Topic: Jeremey Clarkson on the Smoking Bans

[Ultra]

I moved to straight liquor in part to help lower caloric intake.

 

[MG]

I did as well. Bourbon and/or whiskey are among the least caloric of all alcoholic beverages. And I use only 0 calorie mixers. Still, 3, 4, or 5 of those a day adds up to a lot of extra calories every day, not to mention the calories that come from the fudge brownies, carrot cake or ice cream that invariably follows after the alcohol destroys all your will power to just say no to dessert!   

And now, back to your regular program, already in progress!   

[Ultra]

Once I start drinking I rarely eat.  Another bonus!

[Paul Jaray]

Technically (but it depends on your welfare program) if you get retirement benefits, you get your own retirement benefits. In our system (that is going to change) our taxes pay the retirements of our fathers, but we are moving toward a system where we are going to save our own money for our retirement.
The assumption that smoking cigarettes reduce costs for the state because the live less can't be true. I do not know these studies, but simply can't believe in them.
The system is self-sustained and can't get benefits by the departure of its elements.
If we consider the system like a car, our work is like gasoline, our health is torque: a young worker gets you further than a 50Years old worker.
A disease is like a damage, your 60 years old car will have many of them, you'll need to fix it several time and you know that eventually it will broke down. It will cost you, but you can't ignore that it served you, for 60 years.
If you go cruising with your car struck in 2nd gear and someone tells you that you are going to burn your engine, you can't answer that you'll spare money because you'll have less parts to fix if your car explodes after 20.000km compared to a long life maintenance of the same car!

We are not considering that sometimes you make others smoke your cigarettes (not what you're thinking, Ultra).
You can't smoke in a cinema, but nobody can't stop you from smoking in front of it...when a train stops, there are dozens of smokers jumping outside already lighting a cigarette...but if you have to get into that train you'll have to cross that thick cloud...you can survive, of course, but it's not a pleasure.

[Allemano]

If you go cruising with your car struck in 2nd gear and someone tells you that you are going to burn your engine, you can't answer that you'll spare money because you'll have less parts to fix if your car explodes after 20.000km compared to a long life maintenance of the same car!

Ethically I'm absolutely on your side! 

But technically it's more complex than in the example you gave. Unfortunately it would take me a while to explain it easy to understand.
Only a few words: It's not about osteoporisis! In our Western society statistically you die most probably on heart diseases, caused by various reasons: fat food, alcohol, too little sport, genetic determination etc.. The medication for heart diseases, (bypass-operations, transplantations, expensive medicine, reha etc.) is up to three times more expensive than the therapy of cancer patients. Rarely you are old and still healthy like you seldom go to bed in the evening and don't wake up the other morning. Usually you have a long period of expensive illnesses to bear till you finally pass away ..if you're smoking or not!
An average (15-20 fags per day) smoker dies statistically "only" 6 years before the non-smoker does, but rarely he/she dies with 30.
Of course you should live a healthy life and prevent a lot of diseases by eating the right food, doing sports etc., but that you die from low-cost diseases is rather improbable.

A slightly different aspect: five years ago my grandfather died 103 year old. He was in retirement for appr. 40 years, but paid pension contribution, insurance taxes for  "only" ~ 45 years. He never suffered from bad diseases, but frequently needed medical help, pills over pills, nursing service three times a day etc. pp.
Cynical, but hard to bear for every insurance system in countries where you have more older than younger people.

but now back to the more funny sides of life.

[Paul Jaray]

you are supporting my idea...
we were talking about tobacco, but you can extend this view to other aspects of your health.

You go heavy on alchool? Same thing.
You do not practice any sport? Read above.
My idea was compared to an (ideal) style of life.
If you do not smoke, but you drink a lot, eat like there is no tomorrow, make a run only when you have to go to the bathroom, I agree with you, you'll face other diseases, probably more expensive ones.
But then the argument will change: which are the less expensive diseases?
Your statistics say the ones induced by tobacco are less expensive than the ones induced by an inaccurate life style.
I'd say heavy depression, because you'll probably commit suicide: no expenses, no cures!

Statistics say "It's not so expensive a cancer therapy, compared to a long-term illness, probably induced by food\alcoho"?
But if I was a doctor, I wouldn't say "Don't worry about depression, folks, because it's less expensive than a cancer",
I'll say "Don't smoke, so I won't pay for you cancer, but if the thing will make you sad, you can always get depressed!" and I'll spare money! 

If you talk in general, a safe, healty life style will let you live longer and safer. (but probably sadder and bored!).

[MG]

This should cheer you up. My doctor says EVERY man alive will die of prostate cancer, unless something else get's you first!   

Comforting thought, eh?   

[Paul Jaray]

I'd look for a second opinion...