I think it probably does.
Of course we all "know" it doesn't.
Its "common knowledge".
Its obvious. Cigarrettes cause cancer and lung disease, the two leading causes of death, so they MUST be horrendously expensive.
But has anyone actually done real research.
Not blatantly biased anti-tobacco statistical lying, but real research to find out the facts?
It would be a great project for a rebel economist like Steven Levitt.
Here's the logic.
Everybody dies.
Cigarrettes make you die SOONER.
The leading cause of health care expense is the elderly.
If the elderly all died of lung cancer or heart disease by age 70, it would seem to me likely that this would save a lot of money.
I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm just curious as to whether the anti-tobacco lobby is talking out of it's ass.
Of course we all "know" it doesn't.
Its "common knowledge".
Its obvious. Cigarrettes cause cancer and lung disease, the two leading causes of death, so they MUST be horrendously expensive.
But has anyone actually done real research.
Not blatantly biased anti-tobacco statistical lying, but real research to find out the facts?
It would be a great project for a rebel economist like Steven Levitt.
Here's the logic.
Everybody dies.
Cigarrettes make you die SOONER.
The leading cause of health care expense is the elderly.
If the elderly all died of lung cancer or heart disease by age 70, it would seem to me likely that this would save a lot of money.
I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm just curious as to whether the anti-tobacco lobby is talking out of it's ass.
Comment