Phasing out smoking

[RedWolf]

Or... you could privatise the Health service and let people pay for their own mistakes....

IMHO, it's perfectly reasonable for a government to charge smokers more (through taxes) for the (assumed nationalised) Health service, as they are more likely to be a strain on it. It also has the effect of reducing the take-up of smoking amongst young people, if the price is prohibitively high (it isn't, but it could be made so through taxes).

Ok but back to my original point - smoking is just one of MANY poor lifestyle choices that people make. I don't smoke but I certainly do other unhealthy things - the vast majority of us do.

If you're going to accept nationalized healthcare (I do) then I think you're going to have to accept the fact that some people will lead healthier lives then others. Some people will require more care then others. But do you really want to live in a society that is nickle and diming you for every "un-healthy" thing you do?

If you want to start penalizing people for that then you can't just pick one such bad habit and start charging THEM more.. you have to do it across the board which becomes logistically very difficult. The reality is that MOST people aren't choosing particularly healthy lifestyles. Do I have to start paying more taxes because I work in an office and sit at a desk for 10 hours a day? Are we going to charge more taxes to my brother who paintballs every weekend and has a higher chance of getting a paintball in the eye or breaking his ankle while running through the woods? How about the guy who orders greasy, cheezy, meaty pizza twice a week? Or the guy who doesn't ever eat vegetables? Or the jogger that likely will need hip replacement surgery during middle age? Life is dangerous and we're all killing ourselves and most of us are dieing.

 

[IglooDame]

Ok but back to my original point - smoking is just one of MANY poor lifestyle choices that people make. I don't smoke but I certainly do other unhealthy things - the vast majority of us do.

If you're going to accept nationalized healthcare (I do) then I think you're going to have to accept the fact that some people will lead healthier lives then others. Some people will require more care then others. But do you really want to live in a society that is nickle and diming you for every "un-healthy" thing you do?

If you want to start penalizing people for that then you can't just pick one such bad habit and start charging THEM more.. you have to do it across the board which becomes logistically very difficult. The reality is that MOST people aren't choosing particularly healthy lifestyles. Do I have to start paying more taxes because I work in an office and sit at a desk for 10 hours a day? Are we going to charge more taxes to my brother who paintballs every weekend and has a higher chance of getting a paintball in the eye or breaking his ankle while running through the woods? How about the guy who orders greasy, cheezy, meaty pizza twice a week? Or the guy who doesn't ever eat vegetables? Or the jogger that likely will need hip replacement surgery during middle age? Life is dangerous and we're all killing ourselves and most of us are dieing.

Seconded. I'm not in favor of nationalized health care, and this is one of the fundamental reasons - once you've agreed that others are responsible for your health, they're automatically granted a measure of authority over your health.

 

[Bill3000]

Seconded. I'm not in favor of nationalized health care, and this is one of the fundamental reasons - once you've agreed that others are responsible for your health, they're automatically granted a measure of authority over your health.

The US government already has a measure of authority over peoples' health - the Food and Drug Administration.

 

[RedWolf]

Seconded. I'm not in favor of nationalized health care, and this is one of the fundamental reasons - once you've agreed that others are responsible for your health, they're automatically granted a measure of authority over your health.

I do in fact support nationalized healthcare I just wish some people would act less self righteous about other people's "unhealthy habits" considering most people do their own unhealthy things and the list is really quite endless. Smoking and fatness seems to be the "nasty" of the day lately.

Personally, I want to enjoy life - and that possibly includes things that aren't always "healthy". So in return for that right I'm willing to overlook other's indescretions as well.

 

[Mise]

Ok but back to my original point - smoking is just one of MANY poor lifestyle choices that people make. I don't smoke but I certainly do other unhealthy things - the vast majority of us do.

If you're going to accept nationalized healthcare (I do) then I think you're going to have to accept the fact that some people will lead healthier lives then others. Some people will require more care then others. But do you really want to live in a society that is nickle and diming you for every "un-healthy" thing you do?

If you want to start penalizing people for that then you can't just pick one such bad habit and start charging THEM more.. you have to do it across the board which becomes logistically very difficult. The reality is that MOST people aren't choosing particularly healthy lifestyles. Do I have to start paying more taxes because I work in an office and sit at a desk for 10 hours a day? Are we going to charge more taxes to my brother who paintballs every weekend and has a higher chance of getting a paintball in the eye or breaking his ankle while running through the woods? How about the guy who orders greasy, cheezy, meaty pizza twice a week? Or the guy who doesn't ever eat vegetables? Or the jogger that likely will need hip replacement surgery during middle age? Life is dangerous and we're all killing ourselves and most of us are dieing.

Yes, it is very difficult to apply this sort of thing across the board. But for the things we can apply it to, we should.

 

[warpus]

I do in fact support nationalized healthcare I just wish some people would act less self righteous about other people's "unhealthy habits" considering most people do their own unhealthy things and the list is really quite endless. Smoking and fatness seems to be the "nasty" of the day lately.

Personally, I want to enjoy life - and that possibly includes things that aren't always "healthy". So in return for that right I'm willing to overlook other's indescretions as well.

Right, but indulging in something that isn't healthy from time to time and being 400 pounds & smoking 2 packs a day is something entirely different.

The problem with nicotine is that it's physically addictive. If you're a smoker, you are physically addicted, therefore you must smoke a significant amount of cigarettes a day. That is not just unhealthy - it is going over the top. It's not like you're smoking 1 cigarette every couple days, or eating fast food once a week.

 

[IglooDame]

The US government already has a measure of authority over peoples' health - the Food and Drug Administration.

Yes, but the FDA comes at it from the standpoint of consumer benefit, not taxpayer authority. They can only work to prevent certain substances from being on the market or available without a prescription. Under a nationalized healthcare scheme, there's no philosophical objection to banning the action of smoking, as opposed to the sale of cigarettes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Even under a nationalised system, taxing the cigarettes (instead of banning them) seems to work quite well.

 

[RedWolf]

Yes, it is very difficult to apply this sort of thing across the board. But for the things we can apply it to, we should.

If you can't do it across the board then it's unfair and thus unwarranted. Why should you be allowed to do YOUR unhealthy thing... but I'm not allowed to do mine? (Assuming I was a smoker).

 

[RedWolf]

The problem with nicotine is that it's physically addictive. If you're a smoker, you are physically addicted, therefore you must smoke a significant amount of cigarettes a day. That is not just unhealthy - it is going over the top. It's not like you're smoking 1 cigarette every couple days, or eating fast food once a week.

I know lots of smokers that smoke a couple a day.. or possibly only when they drink.

And I know people that eat fast food significantly more then once a week.

 

[warpus]

I know lots of smokers that smoke a couple a day.. or possibly only when they drink.

And I know people that eat fast food significantly more then once a week.

And anyone getting lung cancer having smoked more than 1 cigarette every 2 days and anyone having heart problems, eating more than 1 fast food meal every 2 days should have to pay for the treatments out of their own pockets.

I would also argue the same for other unhealthy (unless taken in moderation) things, such as cocaine, ephedrine, etc.

 

[bhsup]

My failed New Year's resolution to quit smoking has prompted me to believe that the organized anti-smoking campaigns by the government and health organizations are nothing but a tyrannical lurch towards big brotherism.

Smoking is as American as Chevrolet, apple pie, and baseball.

 

[Bill3000]

My failed New Year's resolution to quit smoking has prompted me to believe that the organized anti-smoking campaigns by the government and health organizations are nothing but a tyrannical lurch towards big brotherism.

Smoking is as American as Chevrolet, apple pie, and baseball.

Chevrolet is a french word.

 

[emzie]

According to an old (8 years) estimate from the Centers for Disease Control the annual economic cost per smoker is >3000$ so your 550$ per year are not enough to offset this

I would counter by saying that only medical expenses should be figured into that, which is ~1600. In addition, those are US numbers and medical care is quite more expensive there.

Also, that ~550 was in addition to all other taxes a person has paid....

 

[Mise]

If you can't do it across the board then it's unfair and thus unwarranted. Why should you be allowed to do YOUR unhealthy thing... but I'm not allowed to do mine? (Assuming I was a smoker).

As a smoker, I see no reason why I shouldn't have to pay more for healthcare (via cigarette taxes) than another person.

I also happen to be one of the "1 or 2 a day" smokers.

The question you should really be asking is why the general public should have to pay for individuals' choices. Two wrongs don't make a right; just because the general public pays for fat people to have heart attacks doesn't mean that they should ALSO have to pay for smokers to have lung cancer. I'd rather be fair to some of the people than unfair to all of the people; I'd rather be hypocritical but right some of the time than be consistently wrong.

Why should I have to pay for someone else's house burning down? Or someone else's car getting stolen? Or someone else's street being repaired? Or someone else's kid being taught? I shouldn't, but do, because there's no other way of doing it. Why should I pay for a stupid driver getting into an accident? I shouldn't, and don't, because there's a better way of doing it.

 

[RedWolf]

As a smoker, I see no reason why I shouldn't have to pay more for healthcare (via cigarette taxes) than another person.
Or someone else's kid being taught? I shouldn't, but do, because there's no other way of doing it. Why should I pay for a stupid driver getting into an accident? I shouldn't, and don't, because there's a better way of doing it.

The problem in this discussion however is that if you're not right across the board - the justification falls apart.

We're making the argument that a smoker costs the healthcare system MORE then a "regular" person due to their nasty habit right? Well if we start ignoring all of the thousands of risk factors then how do we know a difference even exists? By how much MORE is the smoker a risk if we're not factoring in everything else that everybody else is potentially doing? I understand when you say that "it's not perfect but it's better then nothing" but I don't agree in this case - Why should a smoker pay extra for health care when his risk is maybe identical to an overweight person who pays NOTHING extra? What are we charging the smoker for really if his risk is no different than somebody else who is paying nothing? He's getting the royal shaft.

 

[mdwh]

I propose a better idea:

Any Government elected before, say, Jan 1st 1990 (or any arbitrary date that would allow any Government currently elected to still continue behave in the same way) can pass laws that criminalise people for doing things in private even if they harm no one else, just because other people don't like it, but after that, please, no more.

 

[Red Door]

My failed New Year's resolution to quit smoking has prompted me to believe that the organized anti-smoking campaigns by the government and health organizations are nothing but a tyrannical lurch towards big brotherism.

Smoking is as American as Chevrolet, apple pie, and baseball.

This reminds me of the study which found that the "Anti-Smoking" commercials led to more kids smoking. Talk about effective marketing.

 

[skadistic]

This reminds me of the study which found that the "Anti-Smoking" commercials led to more kids smoking. Talk about effective marketing.

And those 'truth' adverts are extreamly biased and dare I say staged. My favourite is the one where dude sets up a little stand selling Camels flavoured cigarettes. And directly tries to market it to kids then the kidds come up and he has to tell them its adult only. To bad its nothing like real life.

If you noticed the feds. have changed thier tactics in the drug free adverts from telling you how evil it is to saying its not so bad you'll sit sit on jimmies couch and nothing bad will happen but you wont ride a bike or have fun.

If they just told the truth instead of twisting it and embelishing stuff the message might get out there and be believed.


[Poster is a former smoker]

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

First check out my sig.

Smoking is bad but if you want to smoke, fine. If you wish to ban smoking on your property, fine. Banning smoking just because, not fine.