home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- MONEY ANGLES, Page 76The Dividends For Quitters
-
-
- By Andrew Tobias
-
-
- New Yorker Joseph Scott quit smoking and put the money he
- would have spent on cigarettes into a cookie jar. Seeing the
- money mount, he says, helped reinforce his resolve. Now, two
- years later, Scott has amassed $3,285, and he's taking a luxury
- cruise.
-
- Forget health; let's talk money.
-
- Consider a teenage girl, eager to be attractive and
- confronted constantly with images of healthy, Virginia-slim
- tobacco models. Like about 1 in 5 teenage girls today, she gets
- hooked. Taking into account FICA and income taxes, she could see
- $1,500 in pretax earnings each year go up in smoke -- $1,500
- that could otherwise be put toward her kids' education, a first
- home, equity in a small business, or an IRA.
-
- Nor are cigarettes the only cost.
-
- --Smokers spend more on cold remedies and health care. (A
- division of Dow Chemical found that smokers averaged 5.5 more
- days of absence each year and took eight more days of disability
- leave.)
-
- --And they spend more for life insurance. (The Tobacco
- Institute may not be convinced that smoking kills, but the three
- life insurers owned by tobacco companies certainly are. CNA is
- owned by Lorillard parent Loews, the Franklin Life and American
- Tobacco are owned by American Brands, and Farmers Group and
- British-American Tobacco are owned by B.A.T Industries. All
- three charge smokers nearly double for term insurance. Why?
- Because at any age, a smoker is about twice as likely to die as
- a nonsmoker.)
-
- In short, tobacco addiction is a major economic handicap.
- A child who can avoid it has a far better shot at lifelong
- financial health than one who gets hooked.
-
- The tobacco industry professes not to want children to
- smoke. It points to a free pamphlet it distributes called
- Tobacco: Helping Youth Say No. But the pamphlet never once
- mentions the word cancer, never once mentions addiction.
- (Nicotine is as addictive as heroin, says the Surgeon General.)
- Instead, the reason given is that kids aren't old enough.
- Smoking -- like driving and sex -- is for adults. Of course,
- it's hard to imagine a message that would make smoking more
- attractive.
-
- A better approach, I like to think, is contained in a $6
- paperback called Kids Say Don't Smoke. (I like to think it's
- better, because I helped write it.) For a free copy, send four
- 29 cents stamps to SmokeFree Educational Services, Box 3316, New
- York, N.Y. 10008.
-
- The tobacco industry says its advertising is designed
- merely to persuade existing smokers to switch brands, not to
- encourage nonsmokers to start. If so, why not simply ban all
- tobacco advertising and promotion? Surely Congress would agree
- to do so if the industry asked it to. And look what would
- happen: brand switching would largely stop, leaving market
- shares essentially "frozen." And the $4 billion the industry
- currently spends on U.S. advertising would fall straight to the
- bottom line! Pure profit! You'd think the tobacco industry would
- be begging for this.
-
- Instead, of course, it's crucial to keep that lovable
- Camel cartoon character in front of children, and to fly Newport
- banners up and down the beach, because if we don't hook the
- kids, how are we to replace all the customers who quit or die
- each year? Most smokers start between the ages of 8 and 18 --
- thousands of them a day in the U.S. (and, thanks in part to
- aggressive efforts by the Bush Administration, many more
- abroad).
-
- More than 800,000 Americans derive their livelihood from
- tobacco-related jobs -- almost double the 435,000 that the
- Surgeon General estimates die each year from tobacco-caused
- disease. A ban on promotion would cost some of those jobs.
- Still, it's ironic that, as a society, we spend billions to keep
- people from breathing asbestos -- the EPA estimates 17
- non-occupational asbestos-related deaths a year -- but billions
- more to promote smoking.
-
- Limiting the industry's right to glamourize smoking raises
- obvious First Amendment questions. But even if Congress hasn't
- the power to ban tobacco promotion -- and it well may -- what
- of private restrictions? Why shouldn't publishers, including
- Time Inc., decree that they will no longer push tobacco? When
- is TV Guide owner Rupert Murdoch (a Philip Morris board member)
- going to announce that since cigarette ads are inappropriate on
- TV, they're also wrong for TV Guide, which has a huge readership
- among kids? Is it appropriate that seven pages of a recent issue
- of Self magazine, with all its articles on fitness and health,
- were devoted to making smoking look healthy, sexy and fun? How
- about Rolling Stone? Any kids read that? It's been estimated
- that fully one-third of all U.S. hospital beds are devoted to
- tobacco-caused disease. Many magazines, including the nation's
- largest, Modern Maturity and the Reader's Digest, already reject
- tobacco ads.
-
- Tobacco is unique. It's the only legal product that's
- highly addictive and that, when used exactly as intended, causes
- great harm.
-
- Obviously, smoking should be legal. Obviously, smokers are
- fine people. But should we actively promote America's leading
- cause of preventable death?
-
- Forget about health. Think about the money!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-