4 ms·

>Reframing the debate in moralistic terms is not useful here. It's a public health issue, plain and simple. Of course it is a moral debate. Sure its not health

by cf498 8y ago

>Reframing the debate in moralistic terms is not useful here. It's a public health issue, plain and simple. Of course it is a moral debate. Sure its not healthy, but shouldnt people be allowed to use it regardless if they decide to do so? It only becomes a public health issue once people who dont smoke are effected, which is why we got bans to smoke in certain places and not a ban on smoking in general.

hu3 8y ago
1) In countries with public heath system, people who don't smoke are also affected when the government has to subside treatment for smoking related diseases. 2) Smoking impacts on individual productivity which directly impacts on economy: > Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509 3) Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/ Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous in face of the numerous studies freely available on the internet.
- no_identd 8y ago
  >The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. Are you sure you don't see any methodological issues with this study & those claims? Cuz I see a lot. >Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous Please consider avoiding backhandedly calling people liars.
  - hu3 8y ago
    Don't put words in my mouth. I called out parent's dismissal tone which adds nothing to the debate and provided studies to back what I wrote. Meanwhile your comment also adds nothing to the debate by going straight to personal attacks and a vague dismissal of one of the linked studies. To stay on topic: Could you provide a study that disproves collateral damages, be it with to health or simply economic, to non-smokers?
- cf498 8y ago
  You dont get what I said. I said, despite the effects on health. I am not arguing that smoking is not unhealthy. Its not an either or question between public health issue and moral question. Smoking is bad for you. It will likely kill you. And so are heroin crack and fast food. If it was only a matter of public health all would be banned. They are all unhealthy and cost the healthcare system massively. The decision that we still tolerate some and dont tolerate others is a moralistic one.
  - hu3 8y ago
    I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies for my disproportional rude tone. I'm all for freedom of choice as long as it doesn't impact the collective. And To add to your point, imagine if sugar-rich and fast-food packagings were photos of sickly-looking obese people and insulin injections. Also imagine if fast-food was prohibited from being advertised. That's what some govs do with tobacco. As you said, allowing one but no the other is indeed a moral debate.
otabdeveloper1 8y ago
> ...but shouldnt people be allowed to use it regardless if they decide to do so? No, they shouldn't. Next question, please.
- mruts 8y ago
  Wow now that's a convincing argument.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by cf498 8y ago

hu3 8y ago

1) In countries with public heath system, people who don't smoke are also affected when the government has to subside treatment for smoking related diseases. 2) Smoking impacts on individual productivity which directly impacts on economy: > Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509 3) Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/ Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous in face of the numerous studies freely available on the internet.

no_identd 8y ago
>The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. Are you sure you don't see any methodological issues with this study & those claims? Cuz I see a lot. >Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous Please consider avoiding backhandedly calling people liars.
- hu3 8y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth. I called out parent's dismissal tone which adds nothing to the debate and provided studies to back what I wrote. Meanwhile your comment also adds nothing to the debate by going straight to personal attacks and a vague dismissal of one of the linked studies. To stay on topic: Could you provide a study that disproves collateral damages, be it with to health or simply economic, to non-smokers?
cf498 8y ago
You dont get what I said. I said, despite the effects on health. I am not arguing that smoking is not unhealthy. Its not an either or question between public health issue and moral question. Smoking is bad for you. It will likely kill you. And so are heroin crack and fast food. If it was only a matter of public health all would be banned. They are all unhealthy and cost the healthcare system massively. The decision that we still tolerate some and dont tolerate others is a moralistic one.
- hu3 8y ago
  I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies for my disproportional rude tone. I'm all for freedom of choice as long as it doesn't impact the collective. And To add to your point, imagine if sugar-rich and fast-food packagings were photos of sickly-looking obese people and insulin injections. Also imagine if fast-food was prohibited from being advertised. That's what some govs do with tobacco. As you said, allowing one but no the other is indeed a moral debate.

otabdeveloper1 8y ago

> ...but shouldnt people be allowed to use it regardless if they decide to do so? No, they shouldn't. Next question, please.

mruts 8y ago
Wow now that's a convincing argument.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]