Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#101

Post by bitshiftfaced »

masfuerte wrote: post #92
tt24 wrote: post #27

This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.

You are wrong. The swingeing taxes on cigarettes already cover the healthcare costs and the smokers die early saving even more money.

> smokers die early saving even more money.

I thought cancer care tended to be pretty expensive. Not sure that your math is so clear cut.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#102

Post by bitshiftfaced »

mancerayder wrote: post #77
tt24 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?

You are already paying for other people's healthcare costs, whether it's private or public! If you pay for home insurance (you kind of have to unless you own your home outright or are renting), you're paying for other people's fire or water damage. And one day they might pay for yours. If there's a lot of fires or water damage, everyone's costs go up.

It's not a perfect analogy because of factors that affect individual policies, such as the replacement cost of the home, moving next to a fireworks store, moving into a flood zone, etc. You pay more when your home is more at risk.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#104

Post by Pooge »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #73
Pooge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol was always an important cultural symbol (drinking wine as a Christian, for example). This is not the case for tobacco, especially highly artificial one. Tobacco is inherently bad for one's surrounding as well.

https://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditi...

So my point stands; it's not a cultural symbol like alcohol is for Europeans.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#105

Post by t-3 »

tt24 wrote: post #87
newdee wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.

"Regularly" is doing a lot of work here. Plenty of rich and successful people dabble in drugs. People with any level of wealth who can function normally in society while habitually and regularly using any substance are pretty obviously much less likely to develop a habit in the first place.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#106

Post by intended »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #88
threepts wrote: post #24

They also permanently banned coke,meth and other drugs since the inception of law, guess how that turned out? "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" I believe limiting people's…

there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less medical visits, etc. I am extremely unconvinced that a large cancer related medical cost now has a higher net present value than a stream of government pension payouts, health costs, etc for decades ended with a large medical cost for some other reason. This is…

If your government requires its people to be dead, it is by nature a foul and evil thing.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#107

Post by intended »

tt24 wrote: post #52
fontain wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.

I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?

What is this comment? Yes, society curtails behaviors?

We wear helmets and seatbelts?

Insurance is entirely about paying a small amount so that the costs of being on the wrong side of bad luck doesn’t pauper your citizenry. A single payer system wildly reduces the amount that has to be paid, while increasing service outcomes since now you can negotiate with drug companies.

I would happily pay for that kind of system as well, because I am happy to ensure that the rest of the nation is better off.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#108

Post by masfuerte »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #101
masfuerte wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. The swingeing taxes on cigarettes already cover the healthcare costs and the smokers die early saving even more money.

> smokers die early saving even more money. I thought cancer care tended to be pretty expensive. Not sure that your math is so clear cut.

There's good news there too. Smokers don't just die of cancer. They also suffer from a variety of other fatal conditions.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#109

Post by tt24 »

intended wrote: post #107
tt24 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?

What is this comment? Yes, society curtails behaviors? We wear helmets and seatbelts? Insurance is entirely about paying a small amount so that the costs of being on the wrong side of bad luck doesn’t pauper your citizenry. A single payer system wildly reduces the amount that has to be paid, while increasing service outcomes since now you can negotiate with drug companies. I would happily pay for that kind of system…

Close! Insurance is a transaction I consent to engaging in, but a single payer system is not that.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#110

Post by tt24 »

t-3 wrote: post #105
tt24 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.

"Regularly" is doing a lot of work here. Plenty of rich and successful people dabble in drugs. People with any level of wealth who can function normally in society while habitually and regularly using any substance are pretty obviously much less likely to develop a habit in the first place.

I agree with dabble. That’s not what the parent comment said though
Post reply on HN