3 ms·
there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less me
by snapplebobapple 6mo ago
there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less medical visits, etc. I am extremely unconvinced that a large cancer related medical cost now has a higher net present value than a stream of government pension payouts, health costs, etc for decades ended with a large medical cost for some other reason. This is the correct comparable for smoking vs non smoking if you are contemplating limiting peoples freedoms and i dont think it holds water.
- Milpotel 6mo agoThe net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3533014/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3533014/ (Finland, 2012)
- snapplebobapple 6mo agoSo the answer is smokers are cheaper so its stupid for the government to dump on smokers like they have been?
- intended 6mo agoIf your government requires its people to be dead, it is by nature a foul and evil thing.
- snapplebobapple 6mo agothats one wrong way to interpret it, yes. The right way is a government choosing criteria to determine how much it should interfere in your personal choices and in that context net cost to the government is a reasonable metric to consider, although not the only metric
- Mawr 6mo agoThis gets easier to answer once you consider that, unlike an alcoholic, a smoker directly harms others around him, not just himself. And that's just on top of all the indirect damage. And then, even as for strictly the damage he does to himself, cancer is far from the only risk.