Australia to ban vaping.

MrPants said:
Condolences to you on the death of your sister @Warrigal :cry:

Can't think of any other product (Tobacco) that is commercially marketed & sold that has and continues to kill more people worldwide. Not even alcohol kills in the same numbers. It's shocking that so many governments continue to put tax revenue above human life :mad:
Click to expand...
My life is none of my government's business. If I become an actual criminal, ok, my life is theirs for a while, otherwise I wish they'd stay out of it entirely.
 

Murrmurr said:
My life is none of my government's business.
Click to expand...
There could be an argument made that Government's influence on people's lifestyle choices is appropriate when the country you live in has publicly funded healthcare applicable to all without surcharges of any kind should your lifestyle choice end up costing that system hundreds of thousands of dollars or more at some point.

It's a real conundrum though in that case because the same government is collecting billions in tax revenue from products that have a propensity to end up costing that same government billions in healthcare costs. Kind of nuts when you think about it.
 
Turns out people have looked at this:

Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

from: The Health Care Costs of Smoking https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506

So from a strictly cost point of view the government should have no interest in stopping people from smoking, I'd guess the same is true of vaping. And if the lost tax revenue on cigarettes and vape were taken into account abstaining likely costs us even more. Not saying this should make a person smoke, but rather just saying, for the government, the money is not a good reason to get people to stop.
 
Alligatorob said:
Yep, I tend to agree with @Murrmurr but it is a hard one.

Do people who smoke really cost the government more? They may have high healthcare costs for a while, but since they don't live as long that could counterbalance some of it... Always wondered if anyone has done a real cost analysis.
Click to expand...
There's probably no extensive study been done I expect as there are so many variables.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not lobbying for more or any government intervention into my life or anyone's life because most are completely incompetent anyway. I was just putting forth the argument that is made very often here in Canada, which has a publicly funded healthcare. I can tell you haw many times I've heard the same debate, and it's not always about smoking ... alcohol, obesity, the list goes on ...
 
Alligatorob said:
Turns out people have looked at this:

Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

from: The Health Care Costs of Smoking https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506

So from a strictly cost point of view the government should have no interest in stopping people from smoking, I'd guess the same is true of vaping. And if the lost tax revenue on cigarettes and vape were taken into account abstaining likely costs us even more. Not saying this should make a person smoke, but rather just saying, for the government, the money is not a good reason to get people to stop.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! Thanks for digging that up. I was convinced there likely wasn't a comprehensive study done but, apparently I was wrong on that.
 
Winston Churchill, John Lennon and Frosty the Snowman would all be run out of town by today's snowflake Politicians. (They all smoked)
 
MrPants said:
There could be an argument made that Government's influence on people's lifestyle choices is appropriate when the country you live in has publicly funded healthcare applicable to all without surcharges of any kind should your lifestyle choice end up costing that system hundreds of thousands of dollars or more at some point.

It's a real conundrum though in that case because the same government is collecting billions in tax revenue from products that have a propensity to end up costing that same government billions in healthcare costs. Kind of nuts when you think about it.
Click to expand...
However, the revenue collected is a lot less than the social cost of the damage done to health.
 
Pepper said:
Because what I do in my own home within my own four walls is no one's %$&^(#@! business, that's why. If I can't be me in my own home, where can I be me?
Click to expand...
who's telling you , that you cant do what you want in your own F!"£$%^&* Home @Pepper ?
 
just take all vapes , cigarettes , booze off the market ...end off......LOL
No.....of course they wont , because all the Top boys and girls ...Drink , smoke and do otherwise !!!
 
Pepper said:
People have become too intrusive, too controlling, IMO. Probably the only control they have is bothering other people.
Click to expand...
ignore it pepper...they cant tell you what to do in your own home......hide in the basement or under the table lol
 
Pepper said:
They are actually threatening to fine smokers smoking within their own paid for apartments!
Click to expand...
ok , i understand, there are rules here. when you rent accomodation,, that they dont want smokers inside their homes
fair enough, !! but if its your home , surely you can what you like ..
 
Pepper said:
They are actually threatening to fine smokers smoking within their own paid for apartments!
Click to expand...
Yeh many apartments are like that. Sometimes it local fire codes or the landlord's insurance won't cover fire damage from a smoker or give a discount for renting to non smokers. Also nicotine stains the walls and can prevent paint from sticking unless the walls are cleaned prior.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top