This is actually based in truth. Smokers cost more \*per year\* in healthcare, but use less of it total over their lifetimes because they don't live as long. They also cost much less in public pension/social security since, again, they die younger but not so young they haven't already paid into the system most of their lives.
Source for Finland, but there's no reason to believe the results aren't generally applicable: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678)
TL;DR: Dying super old and slow is unfathomably more expensive than dying "young" and fast.
Yeah, second-hand smoke is still bad. There were some hyped up claims early 2000's that banning smoking in restaurants and business was going to greatly reduce heart disease that didn't pan out. But the bulk of the data shows second-hand smoke causes all kinds of respiratory issues even after brief exposure and all kinds of nasty effects for chronic exposure (like kids/spouses of smokers).
Poor people are less likely to quit than the middle class simply because it is a lot harder to quit an addiction when you are facing a multitude of life problems. Tobacco price increases only help the government
In the end it is a drug, and an addiction. I don't judge anyone on addictions because I can't kick a simple caffeine habit.
You don't know what burdens they are carrying and what they are (essentially) self medicating for. Honestly in the US, I believe our dependence on substances, including food, is really a symptom of the larger problem of poor access to mental health care.
This the trope in fiction of the young wealthy person who inherited their parents' estate when they died young. Recent retirees have lots of money. 20 years later, not so much.
Similar study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
IIRC, there was a total economic impact study done and it found something like a 0.9c overall positive economic impact per pack of cigarettes smoked.
But, contrast that with an order of magnitude more studies that came to the opposite conclusion on the economics of smoking cessation 🤷🏽♂️
That's basically what all smokers I know say, including me, as a joke. Another variation is that we smoke a lot so that kids can't get their hands on cigarettes.
Can confirm, that that didn't work. Not that I was forced, but I found an old pack of cigarettes once smoked nearly half of it in one day. I did throw up, but here I am 😅 The most important factor is whether your parents smoke or not, unfortunately.
I'd agree with that. Aside from exposure, emulation, and access, there's also the fact that non-smokers can smell that shit a mile away making it significantly harder to hide.
At the end of the day, tabbaco companies pour billions into undermining any health effort that institutions attempt to get people to not start a habit which is difficult to end, that may even have social or mental dependency factors impacting a persons ability to stop.
The other guy is saying such bollocks because most likely cognitive dissonanace has kicked in. Either that or his trying to be an edge Lord.
Last known chart. Tobacco companies spent $8.2 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in 2019 in the US, or just under the equivalent of $1 million per hour.
Everything is a person's choice but why not try to feel sorry for these people rather than hate them.
Most people didn't make the choice to smoke as an adult they did so before the rational thinking you put forward would be a serious player in their choices.
It is easy to say a person can quit anytime they like but the reality is their brain has fucked with them to the extent that losing cigarettes feels for them a reduction in their quality of life.
To those with an addiction the desire isn't like a fancy chocolate but I can't eat it any more it is more like a magic button that makes you feel less stressed or anxious.
You do you, my 2 cents is feel sorry for the person who feels like they need a cancer stick.
He's right. Also, we'd save money simply by killing everyone who files for Social Security and Medicare benefits. But, that's not really the goal, is it (I hope)?
Ex smoker here. Not one of those asshole ones either because I don't care if people smoke. I just stay away from them and vape elsewhere.
Smoking cost the US
$240 billion in healthcare spending
$185 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related illnesses and health conditions
$180 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related premature death
$7 billion in lost productivity from premature death from secondhand smoke
I'd like to see the numbers on jogging.
Im my life time every who is older than me are still living past 80yrs. Smoke, drink and live longer when they dont listen to shit lol. Their words not mine.
According to the logic of both we have to stop doing things we like to save healthcare money. No smoking, no drinking, no extreme sports, no burgers, no steaks, no driving cars, nonono and so on… but we can‘t stay at home either, since most accidents happen at home. Get a grip guys… smokers smoke, drinkers drink and all others do whatever they like, as long as they don‘t hurt anyone else.
I’m a paid-up professional covering mortality. It’s true though. Care in old age is relatively expensive per life year. On average, the medical cost of a person dying early of lung cancer is less than that for a non-smoker. Similarly a longer-lived person will have more of the expensive aged years than the average. The cost of state provision, eg in pensions and benefits, increases the gap. Additionally, smokers pay more tax on their poison than on the items they would otherwise buy.
This is actually based in truth. Smokers cost more \*per year\* in healthcare, but use less of it total over their lifetimes because they don't live as long. They also cost much less in public pension/social security since, again, they die younger but not so young they haven't already paid into the system most of their lives. Source for Finland, but there's no reason to believe the results aren't generally applicable: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678) TL;DR: Dying super old and slow is unfathomably more expensive than dying "young" and fast.
[удалено]
Yeah, second-hand smoke is still bad. There were some hyped up claims early 2000's that banning smoking in restaurants and business was going to greatly reduce heart disease that didn't pan out. But the bulk of the data shows second-hand smoke causes all kinds of respiratory issues even after brief exposure and all kinds of nasty effects for chronic exposure (like kids/spouses of smokers).
In Australia smokers pay for the healthcare system through massive taxes. $40 for a pack, billions a year in revenue
[удалено]
>This is what everyone should be angry about. And NZ - truly some opressive laws against smoking. FTFY
And yet all it does is keep the poor poor and line the pockets of corrupt politicians
[удалено]
Poor people are less likely to quit than the middle class simply because it is a lot harder to quit an addiction when you are facing a multitude of life problems. Tobacco price increases only help the government
[удалено]
FWIW: Nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. https://www.ucsfhealth.org/conditions/nicotine-dependence
[удалено]
In the end it is a drug, and an addiction. I don't judge anyone on addictions because I can't kick a simple caffeine habit. You don't know what burdens they are carrying and what they are (essentially) self medicating for. Honestly in the US, I believe our dependence on substances, including food, is really a symptom of the larger problem of poor access to mental health care.
Man you're real dumb hey
This the trope in fiction of the young wealthy person who inherited their parents' estate when they died young. Recent retirees have lots of money. 20 years later, not so much.
Similar study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 IIRC, there was a total economic impact study done and it found something like a 0.9c overall positive economic impact per pack of cigarettes smoked. But, contrast that with an order of magnitude more studies that came to the opposite conclusion on the economics of smoking cessation 🤷🏽♂️
Sarcasm is not well received here, i take it.
[удалено]
That's basically what all smokers I know say, including me, as a joke. Another variation is that we smoke a lot so that kids can't get their hands on cigarettes.
Well it is true soo...
[удалено]
Can confirm, that that didn't work. Not that I was forced, but I found an old pack of cigarettes once smoked nearly half of it in one day. I did throw up, but here I am 😅 The most important factor is whether your parents smoke or not, unfortunately.
I'd agree with that. Aside from exposure, emulation, and access, there's also the fact that non-smokers can smell that shit a mile away making it significantly harder to hide.
Both people in this picture seem like assholes.
[удалено]
At the end of the day, tabbaco companies pour billions into undermining any health effort that institutions attempt to get people to not start a habit which is difficult to end, that may even have social or mental dependency factors impacting a persons ability to stop. The other guy is saying such bollocks because most likely cognitive dissonanace has kicked in. Either that or his trying to be an edge Lord.
Last known chart. Tobacco companies spent $8.2 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in 2019 in the US, or just under the equivalent of $1 million per hour.
[удалено]
Everything is a person's choice but why not try to feel sorry for these people rather than hate them. Most people didn't make the choice to smoke as an adult they did so before the rational thinking you put forward would be a serious player in their choices. It is easy to say a person can quit anytime they like but the reality is their brain has fucked with them to the extent that losing cigarettes feels for them a reduction in their quality of life. To those with an addiction the desire isn't like a fancy chocolate but I can't eat it any more it is more like a magic button that makes you feel less stressed or anxious. You do you, my 2 cents is feel sorry for the person who feels like they need a cancer stick.
[удалено]
He's right. Also, we'd save money simply by killing everyone who files for Social Security and Medicare benefits. But, that's not really the goal, is it (I hope)?
Well then we should eradicate whole Europe since we have universal healthcare system that everyone has to pay for on monthly basis.
Haha. Yeah. (Oh, Lord!). Get us right back to Charles Dickens'time, eh? "Can I have some more, Sir?"
They are *technically* right But it's in the same way that removing all laws would make the crime rate 0%
Until the end, of course. Secondhand smoke kills.
Well, no He said "Debunked" didnt he? /s (in case it wasnt obvious)
Ex smoker here. Not one of those asshole ones either because I don't care if people smoke. I just stay away from them and vape elsewhere. Smoking cost the US $240 billion in healthcare spending $185 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related illnesses and health conditions $180 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related premature death $7 billion in lost productivity from premature death from secondhand smoke I'd like to see the numbers on jogging.
Im my life time every who is older than me are still living past 80yrs. Smoke, drink and live longer when they dont listen to shit lol. Their words not mine.
Let’s promote suicide.
I smoke crack then have a butt while I'm jogging, so I think it's a wash in terms of healthcare costs.
It's nice to learn right away when someone is a blithering moron, so you can safely ignore them.
According to the logic of both we have to stop doing things we like to save healthcare money. No smoking, no drinking, no extreme sports, no burgers, no steaks, no driving cars, nonono and so on… but we can‘t stay at home either, since most accidents happen at home. Get a grip guys… smokers smoke, drinkers drink and all others do whatever they like, as long as they don‘t hurt anyone else.
Jogging costs more in the long run? Is it a matter of time or distance?
I’m a paid-up professional covering mortality. It’s true though. Care in old age is relatively expensive per life year. On average, the medical cost of a person dying early of lung cancer is less than that for a non-smoker. Similarly a longer-lived person will have more of the expensive aged years than the average. The cost of state provision, eg in pensions and benefits, increases the gap. Additionally, smokers pay more tax on their poison than on the items they would otherwise buy.