Thus reports MSNBC, and the reason is that smokers inhale ever more deeply to get the same effects. This is exactly what Mark Thornton has been saying for years about all attempts to restrict consumption. This is the same Thornton who was 100% bang on regarding the housing bubble. When is this guy going to be acknowledged as the prophet that he is?
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/9970/safe-cigs-are-more-dangerous/
Safe Cigs are More Dangerous
Previous post: Hayek on Courage and Corruption
{ 13 comments }
There’s no prophecy involved in stating the obvious when everyone else fails to heed.
Also Hayek smoked, and how old did he end up being?
Tim,
I think Jeffrey Tucker is trying to say that when the government gets involved and trys to restrict the free flow of goods they can not see in totality the externalities of their decisions. Meaning, they have no idea what the real effect of their legislation is going to be. In the example cited, If people want a higher buzz, they can cover the holes in the fliter to get more smoke, or pull off the filter, or do anything they want. Simply blaming too little regulation for societies problems always leads to more and more intervention. (the government tries to fix problems they cause with more rules, even though they have no idea what the effect of these new laws may be) If individuals are responsible for their actions, (meaning they will be financially responsible for their lungs if they get cancer) then it makes no sense to smoke! But when the government reduces the cost of smoking by providing end of life care for smokers they reduce the cost to the individual. (bascially whenever you subsidize something you get more of it.)
George Burns lived to be 100 and smoked cigars all of his life. But the point is that government attempts to force people to smoke “Safe cigs”, like most government interventions, will have unintended consequences, creating a similar or worse problem than the one they are trying to combat. Ultimately, initiating force is not just immoral, it also tends to not get the desired results.
Isn’t this essentially the same thing that occurred as a result of seat belt mandates? i.e. many individuals drove more recklessly.
Yeah! When is this guy going to be acknowledged as the prophet that he is?
The government has also prevented or delayed safer alternatives to cigarettes, including smokeless cigarettes.
The next story was even scarier:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/
“Judge Rules Doctors Shouldn’t have to Deal with Competition: Cites Key Testimony from Doctors”
All I know is, I want to see one of those cool pictures of little baby George Burns with a cigar in his mouth.
“The government has also prevented or delayed safer alternatives to cigarettes, including smokeless cigarettes.”
Uh huh . . . Oh yeah and the guvmint has also prevent or delayed safer alternatives to beer including non-alcoholic beer. How about – some people just want to live for a short time (or conversely, don’ want to grow old) and want to live dangerously?
Yeah, people love to put smoke into their bodies for no other reason! The real reason is nicotine.
Since they are after the nicotine they will take in as much smoke as it takes to get it!
If only that gum wasn’t so hard to get lit.
Mark Thornton also predicted the dissipation of the immigration issue that Lew Rockwell just wrote about. I’m pretty sure it’s in this speech from 2007.
Doh! that was a hasty posting – Lew linked directly to an earlier article of Mark’s saying the same thing.
The article the author linked to said that deeper inhaling was a secondary cause, not “the reason.” It said that the initial cause was a greater amount of the chemical nitrosamine in American tobacco.
“Australian cigarettes contain about 20 percent of the nitrosamine content of U.S. cigarettes, making the chemical a prime suspect, concluded Burns, who has been scientific editor of several surgeon general reports on tobacco. “
Comments on this entry are closed.