7 ms·

Just trying this line of thought on for size, let me know what you think: We could probably just charge tobacco companies the full future medical expenses (inc

Just trying this line of thought on for size, let me know what you think: We could probably just charge tobacco companies the full future medical expenses (including pain, suffering and years of life lost) of any minors that smoke menthol cigarettes when there was advertising or product availability in that child's area. We have good historical/statistical data for these costs so as a starting point we could charge the tobacco companies up front based off the known stats and put it into a medical fund instead of having to survey individual children. Why? Because children aren't responsible for being idiots with poor executive function. and Parents who lock their children up to fully protect their kids from the outside world are bad parents (right?) If parents are solely responsible (the children can't be) than we might as well start sending parents to jail when their kids look at pornography and skip to the point where all parents are in jail or fined into poverty. Children push boundaries, any industry that manufacturers, targets and profits off of exploiting the nature and developmental stages of children with purely recreational addictive carcinogens should pay the full externalized cost. Part of respecting children is knowing that they can be extremely smart and their ideas have just as much validity as any adults but their ability to calculate and process the implications of risk is under developed. That way everyone is treated like an adult who is an adult (companies are run by large groups of adults who know what eggs they are cracking to make their omelet, certainly they do in this case), no nannie state intervention, and importantly, no unpayed externalized costs for our larger society to pay while a small portion of other adults profit.

Drblessing 5y ago
I think that we need to start accepting individual responsibility more. Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth. Why not charge the store that illegal sold the children the Menthol cigarettes? Why not ask the children what ads they say with cigarettes in them and charge the marketing agency?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  > I think that we need to start accepting individual responsibility more. Why? People always put this out there as a universal moral virtue but I just don't see it that way. The ideology of individual responsibility for all negative consequences has led us to horrific places. It's useful and necessary sometimes but not always, and I don't think here. > Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth. Who fucking cares? Again, growth in itself is not a virtue we need to cultivate for its own sake. Growth of what, and for what ends? Growth is a tool we can use, so what are we using it for in this case. And do we even want to be?
  - Drblessing 5y ago
    > Who fucking cares? Starving people across the world. As the pie grows everyone gets a slice. Now the pie needs to be better divided across the globe, I agree. > Why? Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of this country. I think this should include what we ingest. Now, we're not exempt from the consequences of what we ingest. I can def understand situations where the collective has a higher responsibility, but I don't think smoking flavored tobacco is one of them. Edit: To the person below me, it is ludicrous that healthy people subsidize non-healthy people's healthcare when they choose to smoke.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I'm not a smoker, but right now I am suffering from the consequences of other people's choices. I pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums because smokers make bad choices. Whether you charge the company & they pass the cost on to consumers or charge the consumers directly with a tax, they should pay the financial cost of the decisions they make.
      - 4ggr0 5y ago
        For me the difficulty with this is where to draw the line. Should we do the same for people who consume alcohol? What about people who aren't fit, overweight? What about excessive sport, bad posture, eating lots of red meat, sugar or fat, or do or consume [INSERT LIST OF UNHEALTHY THINGS] Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. If the argument is that people should pay for their own reckless, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour, I don't understand why we would only apply this to smoking. Lots of things we do as humans are unhealthy and unnecessary, I really don't understand the focus on smoking. PS: I am not and never was a smoker.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  I think we need to be less concerned with individual responsibility because it isn't as effective at improving community outcomes and it encourages people to be callous and uncharitable. Strict individual responsibility had been the rule for cigarette smoking before and it was not successful. Market growth is not so important.
  - Drblessing 5y ago
    Market growth is important, just as important as making sure its gets divided among all members of a society to a livable amount. We'll see if markets crash around the globe the famine that emerges.
    - 4ggr0 5y ago
      > Market growth is important Market health is important, fixation on growth is in my opinion a big cause for lots of issues we face globally. Everything is built in a way where it constantly has to grow in order to work. But everything we have and do cannot be done or had endlessly, everything has its limits. Our markets don't exist in a vacuum, growing means to take space away from other things or beings. Constant growth is not possible and things which are focused on it are bound to fail or turn ugly.
      - Drblessing 5y ago
        Yes I agree, perhaps a focus on growth makes the system too fragile to disturbances which leads to human tragedy. We're already seeing fertility rates decline so the growth is slowing. What's a better way to do it?
        4ggr0 5y ago
        To be honest, I don't really know. I don't have an economical background and I think its easier to criticize a system than to propose an alternative. People who know what the Club of Rome discusses might be able to chime in, but 2052[1](not affiliated) largely shaped my opinion about this topic. Can't put it into perfect guidelines, but I would wish for a system which is dicated based on how happy it makes its people and on how sustainable it is. Otherwise, if we still stay focused on growth, I don't see how we should handle climate change and other global issues. Because exactly this desire to always grow and expand seems to be the common factor behind a lot of these issues. Continue growing and buying Co2-certificates is not what's going to save us, we have to rethink our western, first-world way of living and maybe turn down our luxuries a bit. In my opinion, expanding wealth gaps are a big issue as well. People who have the means to just ignore climate change and other things by spending money will never care, at the same time the same people are exactly the ones using the most resources. As you can see, I'm more rambling than really answering your question, but we can gladly continue discussing this topic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2052:_A_Global_Forecast_for_the_Next_Forty_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2052:_A_Global_Forecast_for_th...
- robonerd 5y ago
  The only "individual responsibility" we need in this context is holding tobacco executives personally responsible for millions of murders. Throw them all into the deepest dungeons and never let them see the light of day again.
  - Drblessing 5y ago
    Thankfully we have legal structures that allow individuals to run companies without being personally liable. Can't imagine running a company without it these days. Every CEO would get sued incessantly, and then instead of focusing on providing goods and services like food and medicine, they would be focused on frivolous lawsuits. Should we hold government officials in contempt of society when they build roads that people die on? Should we hold generals as murderers when a mission fails?
    - JohnTHaller 5y ago
      If a CEO knows for a fact that their product is harmful/deadly to its customers and outright lies about it for personal and company gain (aka fraud), should they shoulder any responsibility?
      - unmole 5y ago
        Do today's customers think cigarettes are good for their health?
        choko 5y ago
        Nope. I smoked for a few years (quit) knowing full-well the risks. These risks have been well known for at least 30 years now.
      - Drblessing 5y ago
        Yes, you're right. The system we have now is too sensitive to the other side of this coin - too many laws and regulations. Is it better to save 1000 lives by regulating something than saving 10000 lives over the long run with new technology? It's much harder to quantify the negative impacts of regulations in terms of medicines never developed, healthcare never delivered, food innovation never discovered, etc.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  >Why not charge the store that illegal sold the children the Menthol cigarettes This is done already in the form of large fines and revoked licenses. Otherwise: Assuming the companies would just pass on the cost by raising prices, this is making people accept personal responsibility. A direct tax on cigarettes would be a different way of doing it. I wouldn't limit this to estimated costs for illegal smoking. Make everyone pay more for cigarettes to cover their actual costs-- costs currently payed by society in general. Right now the increase in medical costs is subsidized by non-smokers.
  - Drblessing 5y ago
    Agreed
- Bancakes 5y ago
  There's no such thing as 'individual responsibility' with minors. The world they're born in is the world we make. Do cigarette companies help us get closer or farther from a ideal world?
  - Drblessing 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75XKGVwGEt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75XKGVwGEt4
ineedasername 5y ago
We could probably just charge tobacco companies... Or do the same for all smokers. Back of the envelope, it looks like about $370B in medical expenses & lost economic output per year, with about 20B packs of cigarettes sold (US), so that's about $19/pack of cigarettes. Then put that money into a trust to cover expenses for smokers so that they don't burden non-smokers in either tax dollars or increased insurance premiums. You'll need some money to administer the process too, so let's say another $2/pack for that. Call it the "True Cost Smoking Tax".
- bluedino 5y ago
  Okay, now do soda.
  - tintedfireglass 5y ago
  - schuke 5y ago
    Soda is neither addictive nor carcinogenic.
    - krageon 5y ago
      Soda is absolutely addictive. Test it easily by drinking a few cans every day for a month or two and then stopping cold turkey.
      - randombits0 5y ago
        Well, yeah, when they specifically add an addictive stimulant drug to it.
HonestOp001 5y ago
If we held them liable for the future medical bills, would we give them a discount if they come up under the cost of long term care? Right now, smokers die earlier. In theory, despite the treatments for lung cancer, the earlier death means that overall it is cheaper to the “system.” A person dying under 65 means no social security payouts, etc. Yes, Prime Minister noted that cigarette related deaths saved the country significant amounts overall.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Yes we could do that. Build the model similar to mutual insurance agencies that refund excess premiums if they have a good year. Also our “system” is overburdened now, so the savings there would probably not be refunded.
e_i_pi_2 5y ago
I agree with this reasoning, wondering if you think it'd also apply to the current student loan situation in the US - I've had similar thoughts about how the lenders should be held responsible for giving a loan to a child when the chances of them being able to pay it back aren't very high - that's due diligence they should be doing and be held responsible for. Additionally, the loans are largely given to people under 25 who's brains aren't fully developed.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  I think there’s an easier solution: allow the loans to be broken in bankruptcy. If you can default on a loan, you force loan writers to only provide payable loans. $200k loan for an English major? Low chance for a good enough job to pay it back. Comp Sci major at state school who had a 2.0 in high school? High chance of drop out, low chance of payback. We should just give loan companies the kick they need to stop writing bad loans just because it’s protected. Let the free market do it’s thing. I think the same argument applies to cigarettes. Require those companies to underwrite medical care for cigarette related illness, but let people make any decisions they want. Build the externalities into the product price. Doing this would raise cost of cigarettes since you’d essentially have to self-insure with every pack.
  - e_i_pi_2 5y ago
    Haha yeah I guess I'm operating under the assumption that bankruptcy isn't an option because it's been that way for a while, but that does seem like a much better solution that still leaves a good amount of responsibility and risk on both sides
  - dolni 5y ago
    Looking at this through the devil's advocate lens, it's easy to see how that kind of policy prevents a lot of people from going to college. That could be a bad thing. On the other hand, it could also be a good thing since it would push more people towards the trades, which we sorely need. And maybe it would provide downward pressure on the cost of an education.

Drblessing 5y ago

I think that we need to start accepting individual responsibility more. Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth. Why not charge the store that illegal sold the children the Menthol cigarettes? Why not ask the children what ads they say with cigarettes in them and charge the marketing agency?

giraffe_lady 5y ago
> I think that we need to start accepting individual responsibility more. Why? People always put this out there as a universal moral virtue but I just don't see it that way. The ideology of individual responsibility for all negative consequences has led us to horrific places. It's useful and necessary sometimes but not always, and I don't think here. > Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth. Who fucking cares? Again, growth in itself is not a virtue we need to cultivate for its own sake. Growth of what, and for what ends? Growth is a tool we can use, so what are we using it for in this case. And do we even want to be?
- Drblessing 5y ago
  > Who fucking cares? Starving people across the world. As the pie grows everyone gets a slice. Now the pie needs to be better divided across the globe, I agree. > Why? Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of this country. I think this should include what we ingest. Now, we're not exempt from the consequences of what we ingest. I can def understand situations where the collective has a higher responsibility, but I don't think smoking flavored tobacco is one of them. Edit: To the person below me, it is ludicrous that healthy people subsidize non-healthy people's healthcare when they choose to smoke.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I'm not a smoker, but right now I am suffering from the consequences of other people's choices. I pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums because smokers make bad choices. Whether you charge the company & they pass the cost on to consumers or charge the consumers directly with a tax, they should pay the financial cost of the decisions they make.
    - 4ggr0 5y ago
      For me the difficulty with this is where to draw the line. Should we do the same for people who consume alcohol? What about people who aren't fit, overweight? What about excessive sport, bad posture, eating lots of red meat, sugar or fat, or do or consume [INSERT LIST OF UNHEALTHY THINGS] Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. If the argument is that people should pay for their own reckless, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour, I don't understand why we would only apply this to smoking. Lots of things we do as humans are unhealthy and unnecessary, I really don't understand the focus on smoking. PS: I am not and never was a smoker.
NoSorryCannot 5y ago
I think we need to be less concerned with individual responsibility because it isn't as effective at improving community outcomes and it encourages people to be callous and uncharitable. Strict individual responsibility had been the rule for cigarette smoking before and it was not successful. Market growth is not so important.
- Drblessing 5y ago
  Market growth is important, just as important as making sure its gets divided among all members of a society to a livable amount. We'll see if markets crash around the globe the famine that emerges.
  - 4ggr0 5y ago
    > Market growth is important Market health is important, fixation on growth is in my opinion a big cause for lots of issues we face globally. Everything is built in a way where it constantly has to grow in order to work. But everything we have and do cannot be done or had endlessly, everything has its limits. Our markets don't exist in a vacuum, growing means to take space away from other things or beings. Constant growth is not possible and things which are focused on it are bound to fail or turn ugly.
    - Drblessing 5y ago
      Yes I agree, perhaps a focus on growth makes the system too fragile to disturbances which leads to human tragedy. We're already seeing fertility rates decline so the growth is slowing. What's a better way to do it?
      - 4ggr0 5y ago
        To be honest, I don't really know. I don't have an economical background and I think its easier to criticize a system than to propose an alternative. People who know what the Club of Rome discusses might be able to chime in, but 2052[1](not affiliated) largely shaped my opinion about this topic. Can't put it into perfect guidelines, but I would wish for a system which is dicated based on how happy it makes its people and on how sustainable it is. Otherwise, if we still stay focused on growth, I don't see how we should handle climate change and other global issues. Because exactly this desire to always grow and expand seems to be the common factor behind a lot of these issues. Continue growing and buying Co2-certificates is not what's going to save us, we have to rethink our western, first-world way of living and maybe turn down our luxuries a bit. In my opinion, expanding wealth gaps are a big issue as well. People who have the means to just ignore climate change and other things by spending money will never care, at the same time the same people are exactly the ones using the most resources. As you can see, I'm more rambling than really answering your question, but we can gladly continue discussing this topic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2052:_A_Global_Forecast_for_the_Next_Forty_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2052:_A_Global_Forecast_for_th...
robonerd 5y ago
The only "individual responsibility" we need in this context is holding tobacco executives personally responsible for millions of murders. Throw them all into the deepest dungeons and never let them see the light of day again.
- Drblessing 5y ago
  Thankfully we have legal structures that allow individuals to run companies without being personally liable. Can't imagine running a company without it these days. Every CEO would get sued incessantly, and then instead of focusing on providing goods and services like food and medicine, they would be focused on frivolous lawsuits. Should we hold government officials in contempt of society when they build roads that people die on? Should we hold generals as murderers when a mission fails?
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    If a CEO knows for a fact that their product is harmful/deadly to its customers and outright lies about it for personal and company gain (aka fraud), should they shoulder any responsibility?
    - unmole 5y ago
      Do today's customers think cigarettes are good for their health?
      - choko 5y ago
        Nope. I smoked for a few years (quit) knowing full-well the risks. These risks have been well known for at least 30 years now.
    - Drblessing 5y ago
      Yes, you're right. The system we have now is too sensitive to the other side of this coin - too many laws and regulations. Is it better to save 1000 lives by regulating something than saving 10000 lives over the long run with new technology? It's much harder to quantify the negative impacts of regulations in terms of medicines never developed, healthcare never delivered, food innovation never discovered, etc.
ineedasername 5y ago
>Why not charge the store that illegal sold the children the Menthol cigarettes This is done already in the form of large fines and revoked licenses. Otherwise: Assuming the companies would just pass on the cost by raising prices, this is making people accept personal responsibility. A direct tax on cigarettes would be a different way of doing it. I wouldn't limit this to estimated costs for illegal smoking. Make everyone pay more for cigarettes to cover their actual costs-- costs currently payed by society in general. Right now the increase in medical costs is subsidized by non-smokers.
- Drblessing 5y ago
  Agreed
Bancakes 5y ago
There's no such thing as 'individual responsibility' with minors. The world they're born in is the world we make. Do cigarette companies help us get closer or farther from a ideal world?
- Drblessing 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75XKGVwGEt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75XKGVwGEt4

ineedasername 5y ago

We could probably just charge tobacco companies... Or do the same for all smokers. Back of the envelope, it looks like about $370B in medical expenses & lost economic output per year, with about 20B packs of cigarettes sold (US), so that's about $19/pack of cigarettes. Then put that money into a trust to cover expenses for smokers so that they don't burden non-smokers in either tax dollars or increased insurance premiums. You'll need some money to administer the process too, so let's say another $2/pack for that. Call it the "True Cost Smoking Tax".

bluedino 5y ago
Okay, now do soda.
- tintedfireglass 5y ago
- schuke 5y ago
  Soda is neither addictive nor carcinogenic.
  - krageon 5y ago
    Soda is absolutely addictive. Test it easily by drinking a few cans every day for a month or two and then stopping cold turkey.
    - randombits0 5y ago
      Well, yeah, when they specifically add an addictive stimulant drug to it.

HonestOp001 5y ago

If we held them liable for the future medical bills, would we give them a discount if they come up under the cost of long term care? Right now, smokers die earlier. In theory, despite the treatments for lung cancer, the earlier death means that overall it is cheaper to the “system.” A person dying under 65 means no social security payouts, etc. Yes, Prime Minister noted that cigarette related deaths saved the country significant amounts overall.

vineyardmike 5y ago
Yes we could do that. Build the model similar to mutual insurance agencies that refund excess premiums if they have a good year. Also our “system” is overburdened now, so the savings there would probably not be refunded.

e_i_pi_2 5y ago

I agree with this reasoning, wondering if you think it'd also apply to the current student loan situation in the US - I've had similar thoughts about how the lenders should be held responsible for giving a loan to a child when the chances of them being able to pay it back aren't very high - that's due diligence they should be doing and be held responsible for. Additionally, the loans are largely given to people under 25 who's brains aren't fully developed.

vineyardmike 5y ago
I think there’s an easier solution: allow the loans to be broken in bankruptcy. If you can default on a loan, you force loan writers to only provide payable loans. $200k loan for an English major? Low chance for a good enough job to pay it back. Comp Sci major at state school who had a 2.0 in high school? High chance of drop out, low chance of payback. We should just give loan companies the kick they need to stop writing bad loans just because it’s protected. Let the free market do it’s thing. I think the same argument applies to cigarettes. Require those companies to underwrite medical care for cigarette related illness, but let people make any decisions they want. Build the externalities into the product price. Doing this would raise cost of cigarettes since you’d essentially have to self-insure with every pack.
- e_i_pi_2 5y ago
  Haha yeah I guess I'm operating under the assumption that bankruptcy isn't an option because it's been that way for a while, but that does seem like a much better solution that still leaves a good amount of responsibility and risk on both sides
- dolni 5y ago
  Looking at this through the devil's advocate lens, it's easy to see how that kind of policy prevents a lot of people from going to college. That could be a bad thing. On the other hand, it could also be a good thing since it would push more people towards the trades, which we sorely need. And maybe it would provide downward pressure on the cost of an education.