smoking never bothered me. i don't do it personally, but if people want crap in their lungs they can do it, just as long as its not in my face.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You know...it kinda makes sense in a callous economic way. If taxes from the sale of cigarettes raise more than the amount of health care it costs to treat smokers before they die, it is a pretty good deal for governments. Especially as these are people at the end of their productive lives anyways.
Kinda cold-hearted, but it is a valid point if you play the devil's advocate.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
Let's see now... I'd put "Economy" in the title, instead of "Society".
Apparently, people who smoke spend a sum of money on sigarettes (and pay related taxes) that is greater than the total amount of credits they would pay in the (on average) 15 or so extra years they would otherwise live. Other variables in the equation are the saved healthcare costs (not having to keep these cancerstick-sucking idiots alive that much longer while they sue tobacco companies for the health problems smoking gave them - but that's a different matter), the loss of trade revenues...
But then, we live in a world where economic concerns and needs always outweigh the importance of any other issue, so this statement doesn't at all surprise me. Of course, if someone wants to deliberately pollute his body and risk his health with some of the most toxic, filthy chemicals ever invented, it's his or her own responsibility. Shame though, that it is ruthlessly exploited for marginal monetary gains. Devils advocate? An understatement.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Bah! No one ever accused evolution of being a particularly nice or compassionate process.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, off-hand I can remember the Canadian government doing a similar study in which they concluded cig taxes paid about a quarter of the total health-care costs of caring for smokers. So clearly the math is different as one compares health care system to health care system.
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I'd say: "Think of it as evolution in action."
But the damned things killed Heinlein.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
But Niven wrote "Think of it as Evolution in Action."
Heinlein WAS 80 when he died, after all (same age as my grandmother when she died, and she'd never smoked), he'd had a good run.
Plus, didn't he have a chronic lung condition in the first place?
