[Aphex19]

I am also an ex smoker, but the labels wouldn't bother me, they're only pictures. I doubt anyone who needs a "fag" will be looking at the packet anyway.

[CTphpnwb]

I don't think these pictures are intended to get people to quit anymore than "Joe Camel" was intended to keep them smoking. It's advertising, and like most advertising it's intended to have an affect on potential new customers.

[Choscura]

Those images are for pussies, but even these don't stop people from smoking here.

[baavgai]

Dark_Nexus, on 21 June 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

I don't really give a shit if people put pictures of dead animals on my meat packages because I am fully aware of the process by which my meat came.

They put dead animals in the packets. People still don't make the connection. Or pointedly ignore it. I've taught butchering classes before; it's surprising how squeamish people who eat meat can get. I believe that if you aren't willing to deal with the reality that you're killing something for food, you really are unworthy of consuming it.

Same for smokes. You have to own the death on the flaming stick. You should know by now it will kill you and no bitching and moaning and suing the cig company when it happens.

When I smoked, I was sitting next to a kid who quipped something about being young and quitting in a few years and he'll be ok. I looked this idiot in the eye and told him he was a poor deluded bastard who would was shortening his life with every puff. If he was too much of a pussy to own that, he should stop right now. This guy looked like I'd punched him in the head. Yes, some people are that thick. I like to think I made him quit. That, or he'll see my face every time he's hacking up a lung.

[BenignDesign]

CTphpnwb, on 21 June 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

No, the assumption is that the average smoker causes illness(es) to themselves or others that cost the government money in health expenses through systems like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc., and through lost taxes due to lower GDP. I would expect that the total of these expenses is much greater than $200K, and that the government's actual cost is probably higher.

As for fat people, sky divers, etc., I agree that they aren't paying enough to cover their costs either. Let's start with the smokers and then move on to the next most costly on the list.

KYA, on 21 June 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

I can't wait for the nanny state. Wouldn't want people to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

No one's advocating making them illegal. I'm only saying that if you want to buy them you should have to pay the full cost. That's part of the consequences.

Why should I have to subsidize your bad decisions?

I smoked for 14 years. Pregnancies aside, in that entire time, I visited the doctor twice - once for the flu and once to have stitches in my leg after a 'Hey guys! Watch this!' moment. My children were exposed to my smoking (albeit minimally because I did smoke outside only) for the first 6-8 years of their lives (6 for the younger child, 8 for the older). Aside from annual physicals, they've had - maybe - 5 doctor visits each their entire lives... usually for something they picked up at school.

Insurance or no insurance, to date my smoking has cost very little in the health care department.

My three best friends - and their husbands - and nine of my siblings - and their spouses/significant others - all smoke. They all raised/are raising children in and around their smoke. Yet I have not noticed any significant increase in the amount of time/money spent on medical care as a result.

Surely out of 25 smokers and all their children there would be ONE to fit your definition of 'average', right? I'm not advocating smoking in any fashion - it's not a good habit to start if you can avoid it. I'm simply pointing out that reality doesn't quite line up with your generalizations.

[xclite]

Next year B9 is struck with lung cancer, which (Odin forbid) her children develop in their 30s. Her one regret is that she can't scrub this post from google's infinite memory machine.

[BenignDesign]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

to date my smoking has cost very little in the health care department.

Learn to read, asshole.

[xclite]

Civility appears to have gone out the window. You do know that calculating the cost of health care for an average smoker would include the costs before some arbitrary time they stopped to consider their cost "to date" AND the cost after they develop a terminal illness as a result?

I'm not saying the generalization is right, I'm just saying your argument fails to disprove it.

"I'm not dying yet so clearly the average smoker doesn't use more in health care!"

[NeoTifa]

She's using herself as an example to show a counter-example to the original argument.

[BenignDesign]

My point was that out of what totals roughly 45 people, you would think one of them would have developed smoke-related problems by now.... or, by CTphpnwb's definition are we all simply above average?

[xclite]

Except she CAN'T because she hasn't lived her entire life yet.

That's like me saying that I'm beating genetics because at a ripe age of 45 I haven't developed prostate cancer yet. Clearly I'm a contradiction to the rule! Except I could develop it any time in the next 30 years and fit right in.

This post has been edited by xclite: 22 June 2011 - 06:45 AM

[BenignDesign]

omfg.

[xclite]

There's not some arbitrary deadline by which the effects of smoking must take effect or you are suddenly part of the "no extra health costs" group. If the effects were that predictable, my grandparents would be alive and smoking would be illegal.

[lordofduct]

So B9's example isn't the most scientific or accurate.

In the same respect CTphpnwb's numbers of 200,000 dollars over 30 years that aught to be covered by them through a sin tax is also far fetched. Let alone that his figures include the idea of 'financing' or 'taking a 30 year loan', and also its assumptions that people don't already put money into their own health care as is and that a large chunk of said diseases debt didn't already land on their head.

It's just as lame, if not more so.

[xclite]

Definitely agreed with that.