5 ms·

Because some people enjoy it, and it's a free country. Why is this even a question?

throwawaygh 5y ago
> Why is this even a question? Again, the article explains: "I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."
- killallcommies3 5y ago
  again, suck a dick
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      Most people do not get the fortune of dying peacefully in their sleep, regardless of their health habits.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Which doesn't, in itself, justify a particularly nasty form of death for hundreds of thousands of people. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
    - febeling 5y ago
      Many people would like to see their loved ones live in freedom, too. That means in probably almost 100% of the cases making sub-optimal decisions.
    - ReptileMan 5y ago
      And yet the loved ones decision how to live their lives greatly outweigh what many people would like to see. Having more pleasurable life when young while trading for a more gruesome death after 80 is not that bad of trade off. There was a joke: - Drinking, smoking and whoring shorten your life with 6 years. - Which six? Between 92 and 98 - take it.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I don't disagree. But it's also not clear why the government should incentivize individually cheap, collectively expensive personal decisions like current smoking patterns.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Let's ban allowing people to be fat. Obesity is quite deadly and is a drain on the healthcare system.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    I didn't even express agreement with the quote. OP asked a question. The answer to that question is given right in the VERY short article.
  - cossatot 5y ago
    The article is from the Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy and is about Canada.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      > Second hand smoke is dangerous too. This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.
63 5y ago
The article is specifically speaking about Canada. I suppose Canada is a free country too, though.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Somewhat less free than the US. They do have government healthcare. That means unhealthy habits are a drain on government. To cut cost it is natural to look at high cost of care conditions that could be prevented. The government has to increase taxes or make things illegal to control cost. I see that as a problem with government healthcare. It will always result in either higher taxes or a restriction on behavior.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
__turbobrew__ 5y ago
In Canada (where the article is authored) there is universal healthcare. The health effects of smoking burden the healthcare system and therefore other Canadian citizens. In the US healthcare system I have less a problem with smoking since you will have to pay for the healthcare on your own.

> Why is this even a question? Again, the article explains: "I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."

killallcommies3 5y ago
again, suck a dick
ReptileMan 5y ago
You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    Most people do not get the fortune of dying peacefully in their sleep, regardless of their health habits.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Which doesn't, in itself, justify a particularly nasty form of death for hundreds of thousands of people. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
  - febeling 5y ago
    Many people would like to see their loved ones live in freedom, too. That means in probably almost 100% of the cases making sub-optimal decisions.
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    And yet the loved ones decision how to live their lives greatly outweigh what many people would like to see. Having more pleasurable life when young while trading for a more gruesome death after 80 is not that bad of trade off. There was a joke: - Drinking, smoking and whoring shorten your life with 6 years. - Which six? Between 92 and 98 - take it.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I don't disagree. But it's also not clear why the government should incentivize individually cheap, collectively expensive personal decisions like current smoking patterns.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Let's ban allowing people to be fat. Obesity is quite deadly and is a drain on the healthcare system.
hungryforcodes 5y ago
Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  I didn't even express agreement with the quote. OP asked a question. The answer to that question is given right in the VERY short article.
- cossatot 5y ago
  The article is from the Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy and is about Canada.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > Second hand smoke is dangerous too. This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.

63 5y ago

The article is specifically speaking about Canada. I suppose Canada is a free country too, though.

tastyfreeze 5y ago
Somewhat less free than the US. They do have government healthcare. That means unhealthy habits are a drain on government. To cut cost it is natural to look at high cost of care conditions that could be prevented. The government has to increase taxes or make things illegal to control cost. I see that as a problem with government healthcare. It will always result in either higher taxes or a restriction on behavior.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

__turbobrew__ 5y ago

In Canada (where the article is authored) there is universal healthcare. The health effects of smoking burden the healthcare system and therefore other Canadian citizens. In the US healthcare system I have less a problem with smoking since you will have to pay for the healthcare on your own.