What's new
By:

Do you smoke?

Do you smoke?

  • Total voters
    57
Any thoughts on this subject? What about the costs of smoking imposed on everyone who chooses not to smoke?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...on-smokers-to-subsidize-your-health-coverage/

This isn't the only cost, and it isn't as temporary as this article makes it sound. We all pay the price when someone is treated for a smoking-related disease and doesn't have insurance, for example. Not to mention potential environmental costs.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Any thoughts on this subject? What about the costs of smoking imposed on everyone who chooses not to smoke?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...on-smokers-to-subsidize-your-health-coverage/

This isn't the only cost, and it isn't as temporary as this article makes it sound. We all pay the price when someone is treated for a smoking-related disease and doesn't have insurance, for example. Not to mention potential environmental costs.
Click to expand...

We should ban people being fat too then.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
We should ban people being fat too then.
Click to expand...

Might not be a bad idea. Although that risk is inherent in something everyone does to survive, as opposed to an activity that is very well known to cause health issues when used as intended and has no other intrinsic value of any kind.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That is also avoiding the question.
Click to expand...

I'm telling he's soft now.

The problem is you can't know or find where to stop when you try to recompense or implement any sanctions. When you think cumulatively of things, then almost everything costs a lot and is imposed on everyone.
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
I'm telling he's soft now.

The problem is you can't know or find where to stop when you try to recompense or implement any sanctions. When you think cumulatively of things, then almost everything costs a lot and is imposed on everyone.
Click to expand...

That is true, but some things become obvious that the costs originate from something that is entirely superfluous. In that case is it worth the billions in health care costs and increased damage to the environment. Even that logic is a slippery slope. Well since everything is bad sooner or later we might as well allow everything. Or we can't do anything to stop that because fat people cost just as much. At some point a decision has to be made, and that argument ends up being circular.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Any thoughts on this subject? What about the costs of smoking imposed on everyone who chooses not to smoke?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...on-smokers-to-subsidize-your-health-coverage/

This isn't the only cost, and it isn't as temporary as this article makes it sound. We all pay the price when someone is treated for a smoking-related disease and doesn't have insurance, for example. Not to mention potential environmental costs.
Click to expand...

That's part of a deal on a society that takes care of it's people. You take care of people who make unhealthy decisions.

There's no great alternative. One is to not take care of smokers and let them die of their disease. But in general we aren't a heartless society so that won't happen, as much as people on keyboards claim they want it to. The other is to ban tobacco, and it may happen, but prohibition is a miserable failure so if it happens there are costs to prohibition that will just replace the health care costs. You'll have to imprison tobacco smugglers, bust people growing tobacco hydroponically in their houses, and expand police resources on busting people out there sucking on their devil sticks.

Free societies tend to incur these costs. In this case freedom isn't free.

I remember reading about a rock climber whose climb went astray and had to be rescued. It was estimated the rescue cost about $25k, and that the taxpayers had to foot the bill. That doesn't seem fair to me if I lived there. I certainly didn't force him to go climb a rock and put his life in potential danger. But what's the alternative? Let him die? Garnish his wages until he can pay back the $25k? Ban rock climbing? As much as I wouldn't like it I accept it because that's part of living in a free society.
 
Nate505 said:
That's part of a deal on a society that takes care of it's people. You take care of people who make unhealthy decisions.

There's no great alternative. One is to not take care of smokers and let them die of their disease. But in general we aren't a heartless society so that won't happen, as much as people on keyboards claim they want it to. The other is to ban tobacco, and it may happen, but prohibition is a miserable failure so if it happens there are costs to prohibition that will just replace the health care costs. You'll have to imprison tobacco smugglers, bust people growing tobacco hydroponically in their houses, and expand police resources on busting people out there sucking on their devil sticks.

Free societies tend to incur these costs. In this case freedom isn't free.

I remember reading about a rock climber whose climb went astray and had to be rescued. It was estimated the rescue cost about $25k, and that the taxpayers had to foot the bill. That doesn't seem fair to me if I lived there. I certainly didn't force him to go climb a rock and put his life in potential danger. But what's the alternative? Let him die? Garnish his wages until he can pay back the $25k? Ban rock climbing? As much as I wouldn't like it I accept it because that's part of living in a free society.
Click to expand...

I guess some it this has to do with how you define free. We already have prohibition on things deemed damaging to society. Buy any morphine lately? And what would have been wrong to have the climber foot the bill. My son was in a roll over car accident last summer and we got stuck with over $20k in medical bills that I'm not getting any taxpayer help with. So when is the cost too high for society to tolerate it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I957 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
LogGrad98 said:
I guess some it this has to do with how you define free. We already have prohibition on things deemed damaging to society. Buy any morphine lately? And what would have been wrong to have the climber foot the bill. My son was in a roll over car accident last summer and we got stuck with over $20k in medical bills that I'm not getting any taxpayer help with. So when is the cost too high for society to tolerate it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I957 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Yes, freedom to most people means that they can do stuff that they think is morally ok. It's not my definition of freedom, but so it goes in this society. If someone wants to use morphine or shoot up heroin all day, I really don't care. If they don't work they are being a sponge on society, but by throwing them in prison for using the stuff they are also being a sponge on society.

I have no issues with the climber footing the bill, but the reality is that most people don't have an extra $25k lying around. So in that instance you are pretty much sending someone to bankruptcy court, or you make it a non-dischargable debt (which if it becomes too big a burden discourages people from working or encourages people to work under the table...both of which stifle tax revenue).
 
Then there wouldn't be lyrics like these:

"Cigaramı sardım karşı sahilde
Yaktım ucunda acıları
Ağları attım anılar doldu
Anılar hasretimin kıyıları
Yareme tuz diye yakamoz bastım
Tek şahidim Ay'dı, aman aman
Bir elimde defne
Bir elimde sevdam
Kalbim, Ege'de kaldı."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVNqXDfcNgk
 
addictionary said:
Then there wouldn't be lyrics like these:
Click to expand...

sigaramın dumanına sarsam saklasam seni
gitme gitme gittiğin yollardan dönülmez geri
gitme gitme el olursun sevgilim incitir beni
yokluğuna ah yol yol olsa uzasa unutmam seni
gitme gitme gittğin yollardan dönülmez geri
gitme gitme el olursun sevgilim incitir beni
akşam vakti sardı yine hüzünler
kalbim yangın yeri gel kurtar beni senden
akşam vakti dolaştım sokaklarda
yırtık bir afiş seni gördüm duvarda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irGUolvbZyc
 
Nate505 said:
There's no great alternative. One is to not take care of smokers and let them die of their disease. But in general we aren't a heartless society so that won't happen, as much as people on keyboards claim they want it to. The other is to ban tobacco, and it may happen, but prohibition is a miserable failure so if it happens there are costs to prohibition that will just replace the health care costs. You'll have to imprison tobacco smugglers, bust people growing tobacco hydroponically in their houses, and expand police resources on busting people out there sucking on their devil sticks.
Click to expand...

You can tax the product sufficiently to pay for the incurred costs.
 
One Brow said:
You can tax the product sufficiently to pay for the incurred costs.
Click to expand...

Up to a point. When things get taxed too much the financial reward of creating a black market tends to be more than the risk of creating a black market (ie jail) to undercut the taxes.

Interstate black markets exist for tobacco now in states that have taxed the hell out of it, like New York. Granted they are nowhere near the scope of black markets where the product is completely illegal, but they do exist for legal products when the tax burden is too much.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Any thoughts on this subject? What about the costs of smoking imposed on everyone who chooses not to smoke?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...on-smokers-to-subsidize-your-health-coverage/

This isn't the only cost, and it isn't as temporary as this article makes it sound. We all pay the price when someone is treated for a smoking-related disease and doesn't have insurance, for example. Not to mention potential environmental costs.
Click to expand...
Like the $3 bucks a pack I pay in taxes, putting your kids through school. Get off it. Smokers are dead precisely when Americans are the most expensive to medicare, medicaid, and social security. How about we tax cheeseburgers @ $4 a pop. You want to know what kills more people than cancer, heart disease. So unless you have good cholesterol and get yer fat *** off the couch and go to the gym 3 times a week, stfu.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/07/cutting-smoking-rates-will-save-lives-it-wont-save-money/
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/snuff-facts
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top