Smoking is good for society

[Bonnie]

In a report to the Czech government that has outraged antismoking campaigners, the tobacco giant Philip Morris says that smoking--by causing premature deaths--saved the country nearly $150 million in 1999.



Time International, July 30, 2001 v158 i4 p8+


I just found that amusing. It's every welfare- systems's answer to question about how to fund the care for the ageing population. Keep them smoking to kill them off so that we don't have to pay for their health care.

Apparently later on, Phillip Morris went on to clarify that they meant that excise taxes on the tobacco products and so one is what saved the money.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[jsap]

Amen brother!

[Aureliano]

What's even more shockingly amusing is that Bonnie seems to be finally gearing back into academic mode...

Edit: Oh and smoking's bad, m'kay?

[James]

It would be fine if:

[l]
[li]A The smokers' habbit only contributed to their own deaths, rather than those of passive smokers, who can't always avoid the smoke; and

[li]B The smokers, all of whom should, in today's society, know the risks of their habbit, weren't such a drain on NHS resources, which are stretched enough as it is. Make treatment for smokers' smoking-related problems only available privately, though passive smokers should be exempt. People who choose to cross a road might get knocked over and have to go to hospital, but I don't think the consequences of smoking could be called an accident. That's the difference. (I know you can try a reductio argument here, stretching it to drinking, etc., but that's not the discussion into which I wish to step.)
[/l]

I don't mind smokers, I just don't think non-smokers should share the burden. Roll on smoke-free pubs, but don't ban it everywhere, just make it obvious to both patrons and employees so that everyone knows the risks. Passive shokers should have the right not to be. Likewise, smokers know the risks, and shouldn't expect the public to foot the bill for their smoking-related health problems.

Maybe that's a bit strongly worded, but the feeling's there.

[Paranoid]

Thats really old news, I heard that 4 years ago in Management 101!'If you think thats bad you should try taking MN3101 its got some shocking stories (or you can save yourself the time and chase up Dr. Munro Sallies warden he'll explain all!)

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Tweedle-Dum]

You do realise that tax on cigarettes is about 110pc of the amount of money the NHS gets, smokers are more than paying their way.

Quoting James from 12:28, 10th Sep 2005
It would be fine if:

[l]
[li]A The smokers' habbit only contributed to their own deaths, rather than those of passive smokers, who can't always avoid the smoke; and

[li]B The smokers, all of whom should, in today's society, know the risks of their habbit, weren't such a drain on NHS resources, which are stretched enough as it is. Make treatment for smokers' smoking-related problems only available privately, though passive smokers should be exempt. People who choose to cross a road might get knocked over and have to go to hospital, but I don't think the consequences of smoking could be called an accident. That's the difference. (I know you can try a reductio argument here, stretching it to drinking, etc., but that's not the discussion into which I wish to step.)
[/l]

I don't mind smokers, I just don't think non-smokers should share the burden. Roll on smoke-free pubs, but don't ban it everywhere, just make it obvious to both patrons and employees so that everyone knows the risks. Passive shokers should have the right not to be. Likewise, smokers know the risks, and shouldn't expect the public to foot the bill for their smoking-related health problems.

Maybe that's a bit strongly worded, but the feeling's there.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[David Bean]

[li]B The smokers, all of whom should, in today's society, know the risks of their habbit, weren't such a drain on NHS resources, which are stretched enough as it is. Make treatment for smokers' smoking-related problems only available privately, though passive smokers should be exempt. People who choose to cross a road might get knocked over and have to go to hospital, but I don't think the consequences of smoking could be called an accident. That's the difference. (I know you can try a reductio argument here, stretching it to drinking, etc., but that's not the discussion into which I wish to step.)
[/l]

Not this rot again.

Great, that's fine. No more treatment of smoking-related illnesses on the NHS. Wonderful, that would be fantastic. But of course, you'll have to abolish all taxation on tobacco, since there's no other justification for them.

Oops, wait a minute, you just destroyed the NHS.

[hr]

"Don't ask me what you know is true, don't have to tell you, I love your precious heart. I - I was standing, you were there, two worlds collided, and they could never tear us apart" - INXS

[ban retards from mountaineering]

Quoting James from 12:28, 10th Sep 2005
People who choose to cross a road might get knocked over and have to go to hospital, but I don't think the consequences of smoking could be called an accident. [/l]

What about those knob jockeys who go up mountains when the weather forecast is a blizzard for two weeks and then expect to be rescued? They risk others lives without concern.

[Guest]

Quoting David Bean from 17:24, 10th Sep 2005
Oops, wait a minute, you just destroyed the NHS.

Not quite, we still have petrol and alcohol duty.

[David Bean]

Sadly, you're right.

[hr]

"Don't ask me what you know is true, don't have to tell you, I love your precious heart. I - I was standing, you were there, two worlds collided, and they could never tear us apart" - INXS