Are smokers an unrightfully persecuted minority?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm starting to judge society as a nagging little sod who should mind it's own hypocritical business.

 

[Camikaze]

I AM arguing. I am NOT ignoring. I am just arguing that the parameters you want to establish are invalid parameters. And that my parameters are valid parameters. And that according to my parameters - society makes a call it can not make. So any such general call is wrong by default and society just has to shut up or make kind suggestions if it pleases so.

Why shouldn't society make a judgment according to its own parameters? It can accept that you have a right to make your own decision based on your own parameters, but it shouldn't be forced to itself adopt those parameters in assessing that decision. I mean, this really boils down to people having a right to an opinion that's different to yours. Surely society mustn't be bound to accept your parameters for its adjudication anymore than you should be bound to accept society's for your decision, remembering that what we're talking about here is essentially A, B, C, D & E looking at the question and A, B, C & D coming to one conclusion (that smoking is stupid, and not just that smoking is not the right decision for them personally), and E coming to another (that it is not). Why would A, B, C & D's parameters be invalid just because they're different to yours?

You might be contesting society's right to have an opinion, or to judge, I suppose, but I think that's pretty bizarre. So long as you think about things other people do, which is something we have to do all the time, and certainly should do all the time, it's inevitable that you are going to judge those things in some way. I'm fairly sure that's quite unavoidable.

Of course, whether society should be making a judgment is a distinct point from whether it does. Your OP seems to accept that it does, and if we're in agreement that stupidity is an inter-subjectively defined concept applying to acts which society or a group regards as failing some sort of criteria, in this case as to the calculation of risk v reward, I'm not sure what you're contesting. You seem to be saying again that society can't determine smoking to be objectively bad, but we already agreed that that's the case.

I'm starting to judge society as a nagging little sod who should mind it's own hypocritical business.

Remember that judging isn't the same as nagging, though. Society nagging you about its judgment is distinct from it making that judgment. Perhaps smokers are persecuted by the nagging that accompanies the judgment, but the judgment itself doesn't persecute anybody.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not talking persecution. I'm talking nagging little sods judging others because it makes them feel good about their hypocritical little selves.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not talking persecution. I'm talking nagging little sods judging others because it makes them feel good about their hypocritical little selves.

Oh, well I don't think that's related to much of what we've been discussing, if it was intended to be. If you go back to my post that seemed to start the exchange, you'll again see that I made the point about separating the judgment of the act from the judgment of the person; we can each have our own opinions about whether smoking is a good or bad decision, but one decision isn't what we should judge a person on. Though talking about people who judge and then nag in order to make themselves feel good isn't wholly related to that either. To cover one other point you might be trying to get at here, judging smoking one way or the other doesn't disclaim the fact that people are capable of making stupid decisions on other matters; if someone is of the opinion that smoking is stupid, that doesn't make them of the opinion that nothing they do is (or have the opinion that no-one else should have a different opinion on their decisions).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're absolutely right. It wasn't meant to add to the discussion. Just an independant observation.

I'm amused about the effort to draw it in though. Let me nag back a little. I've earned it.

 

[civver_764]

Two wrongs don't make a right

 

[Farm Boy]

If he catches anything like the social experience some lovely people like to gift you with around here? If this is as snarky as he gets, I also think he's earned it and then some.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wonder why exactly they do that. I have the suspicion that the only reason they do it is because they think they can get away with it. Not because the numbers actually call for it.

Interesting. You'd think a scam like that would shake out via the 'free market', no?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Two wrongs don't make a right

Three lefts do.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If this is as snarky as he gets, I also think he's earned it and then some.

Useful heads-up. Will keep snarkiness in check.

Down boy!

Edit: no username relation intended

 

[Farm Boy]

Sorry, I think that'll wash out of jeans.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Interesting. You'd think a scam like that would shake out via the 'free market', no?

Not necessarily I think.

Because I think there is a thing one could call "price culture". A combination of business having a sort of an unspoken agreement and of customers expecting the prices this produces. Sometimes such a culture gets shredded to pieces by a new innovative company or a new innovative strategy. Sometimes it is remarkably resistant.
The reason this exists?
Enough companies seem to prefer to ask for prices as high as possible rather than engage in fierce competition. However, I think once there is a "price culture" of fierce competition it tends to stay that way and we are actually facing the free market you speak of.

Given the image of smoking and opinions like those expressed by Warpus - I fully expect insurance companies to just try to go with high premiums and see if they get though with it simply because of what people expect.

Other examples I see are cloths and food in Germany.
Food tends to be outstandingly cheap in Germany, because we have an outstandingly competitive supermarket environment.
The opposite case seems to apply to clothing. They are done in the same rotten Bangladesh factories as American cloths. Yet more expensive if you want some brands of note. Because brands / retailers know that is how things have developed in Germany and German customers have this price culture ingrained. Or so goes my theory. Even the Internet didn't really stop this.

@Camikaze
Will reply later

 

[warpus]

Given the image of smoking and opinions like those expressed by Warpus - I fully expect insurance companies to just try to go with high premiums and see if they get though with it simply because of what people expect.

They aren't just doing it because they're out to get you, they're doing it because it's essentially and even literally a drug addiction.

And what do they care in insurance? Risk. Drug addictions are risky. You take on risk, you rates go up.

That's the logic they're using, and you're probably right that they'll jump at any chance to use logic to increase rates. I mean, they're sort of almost evil, all they care about is money. If they see people putting addictive substances into their bodies by mixing them with chemicals that are known to cause cancer, setting them on fire, and inhaling them into their lugs, they're going to ask them to pay more. That makes sense to me. Even someone who wasn't evil would ask for more money in that situation.

 

[kramerfan86]

i think the bans in public are reasonable, the extreme taxation rate is not.

 

[Farm Boy]

They aren't just doing it because they're out to get you, they're doing it because it's essentially and even literally a drug addiction.

And what do they care in insurance? Risk. Drug addictions are risky. You take on risk, you rates go up.

That's the logic they're using, and you're probably right that they'll jump at any chance to use logic to increase rates. I mean, they're sort of almost evil, all they care about is money. If they see people putting addictive substances into their bodies by mixing them with chemicals that are known to cause cancer, setting them on fire, and inhaling them into their lugs, they're going to ask them to pay more. That makes sense to me. Even someone who wasn't evil would ask for more money in that situation.

Except we have this situation where in order to mitigate public risk, you are required by law to purchase this product. It's not optional. And we've decided that people who have done things that would also, by your logic, be appropriate to charge them more, instead receive protection/equal rights for their life choices. You just don't support it here because you don't want to. Twinkies are protected. Pregnancy is protected. Unsafe sex is protected. Pre-existing conditions are protected. Unsafe employment is protected. Unsafe hobbies are protected. These things should be protected. Only one notable group is being actively discriminated against.

Edit: I have no idea where the down thumb thing came from to remove it. This tablet hates me.

 

[Core Imposter]

I'm starting to judge society as a nagging little sod who should mind it's own hypocritical business.

Well said.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They aren't just doing it because they're out to get you, they're doing it because it's essentially and even literally a drug addiction.

And what do they care in insurance? Risk. Drug addictions are risky. You take on risk, you rates go up.

That's the logic they're using, and you're probably right that they'll jump at any chance to use logic to increase rates. I mean, they're sort of almost evil, all they care about is money. If they see people putting addictive substances into their bodies by mixing them with chemicals that are known to cause cancer, setting them on fire, and inhaling them into their lugs, they're going to ask them to pay more. That makes sense to me. Even someone who wasn't evil would ask for more money in that situation.

Is there not a growing body of evidence that sugary junk foods are addicting? What about caffeine-laden soda? I think you're really stretching to make distinctions that either don't exist or are effectively meaningless here.

I wonder why exactly they do that. I have the suspicion that the only reason they do it is because they think they can get away with it. Not because the numbers actually call for it.
Though on the other hand things are different with private health insurances, because they may only cover a certain time of ones life and it is disconnected to retirement costs. The later a smoker joins a private insurance, the more expensive this person will be.

And you know, this to me is another example how American culture can be a lot more restrictive than in other parts of the Western world. It seems to me that the cultural melting pot of yours has created a relative (naturally not relative to say Saudi Arabia, but relative to some European countries and I think also elsewhere) cultural authoritarianism. Smoking is just the latest example I cross.

To address the 'money' angle you and Warpus both bring up -

I highly suspect it doesn't make a lot of sense to charge tobacco users more for insurance. For one thing, if it did, then all of the insurance companies would do it, but as I said before, they aren't. For another, while it's taken for granted that smokers will cost health insurers more, I haven't seen a ton of evidence to back that up. And still, the same thing applies to the morbidly obese who do cost a lot more for insurers, but they are prohibited from charging more.

This isn't about insurance companies trying to make more money, it's about the government trying to impose another 'sin tax' on smokers to drive down smoking rates. That much is obvious given all of the above.

It's my opinion that if the government is going to go that route, it should go full-up and also penalize obesity, sedentary lifestyles, risky behavior (base jumping, promiscuous sex, etc) and ALL other life choices that actually do drive up healthcare costs and set the increased rates based on mathemathical formulas that exactly reflect the level of risk for each particular bad choice. That makes rational financial sense and would be fair and more akin to the free market which could and would do that if not for regulation.* But our government doesn't do that, it picks out one product, one segment of society and penalizes them (hell, they aren't even charging alcoholics more!) and not giving them the choice to not buy insurance.

If we want to have a society that compels individuals to have insurance (a very good goal and overall best for society) we should also ensure that people are otherwise allowed to live as they choose and not force them to act as they are told. That's what's going on - the government is trying to get people to quit smoking through insurance rates. It's simply not right and not fair.

*And I do not prefer this solution, I prefer the 'everyone have insurance and no one gets penalized for life choices' route.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

They aren't just doing it because they're out to get you,

No, they are just doing it because they're out to get my money. Or well not my money, because I live in a civilized country where the courts punch any land lord in the dick who even thinks about preventing me from smoking in my apartment

they're doing it because it's essentially and even literally a drug addiction.

So the insurance is worried about me and wants me to help break my drug addiction?

all they care about is money

Okay I guess not.

Drug addictions are risky. You take on risk, you rates go up.

That is a nice blanket statement there. But as I already conveyed, I am not convinced that the numbers (which obviously involve risk) support premiums in the case of smokers. I am fairly sure they don't if you have a general public insurance scheme, I am absolutely certain if you factor in public retirement insurance schemes. I am not certain how things look with a private health insurance which only covers a part of ones lifetime. But I have my doubt and suspicions. And I think there are valid and not just me thinking that "they are out to get me".
To emphasize, because to me you seem confused on this: when I say I have doubts the numbers support it, than I am also saying that I have doubts the risk supports it because the risk is nothing but the risk of the insurance loosing money on me.

*And I do not prefer this solution, I prefer the 'everyone have insurance and no one gets penalized for life choices' route.

Seconded. People should be able to focus on what they want in life rather than on what reduces their insurance costs. There is enough monetization which already rules our life and stresses us out and puts us in a cage. No more need for that, thank you. The "justice" is not worth it (and besides it is impossible to actually be just about that kind of thing - life is way too complex, you will always pick winners and loosers).

i think the bans in public are reasonable, the extreme taxation rate is not.

I personally am also absolutely fine with prohibiting smoking in closed public space. That is an instance where I actually think that the "OMG-second-hand-smoke"-crowd has good reason to complain. And even I as a smoker enjoy the smoke-free-environment.

 

[Mise]

Since we've separated the social aspect from the legal aspect (e.g. "saying 'it's legal' is a cheap answer"), and we seem to be talking about societal attitudes exclusively now, what about the social nuisance of having to smell all that awful smoke? That's really annoying. If society forms its attitudes on smokers based on how horrible the smell of cigarette smoke is, how it stinks up your clothes if you're in a smoky room for too long, how it makes you cough when you accidentally breathe it in, then is it really any wonder that society views smokers as annoying, rude, obnoxious, bad people?

Sure, people have a legal right to annoy people. But we're not talking about legal rights; we're talking about people's attitudes. If smokers as a group are annoying non-smokers with all that cigarette smoke and litter and stuff, then is it really any wonder that non-smokers treat smokers with disdain? Is it morally justifiable to annoy people with cigarette smoke? Is it morally justifiable to nag people who annoy them with cigarette smoke?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it morally justifiable to nag people who annoy them with cigarette smoke?

When I go out of my way not to annoy people to the extend that I go outside at home when we have visiters in whatever temperatures (and I know I'm not unique in that regard), I think I have the right to nag back at naggers.

So if you are annoyed by a smoker, address that smoker. Don't bring that attitude in my face.

Smokers as a group is runny, smelly bs. Howcome it's ok to judge smokers as a group? Ef that es. I'm not responsible for anyone but myself. You know what the result of that nagging is? It makes me want to deserve it since I'm getting it anyway.