5 ms·

Rather than ban these things, we should just tax them to pay for social services to offset the harm that they do.

crgt 10y ago
I know it's not PC in SV to say so, but I REALLy hate sin taxes. Smokers die younger, have fewer of the oh-so expensive end-of-life years, cost less as a result and yet still are social pariahs who have the privilege of paying extra taxes and extra for health insurance. Fair how?
- dekhn 10y ago
  Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation. You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".
  - crgt 10y ago
    Actually NE Journal of Medicine says that mass smoking cessation would increase total health care costs in long run. So not sure the logic for the disincentives, other than paternalism run amok. "If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
    - dekhn 10y ago
      Are you cherry-picking studies to support your beliefs? Because you should click through to the letters to the editor in response to the article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199802123380713 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199802123380713 The responses raise legitimate concerns about the article's analysis, and they also support my assertion (which continues to be the mainstream view of the costs of smoking-related health-care). For example, the analysis you cited ignores secondhand smoke health costs entirely and ignores a number of conditions associated with smoking. In the author's reply to the criticism, they paper over these concerns in an inadequate way.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

crgt 10y ago

I know it's not PC in SV to say so, but I REALLy hate sin taxes. Smokers die younger, have fewer of the oh-so expensive end-of-life years, cost less as a result and yet still are social pariahs who have the privilege of paying extra taxes and extra for health insurance. Fair how?

dekhn 10y ago
Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation. You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".
- crgt 10y ago
  Actually NE Journal of Medicine says that mass smoking cessation would increase total health care costs in long run. So not sure the logic for the disincentives, other than paternalism run amok. "If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
  - dekhn 10y ago
    Are you cherry-picking studies to support your beliefs? Because you should click through to the letters to the editor in response to the article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199802123380713 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199802123380713 The responses raise legitimate concerns about the article's analysis, and they also support my assertion (which continues to be the mainstream view of the costs of smoking-related health-care). For example, the analysis you cited ignores secondhand smoke health costs entirely and ignores a number of conditions associated with smoking. In the author's reply to the criticism, they paper over these concerns in an inadequate way.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]