5 ms·

At least they die peacefully and not danger other people. Alcohol causes way more harm. Let people smoke if they want. It doesn't bother me as long as they do i

At least they die peacefully and not danger other people. Alcohol causes way more harm. Let people smoke if they want. It doesn't bother me as long as they do it respectfully and away from non-smokers.

devwastaken 5y ago
No actions live in a bubble. Wether we like it or not what you and I do affect each other. Certain things we should protect for people to do individually, and others should not be. How that is weighed is based on the level of harm. The cost of medical and other socioeconomic issues in individuals that smoke, along with them harming others through second hand smoke is a far larger cost to society. Therefore, we tax it.
- erulabs 5y ago
  Not pushing one way or the other, but it's important to consider the framing: Ignoring the second-hand smoke complexity for a moment, if everyone pays for every one else's health, then of course we should ban or tax cigarettes and/or anything that causes excess harm to a single person that others have to pay for (taxes help cover the externality). However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. To put it another way, if I was in command of an army, I wouldn't allow smoking or various unhealthy or time-wasting activities. China wants a higher GDP: ban all the video games! This sort of social-engineering is _possibly_ for the best, and possibly for the worse, but I think it's a bit of an injustice to just state "well we all have to pay for each other's health so the policy should be ______". We don't necessarily have to all pay for each others health. Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. This sort of social planning rarely works out how one expects it to.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    I would argue in the US, that sort of thing benefits corporate healthcare more than anything. Nobody wants other people telling them what to do. In other words, the more people say we're going to ban ______ because I don't want to pay for your risky lifestyle through my healthcare taxes, the less likely universal healthcare will ever be a thing in the US. If we really want universal healthcare, we should allow everyone to join, thus the universal part. But people like to preach to other people, so Que Será, Será.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    > If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. If I had to pay for other people's hobbies, surely I'd want the opposite? Why would I prefer to buy someone yarn rather than let them watch clouds for free?
  - wheels 5y ago
    > Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmokers because they die earlier. The study I'm linking doesn't consider the possibility of exiting paying into a healthcare system early, but even most smokers die after retirement: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
    - erulabs 5y ago
      Hah that is interesting. I don't think it changes my point tho - maybe just makes smoking a bad example. However, I was using it as a proxy for "anything that increases your health-care costs".
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      Retired people provide a lot of useful labor, it’s just much of it is in the home and therefore both unpaid and invisible. Grandparents provide childcare for working children and they help take care of their spouses that would otherwise need in-home care. It’s a complicated calculation.
- rank0 5y ago
  This is a horrible argument. I could apply the same logic to all your unhealthy habits as well. I don’t smoke but regressive tax structures and social control “for the greater good” are signs of a dystopia. Good intentions, road to hell…etc
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Quite a lot of people on HN are arguing for such social control in the US through promoting a universal healthcare system. And which many countries currently implement… so your contrarian opinion is interesting. How would you balance tradeoffs in either direction?
    - rank0 5y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your question. I do not believe that universal healthcare cannot exist without prohibition and regressive taxes.
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    "good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments. Freedom of speech is a good intention. Individual autonomy at all is a "good intention" just as much as fascism is. Everyone can have conflicting good intentions, therefore it's a poor argument that doesn't address the merits. You could apply that argument to other unhealth habits. Heart Disease is one of the most deadly and debilitating problems in the U.S., which should be met with significant tax on sugary products. The health costs are astronomical and deadly. However you're strawmanning my argument, there is a weight to when someone deserves regulation and does not. Many "unhealthy habits" do not rise to a great enough problem or have other benefits. For example, sitting at the computer is an "unhealthy habit", and it can be quite lucrative in certain work. Dystopia is when a private company advertises to children that they should take a substance that company designed to be heavily addictive and harmful to themselves and everyone around them. Social control is an natural part of humans and has always existed. Government regulations, when done in certain methods, demonstrably work. Other times, they do not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
im_down_w_otp 5y ago
That's not a very complete representation. When my grandmother died from lung cancer that metastisized to her brain, there was nothing particularly peaceful about the coughing and hacking (sometimes with a fair share of blood) that would send her into fits of convulsions, the tumor induced dementia, etc. Nor the effects that it had on her kids who grew up in an environment of insatiable chain smoking.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  You're putting your argument out of my context. Your grandmother was not a 'respectful smoker'.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Peacefully?? Go watch someone die of emphysema, it's pretty terrifying to be slowly suffocated to death.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Misinterpretation. Peacefully in the sense, without violence.
  - worewood 5y ago
    why the prejudice against alcohol then? Drugs are drugs. It's not the alcohol that makes people violent. The majority of people just get more relaxed and funny. Those people that get violent already have a problem - and alcohol is not it.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Yeah slowly dying 5 years and giving your closest the gift of watching you wither away, 1 cell at a time is really peaceful, almost dream-like...
Groxx 5y ago
Second-hand smoke causes plenty of harm.
markdown 5y ago
No danger to other people? I wonder how many deaths are due to cancer patients using up an outsized proportion of a nation's healthcare budget.

devwastaken 5y ago

No actions live in a bubble. Wether we like it or not what you and I do affect each other. Certain things we should protect for people to do individually, and others should not be. How that is weighed is based on the level of harm. The cost of medical and other socioeconomic issues in individuals that smoke, along with them harming others through second hand smoke is a far larger cost to society. Therefore, we tax it.

erulabs 5y ago
Not pushing one way or the other, but it's important to consider the framing: Ignoring the second-hand smoke complexity for a moment, if everyone pays for every one else's health, then of course we should ban or tax cigarettes and/or anything that causes excess harm to a single person that others have to pay for (taxes help cover the externality). However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. To put it another way, if I was in command of an army, I wouldn't allow smoking or various unhealthy or time-wasting activities. China wants a higher GDP: ban all the video games! This sort of social-engineering is _possibly_ for the best, and possibly for the worse, but I think it's a bit of an injustice to just state "well we all have to pay for each other's health so the policy should be ______". We don't necessarily have to all pay for each others health. Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. This sort of social planning rarely works out how one expects it to.
- Clubber 5y ago
  I would argue in the US, that sort of thing benefits corporate healthcare more than anything. Nobody wants other people telling them what to do. In other words, the more people say we're going to ban ______ because I don't want to pay for your risky lifestyle through my healthcare taxes, the less likely universal healthcare will ever be a thing in the US. If we really want universal healthcare, we should allow everyone to join, thus the universal part. But people like to preach to other people, so Que Será, Será.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. If I had to pay for other people's hobbies, surely I'd want the opposite? Why would I prefer to buy someone yarn rather than let them watch clouds for free?
- wheels 5y ago
  > Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmokers because they die earlier. The study I'm linking doesn't consider the possibility of exiting paying into a healthcare system early, but even most smokers die after retirement: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
  - erulabs 5y ago
    Hah that is interesting. I don't think it changes my point tho - maybe just makes smoking a bad example. However, I was using it as a proxy for "anything that increases your health-care costs".
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    Retired people provide a lot of useful labor, it’s just much of it is in the home and therefore both unpaid and invisible. Grandparents provide childcare for working children and they help take care of their spouses that would otherwise need in-home care. It’s a complicated calculation.
rank0 5y ago
This is a horrible argument. I could apply the same logic to all your unhealthy habits as well. I don’t smoke but regressive tax structures and social control “for the greater good” are signs of a dystopia. Good intentions, road to hell…etc
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Quite a lot of people on HN are arguing for such social control in the US through promoting a universal healthcare system. And which many countries currently implement… so your contrarian opinion is interesting. How would you balance tradeoffs in either direction?
  - rank0 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your question. I do not believe that universal healthcare cannot exist without prohibition and regressive taxes.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  "good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments. Freedom of speech is a good intention. Individual autonomy at all is a "good intention" just as much as fascism is. Everyone can have conflicting good intentions, therefore it's a poor argument that doesn't address the merits. You could apply that argument to other unhealth habits. Heart Disease is one of the most deadly and debilitating problems in the U.S., which should be met with significant tax on sugary products. The health costs are astronomical and deadly. However you're strawmanning my argument, there is a weight to when someone deserves regulation and does not. Many "unhealthy habits" do not rise to a great enough problem or have other benefits. For example, sitting at the computer is an "unhealthy habit", and it can be quite lucrative in certain work. Dystopia is when a private company advertises to children that they should take a substance that company designed to be heavily addictive and harmful to themselves and everyone around them. Social control is an natural part of humans and has always existed. Government regulations, when done in certain methods, demonstrably work. Other times, they do not.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

im_down_w_otp 5y ago

That's not a very complete representation. When my grandmother died from lung cancer that metastisized to her brain, there was nothing particularly peaceful about the coughing and hacking (sometimes with a fair share of blood) that would send her into fits of convulsions, the tumor induced dementia, etc. Nor the effects that it had on her kids who grew up in an environment of insatiable chain smoking.

dncornholio 5y ago
You're putting your argument out of my context. Your grandmother was not a 'respectful smoker'.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Peacefully?? Go watch someone die of emphysema, it's pretty terrifying to be slowly suffocated to death.

dncornholio 5y ago
Misinterpretation. Peacefully in the sense, without violence.
- worewood 5y ago
  why the prejudice against alcohol then? Drugs are drugs. It's not the alcohol that makes people violent. The majority of people just get more relaxed and funny. Those people that get violent already have a problem - and alcohol is not it.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Yeah slowly dying 5 years and giving your closest the gift of watching you wither away, 1 cell at a time is really peaceful, almost dream-like...

Groxx 5y ago

Second-hand smoke causes plenty of harm.

markdown 5y ago

No danger to other people? I wonder how many deaths are due to cancer patients using up an outsized proportion of a nation's healthcare budget.