3 ms·

Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these ki

Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these kinds of things. I just think vices are something humans have pursued in general and will continue to pursue regardless of government control. It's just cost of being in a society. Education can help and has helped greatly reduce smoking along with policies restricting where one can smoke. Any sort of prohibition creates a very wealthy "criminal class" who are adept at covering the gaps. And now the government will spend way more money trying to bring that "criminal class" down.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Maybe this was incorrect information, but I was under the impression that smokers were generally less of a cost on healthcare, as they tended to die earlier and use less medical resources.
- Angostura 5y ago
  They die earlier, but I'm no sure if this outweighs the substantial treatments many need before they die.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    A smoker's heart attack at 57 is cheap, it's the non-smoker's 15 years of Alzheimer's that costs.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      Or is that the smoker's emphysema, copd, lung cancer - I've heard it both ways but in my mind it's at least an open question as to who costs more.
      - jjgreen 5y ago
        True enough, it could go either way, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Unless you're a Kiwi, there the state makes that choice for you; Mummy knows best.
  - pixel_fcker 5y ago
    See comment elsewhere in this thread for how smoking is a massive net gain for the UK government thanks to high taxes and early mortality.
NoSorryCannot 5y ago
There's certainly an argument for it but I disagree that loss of liberties is prerequisite to socialized healthcare.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  This 100%. There's plenty of activities that put you at risk but people seemingly only care about like 5 things. Including smoking. Mutual Healthcare does put more pressure to actually deal with macro damage creators. Like chemical companies dumping their shit in streams.
bartread 5y ago
> Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. That argument does not hold water. Socialised healthcare, as we have in the UK (I'm not sure about NZ), doesn't mean you don't pay for it. We all pay for it in income tax and national insurance through every single pay packet. We also pay for it through other taxes such as VAT and fuel duty. This means that if, for example, you partake in a risky activity such as driving, and get into an accident, regardless of whether it was your fault or not, if you're still alive but in need of medical attention, the NHS will treat you. If you go out running, trip, fall and break your ankle, the NHS will treat you - even though you could have avoided that injury by staying at home. If you're cycling and you fall off your bike on a patch of ice, the NHS will treat you, even though cycling when it's icy isn't a particularly good idea. I need to sister some joists in my loft to reinforce them prior to boarding out for storage. If, through my own stupidity, I manage to fire a nail through my hand with my own nailgun (it happens), the NHS will treat me even though such an injury would 100% be my own fault. Nobody needs to relinquish "personal liberties" just because healthcare is socialised. When we're treated by the NHS, we're getting what we've paid for and therefore (rightly) feel entitled to expect. I am hugely grateful for the NHS, but it is not free, and it shouldn't be making moral judgements about who to treat and who not to treat. Do I like smoking? No, not at all - it's a disgusting habit that makes you and everything you own stink, and terrible for your health, not to mention a woefully pitiful way to get any kind of buzz or high. The buzz from tobacco is parsimoniously anticlimactic, and it's unbelievably expensive for the minimal payoff in that department. I mean, seriously, at least have some ambition in your vices. At the same time, do I want to see it banned? Also no, and for all the reasons otherwise discussed in this thread: I don't want to foster an environment in which organised crime can further thrive, and I don't want to criminalise (ultimately) millions of smokers. This legislation is both a massive government overreach, and a terrible idea.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

Maybe this was incorrect information, but I was under the impression that smokers were generally less of a cost on healthcare, as they tended to die earlier and use less medical resources.

Angostura 5y ago
They die earlier, but I'm no sure if this outweighs the substantial treatments many need before they die.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  A smoker's heart attack at 57 is cheap, it's the non-smoker's 15 years of Alzheimer's that costs.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    Or is that the smoker's emphysema, copd, lung cancer - I've heard it both ways but in my mind it's at least an open question as to who costs more.
    - jjgreen 5y ago
      True enough, it could go either way, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Unless you're a Kiwi, there the state makes that choice for you; Mummy knows best.
- pixel_fcker 5y ago
  See comment elsewhere in this thread for how smoking is a massive net gain for the UK government thanks to high taxes and early mortality.

NoSorryCannot 5y ago

There's certainly an argument for it but I disagree that loss of liberties is prerequisite to socialized healthcare.

aaomidi 5y ago
This 100%. There's plenty of activities that put you at risk but people seemingly only care about like 5 things. Including smoking. Mutual Healthcare does put more pressure to actually deal with macro damage creators. Like chemical companies dumping their shit in streams.

bartread 5y ago

> Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. That argument does not hold water. Socialised healthcare, as we have in the UK (I'm not sure about NZ), doesn't mean you don't pay for it. We all pay for it in income tax and national insurance through every single pay packet. We also pay for it through other taxes such as VAT and fuel duty. This means that if, for example, you partake in a risky activity such as driving, and get into an accident, regardless of whether it was your fault or not, if you're still alive but in need of medical attention, the NHS will treat you. If you go out running, trip, fall and break your ankle, the NHS will treat you - even though you could have avoided that injury by staying at home. If you're cycling and you fall off your bike on a patch of ice, the NHS will treat you, even though cycling when it's icy isn't a particularly good idea. I need to sister some joists in my loft to reinforce them prior to boarding out for storage. If, through my own stupidity, I manage to fire a nail through my hand with my own nailgun (it happens), the NHS will treat me even though such an injury would 100% be my own fault. Nobody needs to relinquish "personal liberties" just because healthcare is socialised. When we're treated by the NHS, we're getting what we've paid for and therefore (rightly) feel entitled to expect. I am hugely grateful for the NHS, but it is not free, and it shouldn't be making moral judgements about who to treat and who not to treat. Do I like smoking? No, not at all - it's a disgusting habit that makes you and everything you own stink, and terrible for your health, not to mention a woefully pitiful way to get any kind of buzz or high. The buzz from tobacco is parsimoniously anticlimactic, and it's unbelievably expensive for the minimal payoff in that department. I mean, seriously, at least have some ambition in your vices. At the same time, do I want to see it banned? Also no, and for all the reasons otherwise discussed in this thread: I don't want to foster an environment in which organised crime can further thrive, and I don't want to criminalise (ultimately) millions of smokers. This legislation is both a massive government overreach, and a terrible idea.