A question for all of you and CDK in particular

...but beware of sudden dumb and violent behavior of your neighbors.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Toxicity):

"Lead pollution from engine exhaust is dispersed into the air and into the vicinity of roads and easily inhaled. Contact with concentrated TEL leads to acute lead poisoning:

Lead is a toxic metal that accumulates in the body and is associated with subtle and insidious neurotoxic effects especially at low exposure levels, such as low IQ and antisocial behavior. It has particularly harmful effects on children. These concerns eventually led to the ban on TEL in automobile gasoline in many countries. Some neurologists have speculated that the lead phaseout may have caused average IQ levels to rise by several points in the US (by reducing cumulative brain damage throughout the population, especially in the young). For the entire US population, during and after the TEL phaseout, the mean blood lead level dropped from 16 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991. The US Centers for Disease Control considered blood lead levels "elevated" when they were above 10 μg/dL.
Lead exposure affects the intelligence quotient (IQ) such that a blood lead level of 30 μg/dL is associated with a 6.9-point reduction of IQ, with most reduction (3.9 points) occurring below 10 μg/dL.

Reductions in the average blood lead level is believed to have been a major cause for falling violent crime rates in the United States and South Africa. Economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College found that declining exposure to lead has caused up to a 56% decline in crime from 1992 to 2002. Including other factors that are believed to have increased crime rates over that period Reyes found that this led to an actual decline of 34% over that period.

A statistically significant correlation has been found between the usage rate of leaded gasoline and violent crime: taking into account a 22-year time lag, the violent crime curve virtually tracks the lead exposure curve. After the ban on TEL, blood lead levels in US children dramatically decreased.
Although leaded gasoline is largely gone in North America, it has left high concentrations of lead in the soil adjacent to roads that were constructed prior to its phaseout. Children are particularly at risk if they consume this."

 

When I brought my old 77 Ford into the new world I had newer "Hard" valve seats installed along with the new "Hard" valves.
Worked fine on the new gas with no additives at all.

 

My father was an avid smoker for more than 50 years and up until 10 yrs ago. I recall him buying 3 packs of Marlboro each and every morning, and at the end of his smoky day they'd be all gone. At the peak of his smoking days, he'd been consuming up to 5 packs a day.
He is 84 years old now and, apart some slight diabetes problems, still sharp and kicking.

Cheers

 

What made him stop 10 years ago?

40 Years ago I had such trouble breathing, I quit smoking cigarettes because I was convinced lung cancer would quickly end my life and I wasn't ready for it. So I ordered a car I couldn't afford, then went to the doctor who gave me some pills that resolved my problems within days.
After several months my wife asked me to start smoking again because the psychological changes had made me difficult to live with....

I started smoking cigars instead and paid the Alfa Romeo in many, many installments.

 

I'd be interested to know how much a pack of those Marlboro's would cost in different countries today. Not much change out of $20 in Australia, a generation ago would be less than $2 a pack. Nearly all govt tax of course, and a significant reason in the sharp decline in smoking rates to about 17%. Tasmania is around 23% for some reason. I don't "get" this idea that smokers are a burden on the public purse, they pay through the nose with tobacco tax and conveniently die before they can take too much aged pension money.

 

Actually, I wrote that story because I read Thudpuckers' post with too much haste, and misinterpreted his words. I misunderstood that he meant to say that his car worked well with old valves and new fuel. After reading your post, I am happy to have made that error. That was a funny one, CDK!

At the end, everyone was happy. You had the joy of your cigars again (plus an Alfa Romeo), your wife had his good old man again, and we can enjoy reading your posts. I like happy endings.

Cheers

 

Nowadays, here in Italy a pack of Marlboro costs €5.00 . It means that my father's ex-hobby would cost him now some €5,500.00 a year.

As about the second part of your post, I guess that governments use smokers' tobacco-tax money for many different (and often untold) things, but not for the health-care system which should repair damages caused by smoking. Hence, even if the tax part of the cigarettes cost was 100%, they would still remain a burden for the health system.

 

Smokers are definitely a burden on the public health budget, but they probably spend around 5 years on the age pension compared to maybe 15-20 years for non-smokers. That is a lot of $ not paid out of the welfare budget. And with the amount of tax paid as tobacco excise, I doubt they are a nett drain on govt expenditures. I've heard dozens of people say they've smoked for 50 years, but probably none claiming 60+ years of it. Seems like there is a time limit few manage to beat.

 

Interesting opinion. I've actually never thought about those things, but your reasoning does sound logical...

 

In the plane to somewhere, in 1990, at 46 y/o after smoking since age 18 three pack of Camel non filter, I decided to stop smoking cold turkey, since my girl friend at the time was waiting for me at the airport, and didn't like my smoking. I wanted to surprise her. I never smoked again.

And I paid child support and alimony in many many many many many many ...installment

The point of the story is: To stop smoking can ruin you, but its good for your health

 

Actually, smokers(I am not one) pay taxes into the social welfare system at the same rate as non-smokers but due to the habit they tend to more often die before reaping the rewards of that system.

http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/heartdiseases.htm

 

Smokers are less healthy throughout their entire lives, not just during old age pension years. That is where at least half the real costs to society lie- lost productivity. It's the ratio of productivity to benefits received that gets skewed. Looking just at pensions misses the point entirely. Economies tend to discount or ignore stuff that far in the future, but they are acutely aware of today, and today, smokers aren't doing as well as nonsmokers.

Federal pensions are based on health averages of smokers and non smokers. To argue that smokers benefit the economy by dying sooner is silly. When they stop dying sooner, you change the pension age to reflect the improvement in health. (Therefore, I kindly request that all you American smokers carry on a little while longer so that I can retire a day or two before the US pension system becomes bankrupt. I've joked with friends that I want to see one check from the Govt before I go.)

The pension argument is a bit of slight of hand because the total future payouts would not change much in practice. So you shouldn't score it that way. You can score 97 billion in annual increased productivity, to cite one study. (I'm guessing that's GNP dollars, but some of it is real.) And you can at least talk about what effects the medical costs have on society this year.

So although I might get an extra retirement check in the future because of smokers, I'd gladly trade it for a share of that 97B in productivity right now.

 

Any statistical data to substantiate that or just your personal experience?

 

The Medics admit the only connection between smoking and ill health are Numbers!
Nobody can say for certain what exactly causes Cancer etc.

Cancer is defined as an Abnormal Cell growth. From what?

 

Soccer, paragliding, skating, tennis, sex, mountaineering or whatever else people do in their spare time probably contributes more to ill health than smoking. It certainly is responsible for a large chunk of the health care bill.

My own smoking career started in 1954 when I was 11 years old. To illustrate my health condition back then, I already had an abdominal hernia, nephritis and multiple lymph node infections that made me skip one year in elementary school.
It is impossible to even estimate in $$$, cubic ft. or tons how much I've smoked, but it is very hard to find a picture where I am not holding a tobacco product in my hand. I buy cigars in wholesale quantities because it is a reassuring thought that there is at least a month's supply in my wardrobe, say 500 pieces.

Of course I am not healthy now, very few people my age are, but I don't think arthritis and prostate problems are tobacco related.