What Of People Who Start Smoking Now

[David Sklansky]

If they get lung cancer should people view them the same way as those few who get lung cancer through no fault of their own?

Please don't use the argument that you can say similar stuff about other activities such as not wearing a helmut, skydiving, etc. Or that we all take risks and that life wouldn't be worth living if we didn't. Starting smoking now is a statistically vastly different category.

[AWoodside]

By people who get lung cancer "through no fault of their own" do you mean older people who started smoking before it was widely acknowledged to be a health risk, or people who have never smoked, but happen to get lung cancer anyway?

As far as viewing them differently, if somebody wants to make what I would (subjectively) view as a massively negative expected value decision, I wont begrudge them the right to make that choice. That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person. And really, given the exponentially increasing advances in medical technology, a decent argument could be made that starting to smoke now isn't quite as -EV as my gut would tell me anyway.

[chezlaw]

Tax subsidy unless they're so old its not likely to reduce their life expectancy. More precisely someone could work our their net benefit to the economy and offer the appropriate incentives. Not sure why you don't think skydivers shouldn't be rewarded similarly.

Alternatively there could be an anti-risk tax, that would work and could be kinda fun.

chez

[pokervintage]

All those that contract a debilitating and or fatal disease should be viewed compassionately. Those that start smoking knowing the risk should be treated in the same manner as those that attempt suicide by any other means. They are sick and should be treated and helped to overcome their death wish.

Unless of course you dont like them. Then "lite'm up" (this last part is a joke)

pokervintage

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
should people view them the same way

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understand what these sorts of phrases mean.

Personally I doubt I would bother to make the distinction. I also doubt think any individual “should” react in any particular way, but if they want to do so that fine with me.

Should the health service treat the two sorts of patients differently in some way? Probably not, but fortunately resource allocation in the health service is not my problem *relief*. Neither is pricing of health insurance premiums. These problems appear too complicated to separate out individual factors in this way.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you wont be friends with a smoker?

[dragonystic]

to david: is it really possible to smoke long enough to develop cancer and not realize just how terrible it is for you? i smoked for 6 years (while young and physically fit) and still i noticed all sorts of bad side effects. lowered lung capactiy, getting sick more, coughing more, etc etc. i cant imagine someone smoking for their entire life and being genuinely oblivious to how awful it is.

[joes28]

what if someone believes that the high they get from smoking is worth the chance of cancer

[Phil153]

I think your question would be more interesting if you made it a triage scenario. "should people view them the same way" is too vague.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you wont be friends with a smoker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its an added benefit of smoking. Saves wasted time getting to know someone as there's little chance of friendship between the sort of people who don't want to be friends with smokers and the sort of people who don't want to be friends with the sort of people who don't want to be friends with smokers.

bit like not making too much effort to dress smartly at job interviews.

chez