[baavgai]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

or, by CTphpnwb's definition are we all simply above average?

I believe the term is "special."

[xclite]

"Gifted."

[lordofduct]

My mommy said I was 'special', and that's why I didn't have to go to school.

[CTphpnwb]

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

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.

You've got another 16 years to go during which time the affects of smoking are more pronounced, and you aren't counting the times you missed work because of "the flu" or something else that you might have dismissed as normal, nor are you counting illnesses for relatives, friends, and co-workers caused by your smoking. Even strangers in restaurants were adversely affected by your smoke, and while that may seem trivial, multiply it by the millions of other smokers.

Just because you haven't noticed these costs is no reason to believe they aren't there. Humans are amazingly skilled at self-deception.

[CTphpnwb]

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

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.

You can argue with the dollar figure. I'd assume it would be much higher than $200K, but I suppose it could be lower. Still, over thirty years it seems likely that the lost productivity costs alone would be close to $200K, and we all know how expensive health care is.

As for financing, that's because smokers aren't putting aside that money when they buy their first pack. You can't buy anything without financing it either with cash up front or a loan, and the trivial addition to health care premiums certainly doesn't cover it, especially when many end up losing coverage when they lose their jobs due to their health.

[BenignDesign]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Humans are amazingly skilled at self-deception.

They're also amazingly skilled at fear mongering.

This post has been edited by BenignDesign: 22 June 2011 - 08:28 AM

[Jstall]

We have had these warnings in Canada for years, the images seem to grow by about 20% every five years or so. I could see them dissuading a potential new smoker from picking up the habit but doubt they effect those who are already hooked.

I smoked for a few years in my late teens-early twenties. Then I quit, sort of. I still smoke when I drink. It's strange, I have no craving for them whatsoever and find the smell of a cigarette nasty when sober but once I get four or five drinks in my I start to crave them. I buy about a pack a month, smoking about half of one when drink. \

My cousin and his wife both smoke heavily. When she was pregnant with their son she kept smoking. They would drive around with the windows rolled up in their car both smoking away, as well as in their apartment. When the kid was born he had some birth defects, he has no cartilage in his left ear so it's just loose skin that flops around. He is allergic to freaking everything, dairy, wheat. He is always getting sick, he has been to the hospital a dozen times for various afflictions.

They both still smoke around the kid. One of the warnings on the packs says that smoking during pregnancy can cause birth defects, I can't help but wonder what they think when they read that.

[CTphpnwb]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Humans are amazingly skilled at self-deception.

They're also amazingly skilled at fear mongering.

We're not talking Republican politics here. Smoking kills, and that's a fact. It's also a fact that it does it in a very costly way, and even those that aren't killed by it have significantly increased health costs and lost work time. I'm just saying that if you want to choose to smoke then you shouldn't be allowed to pass off those costs to taxpayers.

[xclite]

There are so many other habits that increase costs to taxpayers that you can't really say that. Obesity, inactivity, certain diets, certain activities, certain careers. By definition, half of Americans cost less than or equal to the average health care cost and half cost more (well, not really by definition of average, but you get the point). You can't say that nobody should be allowed to pass off the costs, because as the average cost decreases, more people are costing more than average.

This post has been edited by xclite: 22 June 2011 - 08:36 AM

[BenignDesign]

I didn't deny that smoking kills.

To reiterate, yet again, the whole point in anti-smoking campaigns:
Smoking bad. Smoking make you dead.

Yeah. We got that.

I'm just waiting for you to present some sort of proof of your claims regarding the "average" smoker and monetary totals. Your lackey jumping in to defend you doesn't prove anything.

I was referencing personal experience. From where do your references come?

[no2pencil]

YOU MEAN THIS ISN'T THE AVERAGE SMOKER?

[xclite]

He has a lackey? I want one. Wait, no. I prefer to work alone.

[CTphpnwb]

I believe that you can say that to anyone who chooses to do something that when done as directed will kill you. Everyone needs to eat and work. No one needs to smoke.

Of course, I wouldn't be against adjusting taxes according to obesity levels either, because I believe that is a choice you make too. My diabetic mother gets most of her exercise running from the room when I suggest she go to the gym. That should cost her, and not the rest of us.

[xclite]

Should people born with genetic disorders pay more in taxes because they're a burden on the health system?

[CTphpnwb]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

I was referencing personal experience. From where do your references come?

Personal experience is irrelevant.

The fact is that smoking costs the government money through lost revenue and through higher health costs. As I've said before, you can take issue with the dollar amount, but not the fact that it exists.

xclite, on 22 June 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Should people born with genetic disorders pay more in taxes because they're a burden on the health system?

No. They didn't choose those disorders. It's the choice that matters.