3 ms·

The article should also mention the significant impact on public health systems. Smoking carries external costs.

• _delirium 16y ago
  On the other hand, it significantly reduces costs for public pension systems--- the decrease in smoking leading to higher male life expectancy (slowly approaching traditionally higher female life expectancy) is one of the major factors in the insolvency of various pension schemes. (There are other factors, of course, like declining birth rates and improving health care, but pension funds would be in better shape overall if more people were heavy smokers.)
  • endtime 16y ago
    I appreciate the objectivity of your comment, but that's money I'd sort of be okay with not saving.
    • _delirium 16y ago
      Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too. It's mostly a counterargument to the "smokers are a burden on society" argument. I think if you added up the various effects, a smoker is close to neutral as a burden on the public purse, compared to a nonsmoker.
  • hugh3 16y ago
    The fact that we can have these sorts of discussions is the best argument against having public health or public pension schemes.