Smoking has direct (and monotonically increasing) health and economic costs to the user. While there are some secondary costs (second hand smoke, fire, appetite suppression, etc.) many of the secondary effects are beneficial (appetite suppression, increased productivity, fostering self esteem). Alcohol has direct costs as well but they are far clearer health benefits and the costs are not monotonically increasing. That is, light consumption of alcohol has health benefits and only heavy drinking has net direct costs (violence, accidents, "lost weekends", etc.) Alcohol has undoubtedly higher indirect/social costs than smoking; whereas smoking has much greater direct costs.
The impetus behind anti-smoking legislation is not about the social costs however. (The health costs are only a scorecard to measure the impact of the lying and deception). The impetus behind anti-smoking is anger over lies and deception (and arrogance and political maneuvering. Much of what fuels this anger is not the "hair-shirts" (non-smokers) but the "stinky-shirts" (smokers who want to quit). Undoubtedly the "stinky-shirt" logic includes a fair bit of scapegoating and denial but it is real. Direct addiction plays a much bigger role in smoking which makes a far more worthy and salable target than the "social addictions" for alcohol.
I do think that society and public policy should reflect people's very real "metapreference" to be healthy even when people can't seem to help themselves as with smoking. I don't always know what the best way is but certainly restricting advertising, improved labeling (all cigarettes and alcoholic beverages should have much more extensive labeling--it's very weird that in the U.S. I know how much Vitamin C is in my juice but have no clue about the alcohol content of my beer), and other measures won't offend my sense of personal liberty.
Peace,
Jim
Doug:
>Those of us convinced that the next health fascists' target after tobacco
>would be booze have some evidence in the December issue of Multinational
>Monitor, "Big Alcohol Puts on a Front," an article by one Hilary Abramson
>unveiling the International Center for Alcohol Policies as an
>industry-funded front. Less interesting than that piece of info is the
>article's general tone - the deliberate rhetorical parallel between Big
>Alcohol and Big Tobacco established in the first paragraph, the
>mysteriously precise dollar estimates of damage ("alcohol problems in the
>United States costs society an estimated $148 billion a year"), and the
>alarmed oppressive tone ("pleasure took precedence over risk at ICAP's
>first international conference..."). We learn that "consuming three to four
>drinks at one occasion" is "at-risk behavior."
"That soul in heaven must surely dwell
that first divined the leather bottel"
--"Lethern Bottel", 17th C. English drinking song