3 ms·
An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation with
by Trundle 10y ago
An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation within their own home is still unnecessarily and unfairly affected by tyrannical sin taxes.
- chris_wot 10y agoThey also have higher health care costs due to smoking, which in Australia costs billions of dollars in increased health spending. I think it's not unfair to have them subsidise their cohort's inevitable health care costs. The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking. It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.