[throwawaygh]

> Why is this even a question?

Again, the article explains:

"I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."

[hungryforcodes]

Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.

[cossatot]

The article is from the Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy and is about Canada.

[paulryanrogers]

Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted.

Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.

[systemvoltage]

> Second hand smoke is dangerous too.

This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.

[wildrhythms]

>If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking.

I remember living in the 90s where every restaurant allowed smoking indoors; smoking section or not, the stench and irritability of the smoke permeated the entire space. It was impossible to get away from, other than simply not patronizing restaurants. To this day, I experience an immediate headache when cigarette smoke wafts in my direction.

The question is: Why does somebody's unhealthy habit get to travel with them and affect people around them everywhere they go?

[systemvoltage]

Yeah, I have the same problem with Marijuana. Our apartment complex has a courtyard which has been destroyed by the stench of Marijuana. It permeates every corner, it doesn’t go away.

I have no problem with people smoking Marijuana but people need to be more considerate.

[34679]

Unless you can prove that my actions are directly harming you, you have no claim to control over what I do. My skin demarks the beginning of a sovereign dictatorship ruled by me. Your rules and desires do not apply here.

Second hand smoke = direct

Economic impact = indirect

[lanstin]

that statement about "me" is not really justified by the science. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-cau...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

In some contexts we are creatures of cause and effect, interdependent on many chance things. Even yawning is not solely a matter of sovereignty.

My thoughts may not control your thoughts but still the analysis of more than one person at a time is useful.

[systemvoltage]

I like this straightforward argument and an honest stance. I think it is OK for Gov to provide warnings to people. Put nutrition labels. Even Tax things to a certain degree (need to put limits on how much). But, prohibiting access is crossing the line.

[throwawaygh]

I didn't even express agreement with the quote. OP asked a question. The answer to that question is given right in the VERY short article.

[ReptileMan]

You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.

[woodruffw]

I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.

[ReptileMan]

And yet the loved ones decision how to live their lives greatly outweigh what many people would like to see.

Having more pleasurable life when young while trading for a more gruesome death after 80 is not that bad of trade off.

There was a joke:

- Drinking, smoking and whoring shorten your life with 6 years. - Which six? Between 92 and 98 - take it.

[woodruffw]

I don't disagree. But it's also not clear why the government should incentivize individually cheap, collectively expensive personal decisions like current smoking patterns.

[febeling]

Many people would like to see their loved ones live in freedom, too. That means in probably almost 100% of the cases making sub-optimal decisions.

[twofornone]

Most people do not get the fortune of dying peacefully in their sleep, regardless of their health habits.

[woodruffw]

Which doesn't, in itself, justify a particularly nasty form of death for hundreds of thousands of people. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?