4 ms·

According to their statistics smoking a pack a day from age 18-65 would save the country $5489. I disagree that we should only be looking at medical costs when

by lev99 9y ago

According to their statistics smoking a pack a day from age 18-65 would save the country $5489. I disagree that we should only be looking at medical costs when considering the total cost of smoking vs non-smoking. About $5500 per lifetime, is so small that unaccounted for costs could easily tip the scale either way. What effect does nicotine have on job performance. What are the costs spent in creating smoking sections in public places like airports. Do smokers have higher patents per person because of mingling near the ashtray, or do they have lower patents per person because they leave the room to go on smoke breaks? More data is needed, their conclusion is not conclusive.

mistermann 9y ago
> More data is needed, their conclusion is not conclusive. Do you demand the same evidence from anti-smoking advocates, who focus mainly on the costs, plus a little fear inducing imagined health risks of second hand smoke?
- lev99 9y ago
  Why are you making this about me? I'd be more then happy to talk numbers but unwilling to talk about myself.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    I think it may have been you that made it about you: "I disagree..." Regardless, they are advocating for policy on half the numbers and someone is protesting that, you seem to be opposed to the protest due to their numbers being inconclusive or incomplete, which is a related but different argument. Or am I mistaken?
    - lev99 9y ago
      Start with whatever answer you like, and then ask the right questions to get the right answers, and you can make a spreadsheet that backs up your initial position. All arguments inspire nihilism when deconstructed. Descartes started an argument with one axiom, "I think therefrom I am" and logiced his way back to his initial worldview. I kind of wanted to get into an argument about numbers, not an argument about what makes a valid argument. Because there are no valid arguments. Back to smoking. One of the more honest cost analysis of smoking is the chapter Estimating the Costs of Tobacco Use in "Tobacco Control in Developing Countries"(2000). The entire paper is riddled with admissions that they are using uncertain data, they are omitting missing data, and that even if the data was perfect the statistics relay on assumptions. They also don't calculate the benefit of early death and reach a price fairly close to neutral(1.1%-.1% of gdp). So yeah, personally I don't trust their numbers either. Thanks for asking.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > I kind of wanted to get into an argument about numbers, not an argument about what makes a valid argument Then don't complain about people "making it about you". > Because there are no valid arguments. Well then, looks like we're all done here. > They also don't calculate the benefit of early death and reach a price fairly close to neutral(1.1%-.1% of gdp). If you leave out certain costs, you can indeed reach whatever conclusion you'd like. > Thanks for asking. Thanks for reminding me I have to check my reddit inbox.

by lev99 9y ago

mistermann 9y ago

> More data is needed, their conclusion is not conclusive. Do you demand the same evidence from anti-smoking advocates, who focus mainly on the costs, plus a little fear inducing imagined health risks of second hand smoke?

lev99 9y ago
Why are you making this about me? I'd be more then happy to talk numbers but unwilling to talk about myself.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I think it may have been you that made it about you: "I disagree..." Regardless, they are advocating for policy on half the numbers and someone is protesting that, you seem to be opposed to the protest due to their numbers being inconclusive or incomplete, which is a related but different argument. Or am I mistaken?
  - lev99 9y ago
    Start with whatever answer you like, and then ask the right questions to get the right answers, and you can make a spreadsheet that backs up your initial position. All arguments inspire nihilism when deconstructed. Descartes started an argument with one axiom, "I think therefrom I am" and logiced his way back to his initial worldview. I kind of wanted to get into an argument about numbers, not an argument about what makes a valid argument. Because there are no valid arguments. Back to smoking. One of the more honest cost analysis of smoking is the chapter Estimating the Costs of Tobacco Use in "Tobacco Control in Developing Countries"(2000). The entire paper is riddled with admissions that they are using uncertain data, they are omitting missing data, and that even if the data was perfect the statistics relay on assumptions. They also don't calculate the benefit of early death and reach a price fairly close to neutral(1.1%-.1% of gdp). So yeah, personally I don't trust their numbers either. Thanks for asking.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > I kind of wanted to get into an argument about numbers, not an argument about what makes a valid argument Then don't complain about people "making it about you". > Because there are no valid arguments. Well then, looks like we're all done here. > They also don't calculate the benefit of early death and reach a price fairly close to neutral(1.1%-.1% of gdp). If you leave out certain costs, you can indeed reach whatever conclusion you'd like. > Thanks for asking. Thanks for reminding me I have to check my reddit inbox.