5 ms·

I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. I can't se

I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. I can't see how that could potentially be a net positive for society.

unmole 3y ago
> I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. The vast majority of smokers remain productive until they retire but they have lower lifespans. Also take into account that nicotine suppresses appetite and smokers are less likely to be overweight.
- duckmysick 3y ago
  Apparently, smokers take more sick leave days than non-smokers. From the same report linked in this comment chain, page 53: > As another example, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits also considers potential gains to productivity. There is sufficient evidence both in Australia and internationally to conclude that smokers take more sick leave than non-smokers. There are also academic reports that estimate the level of excess absenteeism attributable to smoking. Using these sources, and others, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits estimated productivity gains that would be realised where the tobacco plain packaging measure prevents initiation of smoking or increases the number of smokers who quit. The estimated value per working smoker avoided is $337.48 per year and the value of increased productivity per working quitter is estimated at $84.37 per year. The report doesn't cite those studies, but here's one from Sweden: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/ > Smoking was found to increase the annual number of days of absence by 10.7 compared with never smoking. Controlling for risk factors at work, and thereby accounting for some of the selection of smokers into riskier jobs, reduced the effect to 9.7 days, corresponding to 38% of all annual absences due to sickness. Moreover, controlling for health status further reduced the effect of smoking to 7.7 days. The effect of smoking on sick leave was similar for men and women. and another from Taiwan: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i33 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i33 > Using a conservative estimate of excess absenteeism from work, male smokers took off an average of 4.36 sick days and male non-smokers took off an average of 3.30 sick days. Female smokers took off an average of 4.96 sick days and non-smoking females took off an average of 3.75 sick days. As a side note, the stark difference between those two countries in excess sick leave is the average annual days of sick leave: 25.2 in Sweden, 3.9 in Taiwan.
  - unmole 3y ago
    > Apparently, smokers take more sick leave days than non-smokers. Sure. Smokers also probably take more breaks at work when they do show up. But that isn't the same as becoming a burden on society as the OP claimed.
    - duckmysick 3y ago
      I was replying to a comment about smokers' productivity, which was mentioned for some reason.
em-bee 3y ago
i found a german article that looks at both sides. the argument appears to be that everyone has health problems in old age that cost money. smokers die earlier so they benefit less from pensions, and the taxes from selling cigarettes make up for the cost of the smokers treatments.

unmole 3y ago

> I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. The vast majority of smokers remain productive until they retire but they have lower lifespans. Also take into account that nicotine suppresses appetite and smokers are less likely to be overweight.

duckmysick 3y ago
Apparently, smokers take more sick leave days than non-smokers. From the same report linked in this comment chain, page 53: > As another example, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits also considers potential gains to productivity. There is sufficient evidence both in Australia and internationally to conclude that smokers take more sick leave than non-smokers. There are also academic reports that estimate the level of excess absenteeism attributable to smoking. Using these sources, and others, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits estimated productivity gains that would be realised where the tobacco plain packaging measure prevents initiation of smoking or increases the number of smokers who quit. The estimated value per working smoker avoided is $337.48 per year and the value of increased productivity per working quitter is estimated at $84.37 per year. The report doesn't cite those studies, but here's one from Sweden: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/ > Smoking was found to increase the annual number of days of absence by 10.7 compared with never smoking. Controlling for risk factors at work, and thereby accounting for some of the selection of smokers into riskier jobs, reduced the effect to 9.7 days, corresponding to 38% of all annual absences due to sickness. Moreover, controlling for health status further reduced the effect of smoking to 7.7 days. The effect of smoking on sick leave was similar for men and women. and another from Taiwan: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i33 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i33 > Using a conservative estimate of excess absenteeism from work, male smokers took off an average of 4.36 sick days and male non-smokers took off an average of 3.30 sick days. Female smokers took off an average of 4.96 sick days and non-smoking females took off an average of 3.75 sick days. As a side note, the stark difference between those two countries in excess sick leave is the average annual days of sick leave: 25.2 in Sweden, 3.9 in Taiwan.
- unmole 3y ago
  > Apparently, smokers take more sick leave days than non-smokers. Sure. Smokers also probably take more breaks at work when they do show up. But that isn't the same as becoming a burden on society as the OP claimed.
  - duckmysick 3y ago
    I was replying to a comment about smokers' productivity, which was mentioned for some reason.

em-bee 3y ago

i found a german article that looks at both sides. the argument appears to be that everyone has health problems in old age that cost money. smokers die earlier so they benefit less from pensions, and the taxes from selling cigarettes make up for the cost of the smokers treatments.