The Shotgun Blog
« Am I missing something here? | Main | Al Gore places infant son in rocket to escape dying planet »
Monday, August 04, 2008
Lemieux: Looting tobacco companies
This week, Pierre Lemieux examines the recent settlement between tobacco manufacturers and federal and provincial governments (you can read about the case, described as the "largest criminal fines and civil [sic] settlements in Canadian history" here.)
Tobacco companies Imperial Tobacco and Rothmans Inc. were accused of illegally smuggling cigarettes into Canada from the United States, thereby avoiding draconian Canadian taxes. Recently, the companies pleaded guilty to "aiding persons to sell and be in possession of tobacco manufactured in Canada that was not packed and was not stamped in conformity with the Excise Act and its amendments and Ministerial regulations."
Canada's two largest tobacco manufacturers have agreed to pay more than $1 billion in fines as part of the settlement.
It's easy to portray this as a case of evil cigarette companies getting what they deserve. However, as Lemieux points out, it's important to note why black markets exist for certain goods in the first place. His answer is that
"Black markets always develop when the state tries to ban or severely restrict something consumers want, as the long history of tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, banned books, etc. amply demonstrates. Black markets are a way for consumers to reassert their sovereignty, whatever you, I or others think of this or that product traded on them. Long live the black market!"
There wouldn't have been any need to take the risk of smuggling cigarettes if the government hadn't made them so expensive to begin with. While the motivations of Imperial and Rothmans might have been selfish -- thank goodness for that! Despite the meddling of government bureaucrats, they were trying to meet the needs of their customers.
Invoking the thin justification of "public health" the state took it upon itself to drive up the price of a good consumers really wanted. Now they've acquired the scalps of companies that adapted to their oppressive policies in the best way possible. Long live the State!
Reading Lemieux's column reminded me of Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. In the book, Hank Rearden, a brilliant industrialist, is forced to deal with the black market to get coal when government restrictions make it impossible for him to do business in any other way. At this point in the book, the government's interference with the free market has devastated the population and left people starving across the United States. Here's an important scene. This one, and the one before it in which Rearden's company fails for the first time to deliver an order on time, finally demolished the last shreds of my angsty teenage socialism:
"Nobody owned the mine, nobody could afford the cost of working it. But a young man with a brusque voice and dark, angry eyes, who came from a starving settlement, had organized a gang of the unemployed and made a deal with Rearden to deliver the coal. They mined it at night, they stored it in hidden culverts, they were paid in cash, with no questions asked or answered. Guilty of a fierce desire to remain alive, they and Rearden traded like savages, without rights...with nothing but mutual understanding and a ruthless absolute observance of one's given word. Rearden did not even know the name of the young leader. Watching him at the job of loading the trucks, Rearden thought that this boy, if born a generation earlier, would have become a great industrialist; now, he would probably end his brief life as a plain criminal in a few more years."
Long live the State? I agree with Lemieux: Long live the black market!
Excerpts from the column are below.
"Now, you see, we don’t have, on one side, bad egoists who are just thinking of making a buck with wicked consumers, and, on the other side, statocratic angels sacrificing themselves for the love of their subjects. Men don’t transmogrify from egoists to altruists when they leave the market to become politicians or bureaucrats. They remain the same."
...
"The looters are also very happy with the new surveillance and control powers they have gained over the two tobacco manufacturers. The Canada Revenue Agency will monitor new internal compliance programs that the companies are forced to establish under the settlement. The detailed requirements include a “Know Your Customer” program and anti-money laundering procedures. Like so many of their compatriots, these companies will be obliged to play cop for the government. A great step forward for the Surveillance State!
In this agreement, as in so many other cases, the Conservative government dutifully finished what the Liberals had started."
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 4, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553cd43728833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lemieux: Looting tobacco companies:
Comments
Sounds the same as the Mafia - blackmail, extortion, thuggery and threats. Umm, this is our government at work?
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 11:17:34 AM
The only concern the government has is how much deeper their finger can get into that pie.
Posted by: maija | 2008-08-04 11:30:37 AM
Why does the average person not see this?
Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 11:51:54 AM
Good question, TM.
Government-run schools, maybe? We don't really expect those schools to do much to inculcate healthy mistrust of the government, do we?
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 11:55:47 AM
I think the reason that the average person does not see this is due to successful indoctrination. The first step is always to paint the target as bad, evil and a threat to society, then the government can easily justify just about anything it decides to do to the target. The same approach was used by the Nazis against the Jews and other "undesirables".
Remember it is imperative to demonise the target in the public's eyes as a first step.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 12:13:20 PM
My dear Professor,
If the tabacco companies felt that they were within the law to help smuggling, they could have fought the case in court. The tobacco companies enjoy the state's protection to distribute a highly toxic substance that causes much suffering and billions of dollars in health care costs. As such they should at least play by the legal rules.
Regards,
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 12:44:24 PM
John,
I doubt the companies felt like they were "within the law" when they facilitated smuggling. But who cares? They were serving their customers, which is more than politicians typically do. I could only wish the government would go to the mat for me the way these tobacco manufacturers did.
As for tobacco being "a highly toxic substance that causes much suffering", etc, so what? You know why I use Triumph Snus, a spitless tobacco product completely unavailable in Canada (thanks government)? Because I LIKE IT. I don't need the state to protect me from myself, nor do the millions of cigarette smokers in Canada.
If I move back to Canada, I just might bring a dozen cannisters with me. Want to sue me for that? Are there any other voluntary activities I engage in that you consider evil? I need to know, so I can exclude them from my life immediately.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 1:08:57 PM
Terrence,
The Canadian government allows limited distribution of many other toxic substances, mostly prescription drugs, but also heroine replacement and maintenance drugs, and also alcohol. There are laws governing their distribution. Help in smuggling these drugs is illegal. Similarly, tobacco and alcohol are addictive, cause great damage and are controlled to some extend by legal restrictions. There is no philosophical justification to just ignore these laws and then claim injustice.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 1:19:55 PM
John,
No one is denying that smuggling cigarettes is illegal. But they're illegal because of an unjust law. The law is unjust because it prevented people from getting a product they wanted, at a price they were willing to pay (and at a price the tobacco companies were happy to meet.)
If the government passed a law that made a product you wanted ten times more expensive than it otherwise would be, wouldn't you be happy if a company broke that law? Wouldn't you condemn the law, rather than the company?
I don't condemn people or organizations who break unjust laws, especially when they do so to make other people -- their customers -- better off.
Would you condemn Hank Rearden for breaking the law in his situation? Seriously?
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 1:33:44 PM
"Black markets always develop when the state tries to ban or severely restrict something consumers want.... Black markets are a way for consumers to reassert their sovereignty.... Long live the black market!"
The fact that a black market exists for some product is clearly proof that the public is resisting an attempt by the government to impose a restriction on them, but that alone does not make the restriction unjustified. Where the restriction is paternalistic - based on the idea that people need to be protected from themselves - it is usually unjustified. (Cases involving restrictions on children or the mentally ill might be exceptions.)
But where the restriction is based on how the activity will harm innocent third parties, the restriction can be quite justifiable, even if a black market is created. Laws protecting intellectual property are a prime example. Even before the Internet existed and illegal downloading was all the rage, copyright laws, patent laws, trademark laws, etc all needed vigilant enforcement to prevent two parties from freely engaging in commerce. Cheap Chinese DVDs for sale on the streets is a black market that was created by enforcing the intellectual property rights.
Other activities, while not quite a "black market" as such, are driven underground in the same way when they are outlawed. Dog fighting, as we all learned in the wake of Michael Vick's arrest is still happening despite laws against it. Abortions, in times and places where it has been prohibited, continue to take place so long as there are women who want them and people with coat hangers willing to provide them for a price.
So black markets and underground economies are created every time any government seeks to restrict free exchanges between people who are both happy to make the exchange, but that alone is not a reason to think that such restrictions are bad ones. Sometimes they are very good ones indeed. So the existence of a black market in tobacco is entirely beside the point in whether or not it is a legitimate industry in the first place and if it is, whether it is overtaxed in the second place.
Now I am sure someone out there (there's always at least one!) will read this and think, "Fine, but because tobacco only harms the user, draconian taxes make it a clear case of bad paternalism. So there!" But I have neither agreed nor disagreed with that view here. My point here has not been to argue that tobacco tax rates are or are not justified. It has simply been to point out that Lemieux's argument is deeply flawed. Because if he is right and we all shout "Long live the black market!" about any and every black market, then we are saying to hell with the creators of intellectual property, dogs, and fetuses, among others.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-04 1:52:22 PM
As per this survey:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/evaluation-risks-risques/industry-industrie2-eng.php
The cost of a carton of 200 cigarettes cost $10.13 to manufacture, however the cost of a carton (2002)$$53.01. Who do you think gets the other $42.89? Do you honestly beleive that they channel all of that to the health care system? I don't think so, do want to know how I know that...because I have not had a family doctor in 4 years due to shortages, because I stitched my own foot to avoid waiting 4-5 hours at my local "hospital" to get the stitches.
The taxes listed for said products are listed as: Provincial Tobacco Tax, Federal Excise Tax and Federal Excise Duty. I don't see health care in there do you?
What's even funnier, I don't even smoke. What pisses me off is taxes in general, high taxes so that the government can give themselves nice pensions and paid vacations and ridiculous salaries all off our backs.
Cheers to the blackmarket! Now if only I could get paid in cash for what I do....
Posted by: maija | 2008-08-04 1:57:26 PM
Fact Check,
Excellent response -- very nuanced, indeed (and not in a bad way!)
I think it matters in this case that it was the producers of the product who broke the law. A software pirate doesn't produce what he allows others to get on the black market.
"So black markets and underground economies are created every time any government seeks to restrict free exchanges between people who are both happy to make the exchange..."
True. So maybe we should cheer black markets in those cases that the blocked exchanges involve those who have actually produced the thing being exchanged. In that way, cheering the black market is part of cheering for property rights more generally.
Good point, FC.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 2:01:20 PM
Terrence,
It is difficult to say what laws are unjust. For example, if homeless people moved into your home while you were away: that seems unjust. If homeless people started a tent camp on the public park in front of your home? Public laws would govern. Homeless people will think different from home owners about the justness of laws relating to this. You seem to say that laws that you don't like are unjust.
About your Triumph Snus, you seem to have the same attitude as the tobacco companies. You are planning to break the law because you accept the risk of being caught. I personally don't care one way or the other, but please don't complain about unjust laws if you would get caught.
For complete freedom of behavior to your own liking, please move to Somalia. You can even kill or get killed at your own pleasure.
Best,
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 2:07:43 PM
John,
You didn't really answer my main question: if a validly enacted law made a product you like 10 times more expensive than it would otherwise be, would you condemn a business for breaking that law to provide you with the good at a lower price, or would you condemn the law itself?
I agree that defining a just law is difficult. Here's a start, however: a just law is one that blocks person X from treating person Y as a mere means to the satisfaction of person X's whims, desires, etc. The law is supposed to enshrine our equal status as persons, with diverse aims and plans.
An unjust law is therefore one that does not respect persons _as persons_. It is one that (for example) treats them as mere objects -- instruments of public policy -- incapable of acting for their own reasons. A law restricting the number of children a couple could have would fall into that category.
A law that blocks me from purchasing the labor of another person's hands is a law that ignores the fact that both of us have our own plans and lives to live. A law that blocks me from treating someone else as a mere means (e.g. by taking his property or his life) actually shows respect for us both.
I know this is all a little nebulous, but it at least seems to rule out laws that block two consenting parties from engaging in a voluntary exchange that will impose few or no negative externalities on others. If you and I want to make the exchange, then it's become a part of our plans, and it seems not just unjust but _absurd_ for the state to block such an exchange, on the pretext that it is to my benefit that the exchange be blocked.
So you've got me backwards: I dislike unjust because they treat people like children, or because they disrupt the plans they have formed for their own lives. I don't have a problem with laws that block people from treating me as a mere means, and I don't have a problem following those laws; thus, we can disregard Somalia, Professor Strawman.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 2:30:29 PM
Terrence,
Generally I agree with you. And Somalia is an extreme case of lawlessness. But Somalia shows that having laws and enforcing them is desirable.
In the case of tobacco, there are great negative externalities to others through the toxicity of tobacco, not so much from the nicotine but mostly from the tar. Nicotine patches are freely available, I understand. First, family members of smokers with cancer or heart problems as a result of smoking suffer emotionally, time-wise and financially. Second, the provincial governments (i.e. the tax payers)pay for medical care of smokers. Smoking is responsible for a large portion of our health problems.
I support the idea of looking at externalities when creating laws.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 3:03:55 PM
One other positive thing about the black market is that it serves as a check on government. It also reinforces the notion that a government is not omnipotent--it cannot simply wish away one or another form of consumption or exchange through laws.
I have no problem with consenting adults making freely chosen exchanges. The problem of externalities is a problem of non-consenting adults being involved in a transaction, exchange or activity that they didn't consent to. But that's captured by the original principle: "Consenting adults should be free to make exchanges with one another, and be free to consume whatever they'd like." So the problem of externalities is not a counterexample.
"Consenting" meanwhile, does not merely mean that I said "yes," and the other guy says "yes." For consent to be "real" consent, the two parties to a transaction have to have sufficient information about the product that they are exchanging. It would hardly count as consent if I exchanged a popsicle stick for a ten dollar bill with an infant, even if the infant said "yes." That's because the infant has no idea what he or she is doing. So the problem of ignorance is not a problem for this principle, since it is captured by a rich meaning of "consent."
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 3:14:10 PM
In the case of tobacco, there are great negative externalities to others through the toxicity of tobacco,
Posted by: John | 4-Aug-08 3:03:55 PM
Do you not have the same concern for others when driving a car? Do you shut off your car when people walk by? Are you not worried that all the carbon monoxide, aldehydes, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide in your car emissions is affecting other peoples health?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 3:16:54 PM
John:
"Generally I agree with you. And Somalia is an extreme case of lawlessness. But Somalia shows that having laws and enforcing them is desirable."
This has no bearing on the discussion. No one is arguing for the elimination of laws. No one is arguing for anarchy. The argument is about the justness of laws. Terrence has made a distinction between what he thinks are just and unjust laws. We can infer that Terrence thinks there are good laws and bad laws. And we can make the leap that Terrence also thinks that laws which are good are laws that ought to exist. Not that we need to get rid of laws altogether.
Then you said something about the harm to third parties of smoking. I don't dispute the point if it includes the emotional harm to those who love this or that individual. But part of "loving" them surely must include "respecting" them. And part of the meaning of respect is allowing people to make decisions about their own lives, even if those decisions are harmful to themselves.
To be sure, our moral views should capture the fact that we are under a normative obligation not to harm those we have reason to care for. That might include giving up smoking for their sake. And we might have reason to frown or otherwise judge harshly those who fail to do so when their family and friends are clearly upset and aggrieved by their decisions.
Nevertheless, I remind you of the ought-state gap--from the fact that x is immoral, it does not follow that x ought to be illegal. The immorality of x is merely one hurdle that we need to cross before getting all the way to it being right to make x illegal.
"Second, the provincial governments (i.e. the tax payers)pay for medical care of smokers. Smoking is responsible for a large portion of our health problems."
And this is probably the biggest myth of all. Even if smokers paid no additional taxes, many studies have demonstrated that the shortened life-span of smokers more than compensates non-smokers for smokers' bad habits. In fact, non-smokers cost the health care system more than smokers, by leaps and bounds. I'm happy to provide you with the studies, John.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 3:22:37 PM
The Stig,
Yes, peole are concerned about the externalities of car use, and create laws and regulations as a result. In Vancouver BC it is the law to shut off your engine when idling for more than 5 minutes. Cars also must get tested, by law, for emissions, and your car license cannot get renewed when you do not meet standards. So there are laws that exactly address these externalities.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 3:29:09 PM
"Then you said something about the harm to third parties of smoking. I don't dispute the point if it includes the emotional harm to those who love this or that individual. But part of "loving" them surely must include "respecting" them."
It's interesting that in Kant's work (Doctrine of Virtue, I think) he posits a fundamental distinction -- we might even say a chasm -- between love and respect. Love for a person can undermine our capacity to respect him as an autonomous agent, and that makes love dangerous.
John,
I wonder about your example of the negative externalities associated with cigarettes. Snus, as far as I know, has none of those externalities (no smoke, no spit, etc.) Yet you seemed to take up the same attitude toward my hypothetical Snus smuggling as you did toward the cigarette smuggling case.
Even if we grant those externalities about cigarettes, making their regulation just, isn't the regulation of Snus thus _unjust_, and shouldn't you be congratulating me for my hypothetical plan to break an unjust law?
What I'm wondering is whether the negative externalities really play the role in the argument in favor of the law you suggest they do.
Thanks in advance for your response!
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 3:38:52 PM
P.M. Jaworski
As a result of the higher cost of smoking and of advertising and distribution regulations, smoking has gone down in the Western world, and health has increased as a result. Women are going through a delayed phase of this process. The developing world is taking up unregulated smoking with all its health problems.
I have also read about the financial advantage of killing people through smoking. Now, here is where morality comes in. A long healthy life is considered generally a greater good than a life cut short through a toxic externality. The cost of caring for cancer patients resulting from tobacco is counted against tobacco even while we know that all people will eventually die and will require health care in their old age.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 3:48:08 PM
Terrence,
"So maybe we should cheer black markets in those cases that the blocked exchanges involve those who have actually produced the thing being exchanged."
That won't do the trick for two reasons: (1) If it is wrong to block trade conducted by producers of tobacco, it is equally wrong to restrict trade to the public by wholesalers and retailers, even though they did not produce the product themselves. Who produced the product is irrelevant to the issue of the justification of restrictions.
(2) In the case of weapons manufacturers that, for example, might want to sell WMDs to certain foreign countries or terrorist organizations, legal restrictions are placed on trade involving the manufacturer of a product with good reason. Just about everyone would also agree that selling nuclear waepons to any private citizen who wanted to buy them is good to restrict, no matter what one's view of the right to bear arms is. The fact that the seller made the product and the fact that the restriction might lead to a black market does not change the fact that the sale of it to certain parties is sufficiently dangerous to others to justify its restriction. This was, in fact, the very point I was making in talking about the difference between a restriction that is paternalistic and one that is designed to protect third parties.
Lemieux might be right that the taxes on tobacco are unjustified, but if he is it is not for the reasons he offered or even for the more limited version of them you suggest.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-04 4:25:48 PM
Hey John: "I have also read about the financial advantage of killing people through smoking. Now, here is where morality comes in. A long healthy life is considered generally a greater good than a life cut short through a toxic externality. The cost of caring for cancer patients resulting from tobacco is counted against tobacco even while we know that all people will eventually die and will require health care in their old age."
And I completely agree. But, to be clear, you were presenting the argument that smokers cost the health care system more than non-smokers. That's not true. It is not true because smokers die earlier than non-smokers.
Of course early death is bad. But the point is about costs, not about what is good or bad, taking all things into consideration.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 4:56:37 PM
There is no worst oppression than that resulting from someone doing it for someone else's "own good" or to save them from themselves, and John is an example. It was the same when the Chinese Reds invaded Tibet, since according to them their were "liberating the Tibetans".
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 5:24:41 PM
Alain, that's right.
An ancient book says "all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial."
Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 6:37:19 PM
John is one of the problems in this country today. He knows what is good for us and we will abide. Instead of living his own life he would rather live everyone elses.He has no bad habits. He is not overweight,does not drink alcohol, do any kind of drugs,presciption or otherwise and wants to live until he is in a wheelchair with his depends under a housecoat, being looked after by people who love tending vegetables.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-08-04 6:46:50 PM
The cost of a carton of 200 cigarettes cost $10.13 to manufacture, however the cost of a carton (2002)$$53.01
Posted by: maija | 4-Aug-08 1:57:26 PM
You can buy a carton of 200 cigarettes on the Kahnawake reserve outside of Montreal for 5 bucks. Buy a case and the cost drops to 4 bucks a carton, and while you're at it you can buy an Ameican half gallon of vodka or gin smuggled in from New Hampshire for $20.00. Isn't free enterprise great.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 8:14:55 PM
Stig, for sure. I don't know what a carton costs but I think someone said $65. If that's true then anyone who buys for $5, will have $60 that will go into the economy in much more productive ways than if taken in taxes.
Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 9:26:50 PM
The Stig, I admit those prices are unbelievable. In BC you pay around $85 for a carton of cigarettes Too bad they do not do mail orders. I do agree that free enterprise is the best way to go.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 10:10:45 PM
The Stig, I admit those prices are unbelievable.
Posted by: Alain | 4-Aug-08 10:10:45 PM
I understand that most of the 5 buck a carton smokes are made on the reserve.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/499132.bin%3Fsize%3D404x272&imgrefurl=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html%3Fid%3D499131&h=272&w=404&sz=30&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=Sja2I9mu-9TfbM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkahnawake%2B%2Bcigarettes%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 10:29:28 PM
........which is estimated to cost Canadian governments $1.6-billion in lost taxes.
This should tell the government that perhaps the taxes are a wee bit high on smoking products. Unjust laws and excessive taxation will always lead to circumvention and rebelion. It pays to shop around.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-08-04 10:50:31 PM
P.M.Jaworski
"Of course early death is bad. But the point is about costs, not about what is good or bad, taking all things into consideration."
No, not quite. You don't get credit for saving health care costs through early death. For example, you don't get points from poisoning and killing a person of 75 years, even when this would most likely save in overall health care costs. But you lose when you kill somebody by whatever means.
peterj
"John is one of the problems in this country today. He knows what is good for us and we will abide. Instead of living his own life he would rather live everyone elses.He has no bad habits." I may be a problem for you since I do agree with some laws that you don't agree with.
This whole conversation started from Lieux's article that somehow the tobacco companies were taken advantage of by the government. They just broke the law and got caught.
These tobacco laws are generally supported by the Canadian public and are not out of line with laws in many other countries. There are good reasons for these laws although not everybody will agree with them. Whether I live in a wheel chair or am an Olympic competitor is not very relevant here.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 10:51:08 PM
You misunderstand my response, John.
The argument was: P does x, Q does not do x. x is more expensive than not-x. Q and P pay for x. Therefore, P's x-ing costs Q.
I pointed out that x-ing is not more expensive than not x-ing. That, in fact, not x-ing is more expensive than x-ing.
The argument hinged on externalities. P's choice to x creates an externality that Q has to partially internalize.
Then the argument changed to: x-ing is bad for P, quite apart from the cost of x-ing or not x-ing to both P and Q. And now we're dealing with paternalism and not preventing costs to non-participating others.
That's a difference that makes a difference. Especially to those of us who think that paternalism is, at least prima facie, unjustified from a moral point of view, while preventing harms/imposing costs on non-consenting third parties is, at least prima facie, justified from a moral point of view.
That's why you're point about killing people misses the crux of this argument. That's a harm to another person, not a case of paternalism.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 11:08:34 PM
To be clear: I wrote: "while preventing harms/imposing costs on non-consenting third parties is, at least prima facie, justified from a moral point of view."
I meant: "while preventing harms/the imposition of costs on non-consenting third parties is... justified from a moral point of view." (Where "preventing" ranges over both "harms" and "the imposition of costs")
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 11:10:33 PM
P.J. Jaworski,
I cannot follow your reasoning quite, but I did indeed move the goal posts of the argument. Good for you pointing this out.
Still the externality of people getting sick and dead early from tobacco with related shorter-term costs to family and tax payers are generally not acceptable to Canadian society. These shorter-term costs are blamed on tobacco use, while longer-term health costs from aging are accepted as a condition of life. Again, tobacco does not get financial credit for avoidance of aging problems through early death. There is a financial contradiction there, but this is how most people would judge the situation, I think.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-04 11:42:00 PM
I'm sorry, John, sometimes I get a little obtuse.
What I meant was that we have two different starting points for the argument that we need to limit tobacco use. One is the argument from externalities, or the argument from the imposition of harm on non-consenting others. I agree with this argument. If it were true that smokers cost non-smokers in terms of health care, then that is unjust.
(It should be pointed out that from this argument we do not yet have good reason to pick between a) privatizing health care, b) eliminating smoking, or even c) making smokers solely responsible for their own health care. To get to either a), b) or c) requires additional premises and arguments.)
The other argument is that smoking is bad for the smoker, and we should do what we can to limit the bad that people do to themselves. I have a hard time agreeing with this argument when we are dealing with competent adults who know what they're getting into. It strikes me as being disrespectful to persons.
That's the move in the goal posts that you reference. And there's an important difference between the two kinds of arguments, a difference that I hope you see in my further elaboration on the two points.
The point about what is acceptable, in general, to Canadian society is a third argument in your arsenal. Now we've shifted the ground from a) we ought not impose costs on non-consenting others, and b) we ought make people stop doing what is bad for themselves, to c) we ought to abide what Canadians, in general, think is acceptable. We've moved from moral libertarianism (that's a)), to paternalism (that's b)), all the way to some kind of conventionalism, or a non-conventionalist view about the moral importance of luck (that's c)).
I admit that Canadians, in general, think early death from smoking is tragic and bad, while late death from old age, or from diseases etc. that come with aging, less tragic and less bad. This fact may make it more likely that Canadians are willing to pay more for the latter case than the former. This is so even when it means paying more (as is the case in smokers vs. non-smokers).
Here is an example: We are less likely to want to pay for someone who chooses to throw knives in the air and try to catch them with their mouth, than for someone who gets a knife through their throat due to a freak accident. In the first case we think, "they shouldn't have been doing that!" Maybe we even think that there is some sort of cosmic justice being served if the knife ends up cutting their throat. In the second case we think, "what a tragedy!"
It seems to capture our intuitions about luck. Those who suffer from diseases that come through ordinary, everyday behaviour are considered unlucky. Those who suffer from diseases that are the predictable, probable, or likely outcomes of some chosen behaviour are not cases of persons being unlucky. And we may think that we have a moral obligation to compensate people for bad luck, and not for chosen behaviour with predictable outcomes.
(This is, incidentally, and very roughly, part of what John Rawls was on about, and a point that is made often by the literature on moral desert.)
I have more to say about why I reject c, whether interpreted as a case for out-and-out conventionalism, or an argument from luck, but I won't pursue it here. I'll be happy if, thus far, I've captured the various arguments for your position accurately.
Actually, I'll say this as my counter to the argument from luck: While I agree that someone who suffers from bad luck is someone who we ought to do what we can for, I disagree that we ought do anything other than inform the potential smoker of the health risks involved, and insist that she pay for the predictable, probable, or likely costs of her chosen behaviour.
Why wouldn't we be satisfied with the coupling of individual liberty with personal responsibility?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-05 12:38:16 AM
Excuse my sloppiness... I wrote: "I admit that Canadians, in general, think early death from smoking is tragic and bad, while late death from old age, or from diseases etc. that come with aging, less tragic and less bad."
It should read that what is more tragic is the death that comes from old age, and not the death that comes from chosen behaviour with death as a predictable, probable, or likely outcome. I need to brush up on my Aristotle...
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-05 12:41:58 AM
P.J. Jaworski,
I read your comments again and see your two arguments: One against paternalism, and two, for proper accounting of life-time health-care costs from tobacco use. For the second argument: The public costs of early cancers, caused by tobacco, should weight greater than the avoidance of health care costs through early death through tobacco use. There is a certain paternalism in this, if paternalism means making binding choices for all people of a society. So paternalism is an issue.
Paternalism is unavoidable in a society with the rule of law. And paternalism is somewhat arbitrary. A good debater can find an argument against virtually any law someway. So we can debate whether some laws are just, and as a result laws are changed or new laws are created.
Now, I think that laws that penalize and restrict the distribution and marketing of a highly poisonous substance, i.e. tobacco with tar while smoked, is justified, even if many people get addicted to the nicotine which is hardly poisonous. These laws are justified because we (paternalistically) don't want poison in our community and because there is a short-term health cost related to tobacco cancer. Short-term that is relative to a life-time health cost.
Once these laws are on the books, we should not feel sorry for tobacco companies which tried very hard to limit knowledge of the poisonous nature of tobacco and which got caught facilitating smuggling tobacco, that is circumventing paternalistic distribution laws.
I just read your latest. People do not make informed decisions relative to smoking. Young people get lured into smoking and become addicted before they can make a reasonable judgment about long term consequences. That is why tobacco companies try so hard to get the youth to smoke. If you don't start smoking early in life, you are much less likely to ever smoke. Any way, clearly poisonous materials, such as heavy metals, cadmium etc should be paternalistically eliminated even if some people or even many people would prefer their use.
Best,
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-05 2:05:33 AM
Why are cigarettes more deadly than booze, or gambling for that matter? As an ex-bartender, I can tell you that booze is WAY more dangerous than smoking, especially if that person drives. Not to mention many bartenders were put out of work because of smoking bans.
But of course here in Ontario, McGuinty had his revenue stream affected by smoking in the casinos and as a result, the casinos can have a nice outdoor smoking area WITH A ROOF AND WALLS AROUND IT yet the small business owner cannot.
LCBO is owned by the government as well as the casinos. So they can destroy people's lives and health but the cigarettes companies cannot? Can someone tell me what the difference is?
And what about fast food joints? People who are overweight have way more health problems than smokers.
I own a restaurant in Toronto. I lost 40% when the smoking ban came in.
But I don't count apparently.
And teen smoking rates are down, but teen marijuana smoking is up...go figure.
Personally, I think we are all adults and we can make our own decisions on what we do.
Posted by: trawna | 2008-08-05 8:04:59 AM
The argument here stems from the premise of who owns the individual, the State or one's self. Socialized medicine has already established that Canadians are Federal chattel and have no sovereignty in themselves (rapidly approaching reserve Indian dependency) other than what is allowed by the legislatures. The only question is how long before the transition is complete and or whether or not the premise can be changed.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-05 10:36:32 AM
P.J. Jaworski,
"The other argument is that smoking is bad for the smoker, and we should do what we can to limit the bad that people do to themselves. I have a hard time agreeing with this argument when we are dealing with competent adults who know what they're getting into. It strikes me as being disrespectful to persons."
I don't think that adults, especially young adults, can be competent and knowing what they're into about addictive smoking with long-delayed effects. Here I relie on my personal experience. When I was 16, my father came very, very close to dying from 4 simultaneous lung problems: pneumonia, brochitis, emphezyma and something else, all occasioned according to his doctor by 20 years of chain-smoking. This doctor showed me how my father's lung would look like (tar-colored liver) compared to a healthy lung (red steak). My father recovered and never smoked after. Neither did I. Without this personal experience I am sure that I could not have made a competent decision about smoking.
There are many cases where people do not make right decisions for themselves, even when negative outcomes are well known. That is why we have safety regulations in construction and other trades. Many of these regulations are difficult to enforce, even when they are aimed at protecting only the person, not other people. These regulations are completely justified in my opinion.
I brought up Canada's public opinion in support a certain brand of paternalism, since paternalism is in the end somewhat arbitrary anyway. That is part of b), not a new argument c).
I agree with trawna that drinking and gambling can be very dangerous too (and as a result there are many laws about these), and that the zeal of anti-smokers is sometimes beyond reason. But public acceptance does change. Many tobacco related rules which are widely accepted now would have been impossible 100 years ago. That does not mean that these rules are all unreasonable now.
I don't see John Chittick's relation between socialized medicine and Canadians being Federal (or provincial?) chattel. People don't become chattel through the performance of government services, e.g road building by cities, education by the provinces etc.
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-05 11:42:14 AM
Well John, as already stated you and your like are a big part of the problem, or I should say your belief system is. You just cannot grasp that people do NOT need protecting from themselves. Instruct them concerning safety or whatever, but no justification for laws or regulations.
As for us being chattel it is fact. When Canadians must work (those of us who do) for over six months for the government, that is far more than what was required of serfs under the feudal system. The only reason this scam continues to work is because so many have been fooled into believing they are a free people in a free democracy.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-05 11:53:00 AM
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399
Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.
Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
Federal Government Reports
A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.
A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).
The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.
Flawed Assumptions
EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.
Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.
For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.
But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."
Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.
Low Statistical Association
Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.
One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk.
Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.
For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.
Scientific Principles Ignored
An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.
Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.
This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.
EPA Study Soundly Rejected
In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data....
In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.
Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
Posted by: harleyrider | 2008-08-05 12:26:01 PM
John
The ownership of roads allows the owner (public or private) to make the rules of conduct for the use of such. The ownership of Canadians through Medicare allows the owner (Federal and Provincial Crown) to dictate the conduct of their chattel, no trans-fats, no cheap cigarettes, seat belts, helmets, no silly walks etc. While the notion of universal health care insurance may not have had these notions in mind at introduction, the politics of envy and resentment ensures their fruition (eg "look at that fat slob....my taxes are paying for his health care therefore the government should correct that bad behavior!").
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-05 12:33:45 PM
Alain,
Just think it through. Free people in a free democracy, is a contradiction. Somewhat free people in a somewhat free democracy, yes. A democracy implies a rule of the majority. About what the government does for you and your obligations to the government. Now you might not agree with the balance struck, but establishing that balance is what democracy is about. There will be people who are dissatisfied with whatever balance. I generally am satisfied with the Canadian balance. Is that so bad?
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-05 12:48:04 PM
John Chittick,
Health regulations imply that the pursuit of good health and long life are government goals for the whole population, even if some people would not like to be regulated. I agree with that approach. Similarly, city planning tries to create livable cities to the ultimate benefit of all people including some who would prefer not to be regulated.
John
Posted by: john | 2008-08-05 1:02:52 PM
John, you do live in a dream world. The majority of the people of Canada have been denied this for a long time. In fact, even Parliament no longer has the right to rule, since this was given over to non elected judges. Canada was founded on the British system of bottom-up government but was changed officially in 1982 to the French style of top-down centralised government.
By the way the reality is that we all must die at some point, and all your state imposed "health regulations" as you put it won't matter a damn.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-05 1:24:58 PM
Alain,
You are right to try to change the government and regulations to your liking. That is what democracy is about. To get traction you'll have to be clearer about what you object to and what you would like to see instead. "No regulations at all" might not work.
At the moment of dying health regulations won't matter. For many people, before, they do.
John
John
Posted by: John | 2008-08-05 2:05:18 PM
John
Any level of coercion for the "greater good", eh? Has there ever been a tyrant that didn't use that line? Perhaps you need to spend some quality time on an Indian Reservation and get to know what eventually happens to chattel disguised as humanity. Does the expression, "killing them with kindness" ring a bell?
As a recovering politician (9 years in municipal government) I don't need lecturing about city planners. They are mostly bureaucrats with a social engineering agenda.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-05 3:29:58 PM
Well said John Chittick but I see we are wasting our time trying to explain the evident to John. Indeed no one can name a tyrand who did not use the excuse and justification that it was for the "greater good".
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-05 3:46:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.