Smokers vs Non-Smokers Cost on Society

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
It is NOT a repost

Lets look at what was posted yesterday:

Originally posted by: TheBloodguard
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

And what was posted today:

Originally posted by: Amused
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

You even bolded the exact same words. At least you could have put that in the original thread if you have an article with a bit more text.

Originally posted by: Amused
Sorry for your mistake.

I hereby nominate Amuse for the 2009 self-ownage of the year award.

Oops, I thought it was a year old article on the dutch study alone.

My mistake.

Owned.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

Why is it YOUR business to protect others from themselves? Who appointed you mother?

It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.

It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.

Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.

I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

Yeah, that's because the country taxes the shit out of cigs now. Before the major shift and a pack was dirt cheap, that sentence would read something like "the country has a net cost of...".

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

So, your solution is to give them cigarettes and have them smoke themselves to death? Why not just march the elderly into detention centers before they reach that point and make soylent green burgers out of them?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

I'm on board with this.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

Yeah, that's because the country taxes the shit out of cigs now. Before the major shift and a pack was dirt cheap, that sentence would read something like "the country has a net cost of...".

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

So, your solution is to give them cigarettes and have them smoke themselves to death? Why not just march the elderly into detention centers before they reach that point and make soylent green burgers out of them?

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

Yeah, that's because the country taxes the shit out of cigs now. Before the major shift and a pack was dirt cheap, that sentence would read something like "the country has a net cost of...".

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

We are talking about post retirement years. Not productive pre-retirement years.

That's where your argument falls apart. The last ten years of life are a drain when someone is chronically aged, less so when someone is productive until a catastrophic smoking illness takes their lives.

So, your solution is to give them cigarettes and have them smoke themselves to death? Why not just march the elderly into detention centers before they reach that point and make soylent green burgers out of them?

Who said it was a "solution" to anything?

It is my argument against bans/limits/taxes" It is my argument against authoritarian laws.

Sorry the idea of freedom and letting people do what they want with their own bodies is so alien to you that you equate that idea with Nazi death camps and sci-fi atrocities.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

Why is it YOUR business to protect others from themselves? Who appointed you mother?

It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.

It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.

Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.

I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.

Argument fail: I see beer cans and bottles by the roadside all the time (sometimes even in my yard--I damn sure didn't put them there). And candy wrappers. And newspapers, etc...

 

[Paperdoc]

Using costs gets us to all kinds of odd conclusions. For example, capital punishment is a much cheaper way to handle murderers than long-term incarceration. In fact, considering the recidivism rate among most criminals, a major expansion of using the death penalty would really reduce our prison costs!

All the arguments above illustrate that, while costs are a useful type of information in making decisions, they also are quite unreliable. So why do we do it all the time? In part, because it has become a cultural norm in a supposedly business-oriented free market society to consider dollar numbers as really important. And in part because we're lazy. It is pretty easy to quantify most things in terms of dollars spent and earned, wasted or saved. Gets you an number quickly. But how do you put a number on the value of the existence (vs. death = non existence) of a person, to other people or to the greater society? How do you quantify "quality of life" for a sick or an elderly person with disorders that affect their daily lifestyle? You probably can't assign those numbers, and we are so dependent on hard numbers to justify decisions that cannot be challenged, that we will use the numbers available, no matter how questionable, and we will ignore other types of non-quantifiable information.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

Why is it YOUR business to protect others from themselves? Who appointed you mother?

It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.

It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.

Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.

I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.

You know what happens when the people get to tax and ban things they don't like? Pretty soon, something you favor will fall under their axe.

What will you do when it's your bull getting gored?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
Using costs gets us to all kinds of odd conclusions. For example, capital punishment is a much cheaper way to handle murderers than long-term incarceration. In fact, considering the recidivism rate among most criminals, a major expansion of using the death penalty would really reduce our prison costs!

All the arguments above illustrate that, while costs are a useful type of information in making decisions, they also are quite unreliable. So why do we do it all the time? In part, because it has become a cultural norm in a supposedly business-oriented free market society to consider dollar numbers as really important. And in part because we're lazy. It is pretty easy to quantify most things in terms of dollars spent and earned, wasted or saved. Gets you an number quickly. But how do you put a number on the value of the existence (vs. death = non existence) of a person, to other people or to the greater society? How do you quantify "quality of life" for a sick or an elderly person with disorders that affect their daily lifestyle? You probably can't assign those numbers, and we are so dependent on hard numbers to justify decisions that cannot be challenged, that we will use the numbers available, no matter how questionable, and we will ignore other types of non-quantifiable information.

"Cost to society" is the driving forced behind the extreme taxation and much of the laws on tobacco use.

Let's face facts, the majority could care less if people die from smoking. It's the idea that they are paying more for their care that makes the majority want to punish the minority here.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire (longer) lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

Not really. They don't produce much after 65.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.

Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.

Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!

Wrong according to YOU. Who are you to dictate what others do with their bodies?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

Why is it YOUR business to protect others from themselves? Who appointed you mother?

It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.

It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.

Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.

I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.

You know what happens when the people get to tax and ban things they don't like? Pretty soon, something you favor will fall under their axe.

What will you do when it's your bull getting gored?

Ah, the slippery slope argument...right on schedule too. :thumbsup:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
Using costs gets us to all kinds of odd conclusions. For example, capital punishment is a much cheaper way to handle murderers than long-term incarceration. In fact, considering the recidivism rate among most criminals, a major expansion of using the death penalty would really reduce our prison costs!

It's my understanding that the appeals process tends to make those sentenced to death actually more expensive than just letting them rot for decades. I don't have any hard figures on that for you, though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.

Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!

Wrong according to YOU. Who are you to dictate what others do with their bodies?

Psst, let me let you in on a little secret, it's not ME. I just said I don't oppose it, and I really don't.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.

Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!

Fast food, risky hobbies, living in highly polluted areas, etc.

So when society is trying to change people's habits and you agree with them, it's cool, but when society elects a GWB or goes on a years-long SUV buying binge...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Amused, congrats for creating yet another heated debate thread. Your reputation for this is nothing short of legendary.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This just in, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle costs society less money than those who wear them. Let's repeal seatbelt laws too while we're at it! Because when more people die, we all win!

Why is it YOUR business to protect others from themselves? Who appointed you mother?

It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.

It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.

Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.

I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.

You know what happens when the people get to tax and ban things they don't like? Pretty soon, something you favor will fall under their axe.

What will you do when it's your bull getting gored?

Ah, the slippery slope argument...right on schedule too. :thumbsup:

An extremely valid argument, especially when it comes to authoritarian laws.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Amused, congrats for creating yet another heated debate thread. Your reputation for this is nothing short of legendary.

I know.

Hey, it's better than mindless neffing, right?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NFS4
So, smokers are still disgusting and they smell like shit

So do bums, should be ban them as well??????

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.

Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.

Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!

Fast food, risky hobbies, living in highly polluted areas, etc.

So when society is trying to change people's habits and you agree with them, it's cool, but when society elects a GWB or goes on a years-long SUV buying binge...

Oh believe me, I hate stupid legislation. This is not stupid legislation though. Not in my opinion.

 

[Eli]

Haha.. that's awesome.

So whats next? People will start saying that smoking is a form of population control?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Their conclusion is flawed. Thin and healthy people lived much longer and thus were more productive through their entire (longer) lifetime, therefore providing more benefit (financial?) to themselves, the economy, etc. The number they state would/should be offset by this factor, making this argument severely flawed.

I think that is a leap. Are you assuming these people work past retirement? If not they are a drain on the system each year they are living past being a "productive" member of society.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard
Repost of decades old arguments. You don't fix flawed laws by being unhealthy or killing people.

It is NOT a repost, It is an article that includes that study AND others.

Sorry for your mistake.

Then hit reply and post in the other thread. I don't care what your mother told you, you're not special.