NY Anti-Smoking Campaign Budget to be Slashed

Government will refrain from telling me how to live? Yea! More young girls will smoke and cease to be fat? Yea!

Mr. Del Signore, when you call someone a liar please back it up with evidence. As I can for the statements I make:

1. Monica A. Fisher et al. "Age and Race/Ethnicity-Gender Predictors of Denying Smoking, United States." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved ,19.1 (Jan 2008) 75-89

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_care_for_the_poor_and_underserved/v019/19.1fisher.pdf

Table 2 presents the overall denial of smoking by true smokers 18 years of age and older (8%), and the increase in denial of smoking among older participants. The age-specific denial of smoking increased from 6% of 18–34 year olds, to 8% of 35–54 year olds, to 13% of 55–74 year olds, to 25% of elderly (75 years or older) participants. (Pg. 79)

Social desirability related to the social unacceptability of cigarette smoking25 is a possible explanation for the higher denial of smoking among elderly. That is, elderly smokers may be more prone to being influenced by social pressure not to smoke and thus provide the socially desirable non-smoking response. In a similar manner, a finding that smoking is not socially acceptable among college students,26 would be strengthened if smoking status was validated. (Pg. 86)

2. New York City Independent Budget Office, "Higher Cigarette Tax Has Led to More Tax Revenue, More Tax Evasion," Inside the Budget, Number 152, October 19, 2007.

http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/insidethebudget152.pdf

Recent research found evidence that a significant amount of cigarette consumption goes underreported in surveys similar to the ones used in this report.5

5M.Stehr, in 2005 Journal of Health Economics (Volume 24, pp 277–297), found that because of under-reporting, the cigarette consumption data in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) overstates the decline in smoking. Both the city and state data, on which this report is based, align closely with the information in the BRFSS’s sample of New York City smokers.

Next, please define "ally" and see if you can't avoid committing libel.

If the anti-smoking program is so ineffective as you claim then why are you against them? I can't believe you were once on the force. You are an embarrassment.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyer82/4142789866/in/set-72157622771220991?edited=1

My left lung, it's...TOASTED.

If all the smokers in New York City quit right now, then what? Oh I guess we have to raise the taxes on condoms or beer or gasoline or home heating oil or porn movies.

Enough already with the anti smoking advertising shit.

Except none of those other things damage people or society unless used improperly. Raising taxes to $9 a pack now is a lot more effective than saying "don't smoke, you might get sick in 30 years."

But it worked. The ads and the free patches/gum etc. The campaigns have significantly reduced the amount of smokers.

I believe that most smokers quit is because they were driven out of their work places and taxed the shit out of their habit.

Although the hispanic guy with the voice box is frightening. I doubt it had that much effect on smokers. A friend of mine who had throat cancer told me a story that in the ward she was in a guy was smoking through the hole in his throat. Obviously the individual did not give a shit about the commercials.

People will always like free things. it's a shame that those subway condoms are of such lousy quality. Even my son and his friends laugh about them.

I used to love "e"swimmeeng haha I love that one.

Money talks, we all know it. Increased taxes deserve the credit for getting people to quit. Hispanic swimmer guy and my personal favorite "nasty aorta with gross fatty deposits" are certainly disturbing but nothing hurts as great as a thinner wallet.

i especially appreciate the note:

"We do not say Luckies reduces flesh."

If Audrey Silk thinks we should have to breath her smoke, how would she like if we fart in her face?

Yeah yeah smokers suck they're annoying we hate them they're dumb blah blah. How about non smokers come up with the $1.3 Billion we smokers pay in extra taxes every year, then you can complain.

We can tax taxi fare at $9/ride (exhaust is carcinogenic), I'm sure you'll find that less annoying than Audrey's second hand smoke.

We shelled out more money in health cost for smoke-related illness. We will save more if smoking was prohibited.

Do you have numbers to back that up? I can't seem to find any.

Even if its true, by that logic we should ban fat people from eating fast food- there are far more obese Americans than American smokers, and obesity has its fair share of associated expensive, long term health problems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.

However, there's no second hand fat.

did you even read the rest of the article?

"Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents."

"Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

'We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else,' said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. 'But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash.'"

Even then, the numbers you mention are nation-wide, while the $1.3 billion in tax revenue is for new york state alone (not counting the taxes the city and federal government impose as well)

Second hand smoke (or fat) is an entirely different argument, this is just about how much the government makes or loses over smokers.

Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states .

Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago. A lot of these diseases that killed 2 decades ago are now treated chronically and health care costs has doubled since then.

Yes, his study is 20 years old, but the CDC data cited is from 1995-97, only a few years younger than the study. Cigarette tax has increased exponentially since then, alongside increased health care costs. The article also sites a Dutch study from 2008 which calculated that after age 20, a fit non-smoker would incur $91,000 in health care costs than a smoker.

Dutch healthcare system and cost is incomparable to U.S. I don't think the Dutch study is applicable. This 2004 medical costs per pack per State is the most update on CDC website.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/pdfs/dataHighlights06rev.pdf

On page 17, the medical costs per pack for NYS is 12.62 which is much greater than the price of a pack and the applicable taxes.

How much of the medical cost does the state government actually pay for? Medicaid, which is jointly funded by the state and the federal government has an $8.15 per pack medical cost which is much closer to the tax per pack, especially if you take into account the portion of that $8.15 which is federally funded.

Whether the funding is federal and/or state, it comes out of our pockets. And the tax per pack is is a combined City and State cigarette tax of $4.25 per pack on all cigarettes possessed for sale or use in New York City. ($2.75 is New York State tax; $1.50 is New York City tax.). So the medical cost per pack is much greater than the tax collected.

+1

lung cancer FTW!

Is this you five years from now?

http://www.upstate.edu/cdb/grossanat/thoraxpath8.php

Snip!