3 ms·

> Very disappointed in EU here! Such a disgusting habit that kills and leads to large quality of life loss later in life I agree in part but the libertarian in

> Very disappointed in EU here! Such a disgusting habit that kills and leads to large quality of life loss later in life I agree in part but the libertarian in me thinks that people should be free to do what they want to their bodies provided it is not at the expense of society as a whole. For example banning smoking in offices, public buildings, spaces, etc is a good thing. Banning people from smoking in their own garden is not. > Seeing 15 year olds smoke is a huge societal failure. Yes and no. General trends suggest they are smoking less and drinking less alcohol compared to previous generations. It probably just stands out more relative to the general population. Alas, youth is lost on the young :-)

shady-lady 8y ago
> the libertarian in me thinks that people should be free to do what they want to their bodies provided it is not at the expense of society as a whole society is burdened in the 50% chance scenario that they develop lung cancer, alongside other medical problems which smoking exacerbates as well as being a contributory factor to others.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  People die of something. It costs no matter what that is. So there's some extra cost since they're dying sooner (maybe?) It's more complicated than 'Hospital costs!' since those are pretty unavoidable no matter how you die?
  - shady-lady 8y ago
    We generally don't shoot people in the head when they've been diagnosed with lung cancer so society doesn't save any money there. So the extensive treatment required to treat lung cancer is greater than somebody not getting treatment because they don't have lung cancer. To be more succinct, there's a large difference between a person requiring lengthy treatment for lung cancer(hospital + morgue) before ultimately dying compared to somebody dying due to old age(morgue).
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Nobody dies of 'old age' any more. They die of something that was under treatment in general. That's all.

shady-lady 8y ago

> the libertarian in me thinks that people should be free to do what they want to their bodies provided it is not at the expense of society as a whole society is burdened in the 50% chance scenario that they develop lung cancer, alongside other medical problems which smoking exacerbates as well as being a contributory factor to others.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
People die of something. It costs no matter what that is. So there's some extra cost since they're dying sooner (maybe?) It's more complicated than 'Hospital costs!' since those are pretty unavoidable no matter how you die?
- shady-lady 8y ago
  We generally don't shoot people in the head when they've been diagnosed with lung cancer so society doesn't save any money there. So the extensive treatment required to treat lung cancer is greater than somebody not getting treatment because they don't have lung cancer. To be more succinct, there's a large difference between a person requiring lengthy treatment for lung cancer(hospital + morgue) before ultimately dying compared to somebody dying due to old age(morgue).
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Nobody dies of 'old age' any more. They die of something that was under treatment in general. That's all.