4 ms·

While it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and faste

by kirrent 10y ago

While it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and faster. It's completely missing the point though, because the entire reason we have our healthcare system is to provide a long and high quality life for the population. Someone dying earlier may be cheaper, but it's also a failure.

flukus 10y ago
It's not a failure of the health system though. Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  > Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer. It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.
Trundle 10y ago
The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.
- dbaupp 10y ago
  Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
    - grzm 10y ago
      There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
    - sanswork 10y ago
      If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
      - flukus 10y ago
        > If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here. > If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. > A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Never heard of this.
Laforet 10y ago
Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.
- flukus 10y ago
  I good portion of them would end up with some other chronic disease if the live to an older age.

by kirrent 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

It's not a failure of the health system though. Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.

brokenmachine 10y ago
> Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer. It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.

Trundle 10y ago

The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.

dbaupp 10y ago
Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
- flukus 10y ago
  Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
  - grzm 10y ago
    There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
  - sanswork 10y ago
    If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here. > If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. > A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Never heard of this.

Laforet 10y ago

Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.

flukus 10y ago
I good portion of them would end up with some other chronic disease if the live to an older age.