Non-smokers cost more than smokers?

Finally a little vindication! Assuming this is correct, then I again ask "why" keep raising taxes on smoking (cigarettes), especially when the tax isn't used for smoking related costs.

According to the article, non-smokers cost the country MORE because of the expense of them living longer.

On Digg.com

I'm all for smokers rights - I will light up after this post.

But come on! begrudging non smokers for living for living longer is a bit of a stretch ain't it?

I hate militant non smokers with a passion - but this just plays right into their smug little non stained fingers.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
According to the article, non-smokers cost the country MORE because of the expense of them living longer.

By that rational, still-births have got us non-smokers beat by a long run. The gov't must love all the money they're saving there.

A little level-headed thinking goes a long way...

Then again, this is coming from someone who enjoys "smooth-tasting" pleasure at the cost of fractional suicide.

Live your life the way you want to, just don't infringe your will upon others; I'm allergic to ciragette smoke.

The only bad part for non smokers is that they live longer??? I really don't see it that way. If you live longer most likely you will work longer. If you want to lose your lungs from the tars in the cigarettes then go ahead. I have a cousin who cannot breath without oxygen and still smokes and is obese and cannot walk any distance. If that is the kind of life you smokers want then I will not stop you. I stopped smoking 9 years ago and I hope to not have any problems or as not a bad problem breathing in the future and hopefully live a longer life. I think its worth it to see how this world of ours develops and there is still so much to learn about everything. Just keep yourselves healthy and don't worry about what the cost will be tomorrow. I am sure we will get through it very nicely.

For the record...my main point in posting this was to show that until "all the facts" are evaluated, any decisions are only guesses. Usually, these guesses are emotional based and not fact based. If (and that is a big if) this is true, however, then the argument of "smokers cost us money" becomes less valid.

My suggestion, and this post is just a little example, is before people jump on a bandwagon of any individual's (or group's) claims, we need the facts. It is too easy, and too convenient for some, to make such emotional quotes that aren't completely based in fact.

Gore's "global warming" turned "climate change" and then "well...even if it isn't true...its better for the world" (as an example). We continue to be lied to by people spouting emotional guesses...not facts. And in my opinion, it is for control.

I guess what I'm getting at is that logical, fact based decisions...even when they sound "cold" are better than emotional decisions when setting laws, taxes and the like.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by WeAreAWAKE]