|
One of the world’s largest tobacco company sparked outrage some time ago for suggesting that cigarettes save an economy millions on health care - because smokers die early.
The tobacco company argued that savings on health care and pensions far out weigh the cost of looking after smokers who fall ill with lung cancer and heart disease.
Anti-smoking groups condemned the comments made in a report from the company to a country which makes this particular brand and controls eighty per cent of the market. The report suggested that the local government is saving one £100 million because smokers die early.
The document concluded the economy received a number of benefits from smoking including income from excise duty and ‘the health care costs savings associated due to early mortality.’ Such savings, said the report outweighed the loss of taxes from deceased wage earners and the cost of caring for sick smokers.
But Michelle Di Leo a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation in reply said “What will the tobacco company argue next that we should put people down at 50 because it would save us all a lot of money on health care?”
Smoking causes not only lung cancer - which is one of the biggest causes of death in the developed world - but also raises the risk of heart disease and fatal heart attacks. In the UK nearly 35,000 Britians are killed by lung cancer each year and 90 per cent of the cases are directly linked to smoking.
The tobacco company had not intended to present smoking in a positive light. The report followed attempts by the company to improve its image after being battered by years of high profile lawsuits by smokers suffering from tobacco - related diseases.
A spokesman for the tobacco company said “it is very unfortunate that this is one aspect of the study that is being focused on. We understand it appears cold, but tobacco is a very controversial product.” He said the purpose of the report was to set out the balance of costs and savings and it included many elements such as revenue analysis and tax savings. He added “We had no intention of trying to present a “positive” side of smoking to society. It is simply part of the balance.
John Connolly, a spokesman for the anti-smoking group ASH said “you could start by picking over this analysis and whether they have included the costs of birth defects and employees absences and things like that. But its completely irrelevant, most of what we do is geared to improving the quality of peoples lives even if it costs money.”
The problem with this report is that it doesn’t assume any sort of value to life. Once you do that, this sort of analysis just falls apart.
Mr Connolly rejected the tobacco firms argument that smokers were given ample warnings about the dangers of smoking. “Their advertising targets a young audience and it is the duty of the government to protect their citizens,” he said.
The report was also heavily criticised by the US Campaign for Tobacco Free kids. In a statement entitled ‘Tobacco firm hasn’t changed,’ the association described the report as powerful evidence that the kinder gentler tobacco firm depicted in US advertisements is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
“It’s a wolf that has the gall to tell a government that early deaths that results from their products are a good thing” said campaign president Matthew Myers. “The company’s cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of smoking represents not only bad economics, but also a callous disregard for life,” said Mr Myers.
|
