hands of criminals. It's bad enough they basically gave them a blank cheque with marijuana.

I hope the government gets nothing from these guys because as much as I hate smoking they made it legal and should live with that. Continue to tax the users, make it $40 a pack for all I care, not the companies producing a legal and regulated item.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Interesting play, though I'm sure it will end nowhere close to court.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

If they really cared about it they would ban tobacco, this is nothing more than a money grab for something that has no basis in reality. There have been studies done, and on average smokers(and obese people) cost the health system less than non smokers. This is a US link based on a study done in the Netherlands, but I would imagine it would be the same world wide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...1.9748884.html

I found two others who agree with you! Well, the one on the right is still somewhat skeptical.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

If smoking is this bad why don't they make it illegal?

Prohibition won't work. We learned that from booze. Use Cleveland as an example......In 1919, a year before prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923 the city had an estimated 3,000 illegal speakeasies along with 10,000 stills. An estimated 30,000 city residents sold liquor during prohibition and at least 100,000 more made home brew and bathtub gin for themselves and friends. Prohibition not only fostered widespread contempt for law enforcement, it did something far worse by creating a market unmet by legitimate means. Organized and disorganzied crime filled the vacuum created by the closure of the legal alcohol business. Drinking during prohibition actually increased so the law did the opposite of what it was inteneded to do.

[nik-]

I honestly think it would be easier/more successful to run prohibition on smoking than on booze.

[Thunderball]

I don't like the idea of governments being able to attack tobacco companies with lawsuits because people get sick and die from their legal product sold with myriad of warnings, deterrents and regulations. Reeks of a society without any personal responsibility. If governments don't like people smoking, raise the price of smokes more, and try to run ABHC like an insurance company, with higher premiums on "higher risk groups" without running too afoul of the Canada Health Act.

However, it is poor governance for the province to NOT sue tobacco companies if the courts say provinces can double dip like that. Its a revenue stream, be it a morally dubious one.

I don't think this is a case of Nanny Redford Progressivism, but moreso a case of Bandwagon hopping Pragmatism.

[Yeah_Baby]

Am I the only one who hates the Nanny Redford nickname?


Probably. I am a ranging socialist pinko, I voted for the Alberta Party.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I found two others who agree with you! Well, the one on the right is still somewhat skeptical.

Aww bless your heart!
I have a super cool idea though, if you want to make me look stupid the best way is to prove me wrong with facts. I mean posting a picture you took with your cat is awesome and all, but I feel your post could have done much more

[oilyfan]

To me it's really simple, it's less about nanny state and more about maximizing revenues for the province. If there is a chance to get money out of the tobacco companies, why not take it? From a libertarian or capitalist viewpoint this is still a valid approach because the market is trying to arbitrage. The tobacco companies have a capacity to pay and they have left themselves open to legal challenge, the provinces are doing it on behalf of the consumer.

If there truly is no legal basis for a judgement in favor of the provinces, in that if provinces couldn't prove that revenue generated through taxes is insufficient to pay for the entire backlog of health care services that the province has provided in the previous 50-60 years, then tobacco has nothing to worry about.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

Aww bless your heart!
I have a super cool idea though, if you want to make me look stupid the best way is to prove me wrong with facts. I mean posting a picture you took with your cat is awesome and all, but I feel your post could have done much more

I'm a dog person. And your post demonstrated "facts" aren't really salient to the discussion.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I'm a dog person. And your post demonstrated "facts" aren't really salient to the discussion.

How was my post not relevant to the discussion? If the govt of Alberta wants to go after tobacco companies to offset the cost of medical care obtained by smokers, don't you think there should be proof that smokers cost the health system more than a regular person?

[VO #23]

I'm guessing a lot of the money is retroactive. People have been using the health care system for smoking-related illnesses for decades, and the high taxes are a comparatively recent phenomenon.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

How was my post not relevant to the discussion? If the govt of Alberta wants to go after tobacco companies to offset the cost of medical care obtained by smokers, don't you think there should be proof that smokers cost the health system more than a regular person?

Why does it have to be more? I mean, I could go into a lengthy deconstruction of that link and follow what you seem to be saying to some ridiculous conclusions. But if something can be so clearly linked to illness, why shouldn't some of the associated costs of treating that illness be pursued along this avenue along with other means at the government's disposal?

Your reality seems to suggest the costs must be more (however you choose to define those costs) than average or typical for this to be worthwhile. My reality suggests linkage is more significant.

[GP_Matt]

I think they should sue big car manufacturers next. The costs to the health care from car accidents is far higher than the taxes gained from car sales. And I bet that car manufacturers are fully aware of the dangers of driving yet they continue to produce new cars every year. When will it end.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by HOOT

The last thing the government wants to do is put more money in the hands of criminals. It's bad enough they basically gave them a blank cheque with marijuana.

I hope the government gets nothing from these guys because as much as I hate smoking they made it legal and should live with that. Continue to tax the users, make it $40 a pack for all I care, not the companies producing a legal and regulated item.

Making the taxes rise to $40 a pack would have a worse effect than making it illegal. Smugglers and bootleggers will flood the market with illegal smokes at a fraction of the price and the government will lose all the tax revenue from those sales as well as the ability to attempt to block access to minors. They will also be unable to enforce the law as it will be hard to identify who is smoking legit tobacco and who is using the tax free stuff.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Am I the only one who hates the Nanny Redford nickname?


Probably. I am a ranging socialist pinko, I voted for the Alberta Party.

People use the 'nanny' thing because they feel like it's the easiest most damaging way to describe her without doing any real work... I wonder if a man was in charge enacting the same legislation/decisions if he would be called nanny too...