Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkl | Hacker News Reader

Smoking costs NZ taxpayers an enormous amount for healthcare. I (and probably most people) would rather have fewer smokers so my taxes can be used for more productive things. Individual freedoms are always constrained in various ways for the good of society, and I don't see this as much different.

Sidenote: it's 1am here in NZ, so we may not get a very informed discussion here.

View on HN

Almost anything you do( hobbies, diet, having children, etc) affects your actuarial healthcare burden, so introducing that as a justification for restrictions opens the door to regulating anything.

Processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen. Are you going to ban that next? Wait so is sunshine. Are you going to ban sunbathing?

I see this line or argumentation a lot but never a real analysis of why it should be applied in this case. The reality is that people just identify something they want to change and rummage around for a justification and healthcare burden is convenient.

I'm no fan of smoking and think the world would be a lot better without it but this type of argument is not valid in most cases without a much stronger justification.

> Processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen. Are you going to ban that next? Wait so is sunshine. Are you going to ban sunbathing?

This is exactly what the proponents of these kind of laws want. It's all about control. There is a pop appeal that gets taken up by useful idiots - "rah rah they take our take dollars" - much like the border wall folks might try and blame x,y,z on illegal immigrants to get they ideology pushed through.

The healthcare cost impact is more complicated. Smokers consume more healthcare at any given age, but die earlier and cost less in healthcare in their lifetime. At the national level the lifetime costs and aging population impact are arguably more important than single year costs.

NEJM[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506]

If the average lifetime increases noticeably there might be consequences on retirement, likely increasing of expense for pensions, and - before or later - an increase in minimum age requirements to access retirement/pension.

Right now - I believe - the set age is 65 years, which is "common" worldwide, but quite a few countries have gone in recent years or are going to 66-67-68 :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age

Agree, even more reason to discount the "taxpayers are paying for smokers choices" reaction

Interesting. I seem to recall that for some healthcare systems and tobacco tax regimes, smokers were cheaper for society because they tended not to require such long retirement and palliative care, and they contributed quite a bit more tax, but I don't remember the details or the country now, I might be mistaken. What do New Zealand's numbers look like there?

It's an interesting idea though. Would you think all recreational activities should be regulated under the lens of collectivism? Let's say recreational driving -- to the beach or to the ski slopes or to visit friends in another city, or just a good old fashioned road trip -- is there a case that be prohibited because automobile infrastructure and accidents are an enormous financial cost to society and are also one of the leading causes of death in young people?

> What do New Zealand's numbers look like there?

Also curious because this will depend a lot on how healthcare is paid for and how accessible is it. I expect NZ for example to do relatively more intervention in those cases than the US. But a quick search is not very informative.

In most countries, it's not clear if smokers use more health care than average. They do get sick more, but they also die sooner and more quickly. But let's assume it's true, and that smokers do cause an undue burden on the health care system, and therefore smoking should be banned. Why not apply the same argument to obesity?

Obese people definitely cause an undue burden on the health care system. Why not tax them more, or force them to diet and exercise? It would be very cost-effective, allowing taxes to be used for more productive things. And as you said, individual freedoms are always constrained in various ways for the good of society. I don't see this as much different.

you should probably make it illegal to be unhealthy in any way...

Slippery slope argument, so easy.

That is close to what they are doing, for example they deport people for being fat.

https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/new-zealands-solution-ris...

Does it actually cost taxpayers?

In Europe most countries tax cigarettes so much that they actually collect more in tax than smoking costs the healthcare system.

Either way, that's not an argument to ban but rather to increase tax or more general to make smokers bear the cost of related healthcare.

I can’t wait for the fat person tax!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com