[pkulak]

Wow, lots of libertarian absolutists up this morning.

Guys, that's all well and good as a philosophy, but you need to integrate your views into the world around you too. When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs, and assume responsibility for everyone's health, you also may need some ground rules. I know it sucks, because _you_ may have just been born there and you don't really have a choice in what society you live, so that means care needs to be taken, but it doesn't mean there can never be any cost-of-entry.

[oompydoompy74]

I guess they should ban all the chippies too. Everyone is unhealthy in their own way and that’s the cost of doing business. Socializing healthcare does not require banning unhealthy behavior. It turns out that money does in fact grow on trees and they can make more because it’s fucking fake and it always has been. How are we going to pay for this!?! You literally create money. Governments do it all the time for missiles .

[BLKNSLVR]

Cigarettes don't grow out of the ground to be able to be deep fried. Some private enterprise manufactures them for sale.

Just ban the sale of them in the country. They offer no positive for society or humanity whatsoever. Chippies at least have their origins in actual food sustenance.

If some new slow method of societally expensive suicide hit the market, it would get banned quick smart. Cigarettes have only stuck around so long because of legacy and well funded lobbyists and PR / marketing types that have been happy to lie at the cost of millions of lives.

Nice, let's defend that.

[keybored]

> If some new slow method of societally expensive suicide hit the market, it would get banned quick smart. Cigarettes have only stuck around so long because of legacy and well funded lobbyists and PR / marketing types that have been happy to lie at the cost of millions of lives.

> Nice, let's defend that.

Many discussions about freedom are just marketing and corporate interests in a trench coat.

I guess this is my favorite bug bear now.

[BLKNSLVR]

Privatise the profits and socialise the costs. It's the American way!

Let's hope it recedes back to the US sooner rather than later. Let this be the first domino.

[KetoManx64]

Wow, lots of statists up this morning.

Guys, it's all well and good as a philosophy, but maybe you should take a second look and reconsider that the state just keeps creeping more and more into your private affairs and is very glad when you believe them when they say things are "for the children" and "for the public good". One day you might find yourself in jail for sharing a meme that is critical of the government in any way.

[joquarky]

Have you seen Demolition Man (1993)?

[tt24]

> When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs

Look, I found the problem!

[pkulak]

Democracy is the problem?

[tt24]

To a large extent yes, but more specifically the decision to collectively shoulder healthcare costs is the problem.

[noplacelikehome]

Why is it a problem? Why should the ability to afford healthcare determine your ability to access it?

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think it's reasonable for the less financially well off to die.

[tt24]

Why should I ever have to pay for someone else’s healthcare lol, that seems wild to me

[roenxi]

The ironic part to me is you're making an argument similar to one the libertarian absolutists make - society can't shoulder healthcare costs because then it'll need to start taking responsibility over how healthily people live their lives. Without even taking a position on good or bad of it, if the "you also may need some ground rules" is going to stick, why not also bring in mandatory exercise and ban people from sugar and alcohol too? Be a big win for healthcare costs and do people the power of good.

I actually quite like your comment, it'd be interesting to have the stats on whether the downvoter objected to your tone or if they made the logical inference that this argument undermines universal healthcare and didn't like that.

[pkulak]

> why not also bring in mandatory exercise and ban people from sugar and alcohol too

I literally said "so care needs to be taken" and you hit me with a slippery slope argument?

[roenxi]

There isn't really a slope here. If we take your original comment for the justification, then what is your argument for why sugar or alcohol are OK and cigarettes not? Alcohol and cigarettes are basically the same category of goods.

Exercise is maybe a slippery slope because it requires enforcing a positive action, but if we're going to force people to be healthy anyway, why not? In a practical sense, not a theoretical one? If you've got theoretical concerns, why doesn't that apply to cigarettes?

[BLKNSLVR]

For me the answer is easy: alcohol and sugar in moderation do not have negative effects. They may have few positive ones, and there's the easy argument that 'in moderation' is a rule followed by exactly no one, but cigarettes have no 'safe' level of consumption. Heck, passive smoking can cause lung cancer. You can't passively absorb sugar or alcohol. Sure, alcohol can lead to putting other people in danger, but there are existing laws around that.

Literally nothing in the world would be less fun or good or enjoyable if cigarettes simply no longer existed (unless you're already addicted, and the day that cigarettes disappear will be the first day of the rest of your longer life).

[roenxi]

That seems to be a completely different argument. pkulak was saying this was about the cost of healthcare in a society that has decided to handle such costs collectively. If you want to make an argument that this is about the minimum possible harm done by cigarettes that's a bit of a non-sequitur.

Although I will say a minimum possible harm argument is weird on practical grounds. Members of my family have smoked in the past, its done them some theoretical tiny amount of damage that is so close to 0 as to be the same thing. That doesn't require the police to get involved. The harm done by the amount of work to earn the taxes and pay the police was probably greater than the damage done by the smoking.

> Literally nothing in the world would be less fun or good or enjoyable if cigarettes simply no longer existed

That seems ridiculous. Obviously there are people who smoke for pleasure. I know several. You can't just tell them that they aren't having fun and pretend that counts.