Same. my girlfriend has had COPD since 10 because of second hand smoke.

As long as I don't have to breathe your smoke, and as long as you pay your own insurance 100% (no tax-payer funded subsidies or Medicare), then you have every right to tar up your vital lung tissue, and get your brain horribly addicted to nicotine. Knock yourself out (literally, probably).

As long as I don't have to breathe your smoke, and as long as you pay your own insurance 100% (no tax-payer funded subsidies or Medicare), then you have every right to tar up your vital lung tissue, and get your brain horribly addicted to nicotine. Knock yourself out (literally, probably).

Ironically, them smokers are good for the social system. They pay a lot of taxes, and they have a much shorter lifespan on the average. The ones causing excessive cost are actually not so bad overall because the major part of them economizes on retirement pay and geriatric problems.

Of course there's that thing about smokers that they get 100% pay for only 80% work, bur alas... the world isn't perfect.

A virtual upvote from me!

As long as I don't have to breathe your smoke, and as long as you pay your own insurance 100% (no tax-payer funded subsidies or Medicare), then you have every right to tar up your vital lung tissue, and get your brain horribly addicted to nicotine. Knock yourself out (literally, probably).

What about if you drink? Should a public health care system look after you if you do?

What if you drink a lot of sugary drinks or eat tonnes of unhealthy food? Nearly every week, a study comes out that says "X gives you cancer", usually in the same week as another study that says "a moderate amount of x per day helps prevent cancer".

At what point do you draw a line and say that a disease is self-inflicted, so no tax-payer funded treatment for you?

"but all of those things are unhealthy! screw those people"

Ok, that's kinda harsh, but it's at least a consistent logic.

How about if you injure yourself playing sports? Or if your job involves exposure to hazards (hey, you didn't have to take that job!)?

You don't draw the line yourself, it gets drawn by legislation in hopefully a way that "kind of" fits the general mentality. There's always someone asking where the grey starts between the black and white, it doesn't matter it will be decided for you not by you.

If we use your logic it can go the other way too, should cops have insurance? They decided to pick a job where they're at risk and could have chosen something else etc etc.

But while the line has to be drawn somewhere and not everyone will be happy about it, there are things that are so far away from that line on both sides that most everyone will agree with which side of the line they're on. Tobacco is still in the grey area but with the death rates associated with it it will likely not stay there for many more décades unlike the rest of your examples (those will likely get promoted from "white area" to "closer to the line" but not more for a long while.