482
'Incredible' milestone reached as Sweden becomes a smoke-free country (www.thelocal.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive: [ https://archive.is/OTfZe ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Dead wrong.
The whole population benefits from what smokers pay.
From a study in NL it shows that they generate far more than what it costs in healthcare.
And it also said should the small percentage of smokers suddenly quit and live longer, the loss of income for the state and the extra cost of them living longer and needing more care would be unsustainable.

And if you want to be selfish and not have solidarity then let's start about the much bigger cost of the SELF-INFLICTED diabetic epidemic.
They require an avg of 28 years of aid.
And almost no country wants to tackle that because of their opportunistic politicians.
Who cares about antagonizing a small percentage that smokes.
But the many sugar addicts poisoning themselves are too important for their precious votes to touch.
And those same hypocrite politicians can be seen regularly with a glass of alcohol (hard drugs) in their hand.
And as an edit, I don't want to pay for your skin cancer treatment also, should've stayed out of the sun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    diabetic epidemic. ….And almost no country wants to tackle

    Almost every country has nutrition regulations and makes some effort to encourage better nutrition. It’s not enough and is too easily hijacked by industry but there is some level of effort

    • not diabetic, but consider an example like trans fats being mostly banned from food chains
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Sugar tax is simple and highly effective.
    What I see is they do not put much effort into it, certainly not compared with the witch hunt on tobacco.
    Especially since a large percentage is suffering from obesity and only getting worse.
    But as I said, electoral suicide.
    Imagine paying 6x more for a soft drink, that would be the equivalent of tobacco taxes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    It would also spend way too much time in the weeds - what types of sugars? How to distinguish “natural” from “added”? How much for what? Which sugar substitutes? Do they have their own level? How to distinguish too much sugar in orange juice from too much in bread from junk food? What about alcohol, fats, and other high calorie foods? What about all sorts of carbs?

    I disagree with a sugar tax being easy.

    If I were orange cult god Trump, I would find it easier to define and sell a junk food tax.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    And can traditional soda (healthy, probiotic) be exempt, and so then can be more competitive on price...

    ... I like this idea. I'd vote for that. :) ... depending on nuances of implementation. Perhaps it may prove more bureacratically complicated and expensive, and not worth doing. But all else equal, "simple and highly effective", sugar tax seems like a savvy equaliser, especially if was weighted for things like glycemic index, complete nutrient ratio to sugar, nutritional balance... oh, darn, this could get complicated fast.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    This is a cynical argument for multiple reasons. First it is basically saying if smokers stop smoking their end of life care could cost more in the long run rather than dying early of cancer.

    This ignores new treatments that are targeted and much more effective than previously thought possible. Someone who gets this treatment and related services would cost a lot more if they live to an old age. So no actual savings in this increasingly common scenario.

    It also ignores quality of life. It may be cheaper for someone to die early from smoking, but their quality of life is significantly reduced. This not only affects their happiness and productivity, but also their families. Dying from lung disease is a horribly way to go.

    I fully agree governments should be cracking down on diabetes. Allowing addictive, processed, and engineered food should be banned. It is time for food scientist to do good and stop addicting people with overly fat, sugary, salty foods for corporate profits.

    You last line is pretty ridiculous. You don't want to pay for others healthcare because of their choices. Do you want to pay for healthcare because of a companies choice to pollute the environment which leads to a significant amount of cancer.

    Do you feel comfortable with subsidizing petroleum when it also causes millions of deaths worldwide from lung and cardiovascular disease.

    There are slightly bigger fish to fry than sun exposure, even if it is also important to consider.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    wait how does that add up? why and how would smokers contribute more?

    your second argument about healthy people living longer and therefore costing more (BC of receiving more pension is the argument I guess?) would apply to any treatment, including obesity, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I’ve read that too - elderly and end of life care is expensive, and smokers are more likely to die early before running up as much healthcare costs as a healthy person. They may be sicker, cost more in healthcare while sick, but shorter overall life resulting in smaller overall healthcare costs

    Assuming that’s true, and I don’t remember if it was a reputable source, on purely financial terms for healthcare, smoking is “good”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    why and how would smokers contribute more?

    In some areas of endeavour, some smokers insist their smoking helps them perform.

    For just one other example tidbit to add to your evolving calculations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    why and how would smokers contribute more?
    As I said, taxes are extremely high on tobacco. 85%
    Even disregarding the amount in general taxes smokers also pay for healthcare that alone is more than the cost of smoking to healthcare.
    Unfortunately couldn't find the study I read but it came down to a few 100 million surplus (in NL).

    And yes not needing to pay pensions is a big part of the gains to to the state but also not having to pay for the plethora of other diseases the elderly invariably get.
    And while obese people indeed have premature mortality that is often preceded by decades of chronic illnesses and care.
    And same as smokers that includes increased risk of cancers.
    Unlike most smokers very obese people often can't perform physical labor the average human can.
    There's more, like logistics and how many hospital workers and specialized ambulances or equipment it takes to simply move the more extreme cases but I think this will do.
    To be clear, I'm not defending smoking but the argument of how they don't want to help smokers (basically addicts and victims) because it costs their health system is wrong.
    Not to mention anti-social and selfish.
    As I mentioned in the other comment, that's a slippery slope.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent