[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.