Hacker News Reader

I think this line of questioning applies to public health issues like cigarettes, sugar, obesity, communicable diseases & vaccinations, etc.

View on HN

Great question as to where to draw the line. Maybe "don't endanger the health of others" is a useful rule of thumb. I don't mind/care if people smoke in their own homes, but don't want them smoking near my children in a park.

To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.

I care if people smoke in their own homes if I am going to have to help subsidize their health care cost.

Smokers have lower health care costs because they die younger, avoiding some of the very expensive end of life treatments that are typical of heart failure and cancer patients.

Very interesting. But I wonder if that takes into account the time value of money. If you saved that health care money up front, it could balloon to a lot more in the years leading up to what would have been an earlier death of the smoker.

And that also assumes we won't get better at treating and prolonging life for things like lung cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com