Smoke induced social science

You certainly would not win  a debate by stating that smoking is bad for your health. It is obvious putting fumes into your lungs which are the premier power plant to get you going or simply lying around to read a book, is not a very good idea.

But, as W. Buiter points out in a recent post, it should not be discredited and pestered by bad science.

Some of his points are:

So please, when there is a public announcement that X number of people died during 2009 as a result of smoking-related illnesses, please provide the public with two bits of information.  First, how much longer the victims of smoking would have lived if they had not smoked and, second, what they would have been expected to die of instead.

The paper is the kind of publication that gives the social sciences a bad name.  In 2006/7, UK government revenues from taxes on tobacco products (excise duties and VAT) were around £10bn.  But let’s leave that aside.  The authors of the study are apparently unaware of the fact that the concept of cost relevant from the perspective of the allocation of scarce resources is opportunity cost, not financial cost or outlays.  Even as regards the financial costs imposed by smoking on the NHS, the paper is a spectacular failure.  It strongly conveys the impression that the NHS is at least £5bn worse off because people smoke.

And how is that?

One fact everyone agrees on is that smoking causes people to die younger.  Because people die younger, they will make fewer demands on the services on the NHS.  A big human loss, but a financial gain to the NHS.

full post of WB