Cigarette Smoking saves health care dollars!

[The Mad Viking]

I think it probably does.

Of course we all "know" it doesn't.

Its "common knowledge".

Its obvious. Cigarrettes cause cancer and lung disease, the two leading causes of death, so they MUST be horrendously expensive.

But has anyone actually done real research.

Not blatantly biased anti-tobacco statistical lying, but real research to find out the facts?

It would be a great project for a rebel economist like Steven Levitt.

Here's the logic.

Everybody dies.

Cigarrettes make you die SOONER.

The leading cause of health care expense is the elderly.

If the elderly all died of lung cancer or heart disease by age 70, it would seem to me likely that this would save a lot of money.

I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm just curious as to whether the anti-tobacco lobby is talking out of it's ass.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe a study actually did find that banning smoking would increase health care costs in the short run because all these people, who would in our world die younger, would live longer. In the long run, I believe costs fall... that is if no one smokes anymore.

[Sava]

Well, I'm not sure.

In addition to lung cancer, zomfg, we're all obese. So if we all stop smoking, we're going to blow up like fricken shamoo... get diabetes, lose our feet, get heart attacks and then die.

But at least we'll all get to be on those Maury Povich's where they have the 600 lb people who need to be airlifted out of their house.

[Dinner]

Think of all the lost tax revenue if everyone stopped buying tobacco products.

[Colon™]

The solution is to make people who don't smoke retire later.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sava
Well, I'm not sure.

In addition to lung cancer, zomfg, we're all obese. So if we all stop smoking, we're going to blow up like fricken shamoo... get diabetes, lose our feet, get heart attacks and then die.

But at least we'll all get to be on those Maury Povich's where they have the 600 lb people who need to be airlifted out of their house.

I think this is already happening. I remember a returning to the US in 2002 after being gone for two years, and going to an amusement park. I was struck by the fact that:

1) hardly anybody was smoking, even though it was permitted everywhere in the park; and
2) I seemed to be one of the slimmer adults in the park -- and I'm 50 lbs. overweight.

So the question is, which costs society more: lung cancer or morbid obesity?

[Dinner]

Tax junk food at around the 5000% rate and watch our obesity problem get slashed in half over a year or two. We could also tax restaurant meals which exceed a certain number of calores (say 1000 or so) to prevent the monster portions which have 3000 calores in a single meal. Another good idea is to increase the length of the school day to 9 hours (1 hours worth of breaks per day along with 8 hours of actual instruction), require kids to eat on campus where only healthy food would be served, and require manditory PE for every year.

[Dis]

9 hour school day would suck.

and 1000 calories isn't that much. I'd say raise it to 2000 calories.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Colon™
The solution is to make people who don't smoke retire later.

Indeed, and as the only solution that the government can get away with implementing it is the one we'll end up with.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

So the question is, which costs society more: lung cancer or morbid obesity?

Or for you younger guys who don't pay taxes (net) anyway, who would you rather fvck, a morbidly obese woman or a skinny one who reeks of smoke?

[Spiffor]

The average male adult, with a medium physical activity, needs 2500 calories a day. A male adult slob needs no more than 2000, and a guy with an intense phyisical activity will need 3000+.

Considering that there are 3 meals a day (morning, noon and evening), a 2000 calories meal is a good way to become obese.

[Dis]

not if you only eat once a day.

[Victor Galis]

I disagree. Smoking causes a variety of non-fatal health problems, which are difficult to measure (how do you prove it was the second-hand smoke and not industrial pollution or whatever?) which will completely bury the savings of having people die early. Let's see, we can pay for expensive treatments for 60 year olds with lung cancer or 80 year olds with a variety of other things. If anything, smoking makes us pay the big bucks sooner rather than later.

[The Mad Viking]

I would be very, very surprised if the one year death cost of the 60 year-old were more than the 20 years of health cost for someone 60 to 80, plus the one-year death cost of whatever they die from.

I hadn't even considered the cost savings of lowered obesity in the equation.

So I'm pretty sure smoking saves money straight up.

The you have the huge bonus of tax revenues.

And as you reduce tobacco use, you have ongoing transitional costs for farmers and the tobacco industry workers moving to new lines of work.

[Datajack Franit]

I may sound as I'm making some cheap jokes, but I'm damn serious about this. I smoke, and that's also because I don't want to live for 100 years. I know smoking will kill me at 60, 70 years old at most, which is more than enough. Why? Because life SUCKS beyond. You become a useless burden for the society, which will be already busy taking care of other problems, and I don't understand why I should receive a pension for another half of my entire life without doing nothing but breathing, eating and being paralized on a wheelchair.