Re: smoke....

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Ruth,



> 2.  I think that economic incentives (lowered

> health/life insurance rates for non smokers/non(low)

> drinkers/seatbelt users and for corporate insurance

> plans in workplaces with few smokers are hired),

> promoted by Milton Friedman) are an excellent idea.



I agree. Would you support smokers having to pay lower premiums into pension

plans, because they have a lower life expectancy? (I don't know the answer

to that. Do you allow market forces to do that or do you step in and

prohibit it because of the health implications?)



My post was not about smokers' rights. It was about not allowing lies and

1/2 truths to get through, EVEN when we agree with the motives of the people

who are saying these things.



If someone wants all kids to be healthy and slim and wants to limit their

soda intake because of that, then I'm all for it. If they decide they need a

tax on soda, then we can debate the merits of taxation as a tool for social

engineering (haven't made up my mind on that yet). But if they feel the only

way the public will buy a tax on soda is if they mislead the public with

incomplete statistics about $ costs - then I have a problem with it.



The end does not justify the means! I think incomplete and misleading

science and statistics are the main impediments to good government in the

developed world. (Corruption is the equivalent in the third world.)



Kai



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/