Smoking Not The Only Evil

Most people have the ability to look at things and circumstances in an objective manner. Quite often, one must reach a personal conclusion that is best arrived at by taking a step back and trying to analyze the issue in question as objectively as possible. This is probably especially true of matters related to political and social issues, particularly those that tend to leave people quite emotional and, thus, irrational. The issue of banning smoking is such an emotional topic among those who oppose smoking in public places and those who enjoy their sinful vice. Arguments have been brought forth by either side, and either side has fed the public constructive arguments, but also a lot of nonsense. In Alberta, Canada, the debate about smoking bans is currently hotter than ever, with the provincial government gunning for smokers wherever it can find them. That smoking is unhealthy is beyond debate. But is smoking really the big problem that so many opponents make it out to be?

Smoking kills a lot of people around the world. Cigarette packs sold in Canada come with a statistical chart showing that tens of thousands of people in Canada die from smoking every year. Most smokers would very much like to kick the filthy habit, but only few accomplish it. They know about the health risks, yet their addiction is too strong and each time they try to stop, they soon find themselves lighting up another cigarette again. In a country like Canada, where people’s health-care costs are shouldered by the public system, i.e., the taxpayers, smoking-related health problems do not only affect the smokers themselves but all taxpayers, who end up paying the bills of smokers who require medical treatment for cancer and other conditions. The anti-smoke lobby, therefore, uses this burden on society as one of its main arguments to justify government’s encroachment on people’s personal rights. However, those same people who go after smokers conveniently ignore other, even bigger, costs to taxpayers that result from the actions of others.Canadians, in particular, enjoy sports, especially extreme sports. Year after year, people are injured while snowboarding, playing hockey or engaging in a variety of risky activities. In many, if not most, cases, these injuries are sustained as a result of reckless behaviour, with many people ending up disabled for the rest of their lives. This comes at a hefty price to the publicly funded health-care system and, thus, the taxpayer. While smokers pay more than their share for any future treatment they may require through the stiff tobacco taxes slapped on each pack of cigarettes, people who engage in extreme sports - or sports in general - do not compensate the taxpayer in the same way at all. If the same fiscal model were to be applied to the area of sports, for example, every pair of skis sold would be subject to a high “extreme sports tax”. Every motorbike sold would carry an extra tax liability of, say, 30-50% in order to defray the costs of treatment and therapy for those who injure or cripple themselves as a result of their own foolish and out-of-control behaviour.

Albertans do not only smoke in large numbers, they are also extremely crazy about cars. They will drive even the shortest distance, for example, to take the garbage to their condominium complex’s garbage dumpster that happens to be a few feet from their building. The cost of the pollution from car traffic is another area that costs taxpayers even more than the effects of smoking - both in terms of money and health. Anyone who has ever walked along 4th Avenue in downtown Calgary during rush hour, when cars are bumper-to-bumper, will know that the exhausts from those cars are a lot more harmful than the smoke wafting in his direction from the cigarette of a passer-by. In winter, in particular, the exhaust fumes hang over 4th Avenue so thick that it is almost impossible to see the cars. This all comes at a tremendous cost to people’s health and the environment. Tough measures, such as congestion charges, are required to protect people and the environment. Yet, instead of following the examples set by London and, more recently, New York, the Albertan government has decided to leave drivers and their cars alone and to target smokers by raising tobacco taxes considerably.

Both the government and the anti-smoke lobby seem to have agreed to peg their arguments on the cost factor: Smokers cost society a lot of money, so they need to be stopped. But if that is what they intend to do, they must follow through and apply the same principle to extreme sports, cars and a host of other harmful influences in people’s lives. By attacking smokers with higher taxes, the government hurts the poor and working poor the most, for smoking is a “pastime” most commonly encountered in these two social segments. At the same time, though, the better-off, with their fancy cars and penchant for dangerous and extreme sports, are spared such treatment. The only ones to be singled out as being a burden on the publicly funded health-care system are the smokers.

Arguing in this manner, as the anti-smoke lobby and Alberta’s government have done, runs the risk of undermining the commitment to universal health care in Canada. The underlying principle of Canada’s health-care system is that anyone, whether rich or poor, is covered, no questions asked. It is therefore troubling to see the government and opponents to smoking open that particular Pandora’s box by questioning certain people’s rights to coverage under the public system. A case for their side of the argument could be made if smokers had never paid any tobacco taxes, but the fact is that smokers have paid above and beyond what it costs to treat smoking-related illnesses, while other groups who engage in activities more harmful and detrimental to society have been given a free pass, without anyone questioning their right to public health care.

Cigarettes are a legal product, one that generates a lot of revenue for governments all over the world. If governments were really serious about making people quit, they would have banned cigarettes a long time ago. The fact that they have not indicates that governments take in more money from tobacco taxes than they spend on treating the sick. If the medical costs were ever to exceed tax revenues, governments would very quickly pull the plug on cigarettes and ban them outright - this, at least, would level the playing field. But the current situation is highly discriminatory against one specific group, who are treated as second or even third-class citizens. As a result, this group may eventually be excluded from public health-care services, something that is already happening now, with some doctors refusing to take on patients who smoke. So apart from this being a rights issue, the future of public health care is also at stake. One can only hope that the anti-smoke activists are aware of the consequences of their actions.