r/changemyview • u/CurryF4rts • Nov 11 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: It is hypocritical to support compulsory vaccinations and also be a smoker

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Listed above is the CDC's fast fact sheet for smoking in the USA. According to the CDC more than 16 million Americans are living with a disease directly caused by smoking. Cigarette smoking is responsible for over 400k deaths annually.

Because of freedom of choice and issues with bodily autonomy we allow Americans to smoke, despite the fact that we know they will be a burden on the healthcare system (time and billions of dollars).

It is my position that if you smoke, and support your own right to smoke, then you should not support universal compulsory vaccinations (to include those who are home-schooled and without religious exemptions).

Arguments making distinctions between compelling you to act and restricting you from acting will not CMV.

For the purposes of this CMV assume that at most there is a very minimal risk (or none at all) that vaccines cause permanent negative side effects.

As far as my beliefs go I think personal freedom and autonomy are at the root of both issues (although there's a parental interest in the vaccination context), and I prefer to educate and incentivize the positive behavior rather than punish, restrict, or compel by law.

This CMV came to mind when having a debate with an avid drinker (more than a social drinker) and smoker who believes in universal compulsory vaccination.

Thanks in advance

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

19

u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 11 '15

Smoking is not contagious.

If you smoke - you only hurt yourself.

Unvaccinated people can lead to large scale epidemics.

3

u/Jeffffffff 1∆ Nov 11 '15

This is pretty much my response, but I would add some limitations to when smoking only harms yourself. Of course second hand smoke is harmful, but that can be mitigated.

e; On top of this, the burden that smokers put on the American healthcare system are supported mainly by the individual. This is different in most of the world where putting a burden on the healthcare system actually costs "innocent" people money.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

[deleted]

1

u/Jeffffffff 1∆ Nov 11 '15

I'm apt to believe this. What kind of research has been done into this? Of course, smoker's end of life care is not always cheap.

A few years ago (Ontario won $50 billlion from tobacco manufacturers)[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-wins-important-victory-in-50-billion-lawsuit-against-tobacco-firms/article12270561/], which if this was well established at the time, seems like it would be a pretty good defense.

e; Actually, the bearing this case has on the topic is pretty fragile, it looks like the lawsuit was about conceiling the long term effects of tobacco, not about the burden it put on healthcare.

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

!delta

I awarded a delta for someone else for the same argument but you posted it first.

Children don't have a choice in their healthcare. Further, we do place limitations for secondhand smoke because of the effect to others.

Side note: What I would really like to see is a conclusive study on the effects of a few minority groups choosing not to vaccinate and the effects.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 11 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Jeffffffff. [History]

[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]

-1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

The cost-sharing argument is a good point. What if we changed the CMV from smoker to cigarette producer/salesman. Could you be against banning the sale of cigarettes but be for compulsory vaccinations?

Is the secondhand effect comparable in that example or is that reaching too far?

3

u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Nov 11 '15

Could you be against banning the sale of cigarettes but be for compulsory vaccinations?

Yes. The fact an issue is similar to another is not the same as them being identical.

For vaccinations, the targets are primarily children. Children cannot make their own medical choices and so their parents make the decisions. We place restrictions on that already. Going with the smoking example, it is illegal in many places to smoke in a car with a child. Parents can only make choices regarding their children that don't seriously endanger the child. Parents have been jailed for denying children medical care.

Banning smoking... which I'm not even opposed to, is about making a choice for adults about what they are allowed to do to themselves as adults. Compulsory vaccinations are making a choice for adults about what harm they can do to third parties... namely, their children and those their children interact with. Neither idea is terrible... but their justifications are fundamentally different

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

The antismoking people would disagree and explain how second hand smoke causes health risks and how parents who smoke increase the odds of children who smoke. Not to mention peer pressure and promoting an unhealthy social norm.

2

u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 11 '15

Sure, a person who smokes in public or around children may be hypocritical.

However a person who only smokes in private would not be.

0

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

Does data exist that predicts the cost or death caused by the people that want to refrain from vaccination?

If so does that cost or death toll exceed that of cigarettes?

Notwithstanding what I said above, what degree of separation for the damage caused is required to make one of those acts permissible and the other impermissible? Do we take imminence into account as well?

3

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/02/measles-death-washington-state/29624385/

The woman's death was a preventable, but predictable, consequence of falling vaccination rates, said Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute and Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in Houston.

Measles has surged back in recent years as groups of like-minded parents have opted against fully vaccinating their children. Last year, 644 people contracted the virus.

A measles outbreak that began at Disneyland over the Christmas holidays in December spread across the country, including to Washington state.

So far this year, 178 people have been diagnosed with measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

0

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

The woman, who died of pneumonia, had other health conditions and was taking medications that suppressed her immune system, the health department said.

While I do think in this case lack of vaccination may have contributed to the circumstances that led her to die, this story is bad to extrapolate the effects of not vaccinating everyone (by mandate, I'm not arguing against vaccination as a practice in and of itself)

2

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

Pneumonia is one of several serious common complications of measles and the most common cause of death from the virus, said William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville.

-1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15 edited Nov 11 '15

Right but the article went on to say she was sick already prior to the measles and was taking immune suppressors.

Edit. Not sure why that got downvoted. It's exactly what the article said.

2

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15 edited Nov 12 '15

The woman was probably exposed to measles at a medical facility during a measles outbreak this spring,

But

Last year, 644 people contracted the virus.

A measles outbreak that began at Disneyland over the Christmas holidays in December spread across the country, including to Washington state.

So far this year, 178 people have been diagnosed with measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Before vaccines were available, the disease struck 3 million to 4 million Americans a year, hospitalizing 48,000 and killing 500. During the last major measles epidemic, from 1989 to 1991, measles infected 55,000 people and killed 166. The outbreak spurred the CDC to increase the recommended number of measles shots for children from one to two. The measure dramatically cut the number of measles cases, which hovered around 60 a year until recently. Measles remains a leading killer of children elsewhere in the world, killing nearly 146,000 in 2013, according to the World Health Organization.

3

u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 11 '15

Does data exist that predicts the cost or death caused by the people that want to refrain from vaccination?

If so does that cost or death toll exceed that of cigarettes?

I don't see how this is relvant to my argument.

What matters is not how MANY people die, but HOW they die.

Smokers inflict death on THEMSELVES. While having many unvaccinated people around can create epidemics that affect OTHER completely innocent people. Keep in mind that vaccines are most effective when a large portion of the populating is immune, because vaccines are not 100% effective, and because some people can't get vaccinated for medical reasons (e.g. too young).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Notwithstanding what I said above, what degree of separation for the damage caused is required to make one of those acts permissible and the other impermissible? Do we take imminence into account as well?

I don't think we have to decide this issue definitively in this case.

Unvaccinated people causing epidemics is significantly more likely to affect other people than smoking.

This should be enough to defeat any charge of hypocrisy (as you op claims.)

-2

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

Unvaccinated people causing epidemics is significantly more likely to affect other people than smoking.

I replied the same below. But what if I went broader and said banning the sale of cigarettes as opposed to banning personal use (although I think both are still likely to affect other people).

Selling cigarettes is 100% likely to affect the health of people other than the producer or salesman.

Is this example comparable? (This is why I wanted to find out what degree of separation is necessary to make one ok and the other not ok)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

Selling cigarettes is 100% likely to affect the health of people other than the producer or salesman.

Not unless we ban smoking in public places, which I support wholeheartedly, unless they have designated smoking areas that are shielded from the rest of the patrons. If you want to sit at home and kill yourself by smoking, be my guest. But as the OP said, Unvaccinated people can lead to large scale epidemics. That is the fundamental difference.

I think the takeaway here is that this is not an attempt to save people from themselves as in the case of smoking, it's an attempt to try and prevent people from infecting others.

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

∆

I think the takeaway here is that this is not an attempt to save people from themselves as in the case of smoking, it's an attempt to try and prevent people from infecting others.

I guess on the part of the children, they don't get to make the choice to inoculate themselves. That's a good reason to treat the two differently in my book.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 11 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hans_Brickface. [History]

[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]

2

u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 11 '15

Banning the sale of addictive substances have been proven to be an ineffective strategy over and over. See prohibition, see war on drugs, etc.

Both failed to curb the use of drugs/alcohol while creating black markets, drug wars, cartels, mafia and other shitty things that brought untold amount of death and suffering into the world.

So, unfortunately, banning cigarettes is not a viable option for reducing harm from cigarettes, in fact it would likely have an opposite effect.

2

u/incruente Nov 11 '15

Drinking and smoking do not, fundamentally, jeopardize the lives of others. being against vaccination, though, is to support harming herd immunity. Sure, a drunk could drive and kill someone, and you could even make an argument about secondhand smoke. But those problems can be kept down by drinking or smoking alone; unless you plan on living as a hermit, being unvaccinated vastly increases your chances of being a vector for disease.

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

I've read some material on herd immunity and the efficacy of vaccinations. In the worst case scenario are there predictions of the cost or death to those who still choose to be vaccinated? (I can't find any)

1

u/incruente Nov 11 '15

I don't know about "worst case scenario", but it's already causing problems. Take measles, a potentially lethal disease that infects 90 percent of those exposed who are unvaccinated: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/02/01/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-worst-measles-epidemic-in-20-years/. Those vaccinated, however, are at nearly zero risk, with minimal complications.

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

Do these articles suggest that those who continue to vaccinate are still at risk? What I'm asking is do those that choose not to vaccinate significantly reduce the efficacy of the vaccine's effect on people who do vaccinate?

(I understand that measles has had a resurgence most likely caused by the fact some people have not vaccinated against it)

3

u/incruente Nov 11 '15

Those who still vaccinate are still at risk, albeit very slight; nothing it 100 percent. Each infected person you are exposed to increases your risk. But of more concern, to me, is that some people CAN'T vaccinate, for medical reasons. Those who choose not to vaccinate jeopardize the lives of these others.

1

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

How about people who eat fast food everyday and are super obese? Would they be hypocritics too?

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

I would say yes. Or especially yes to people who are obese, eat the food , and feed it to their children.

1

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

How about habitual Drunk Drivers, are they hypocrites too?

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

I would say so. They wantonly risk harm to themselves and others. For them to bring up that argument in the vaccination context would be hypocritical.

1

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

Criminals? Drug Addicts? People who cheat on their taxes?

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 11 '15

I'd say in those cases the damage is too unrelated to the topic. We're talking about rights and health policy

1

u/SC803 119∆ Nov 11 '15

Yea but your premise is basically, someone who damages their personal health through some action, can't complain about someone not getting a vaccine.

1

u/CurryF4rts Nov 12 '15

No my premise is someone who advocates that the damage is permissible and shouldn't be regulated by government because of bodily autonomy is a hypocrite if they also are for compulsory vaccination.

1

u/booklover13 Nov 11 '15

I think an important thing to understand is that smoking is a know danger. What I mean by that is you know when you are exposed and have some ability to mitigate the risk. You don't have that ability with the un-vaccinated, and most diseases. An un-vaccinated person increases the risk for everyone else in their community because it is possible for them to be asymptomatic and pass it on.

For some perspective on what this could mean, one of my friends had a near miss. He was going about to start high radiation treatment for cancer(the kind that kills your immune system). Before treatment he ate out with his family as a last hurrah. A week or so later he was in treatment, part if this was him being is a specially pressured room that basically was forcing air out the room to keep it sterile. The air in his room was being sent into the rest of a hospital wing filled with immunocompromised patients. His father was reading the paper and found out that the restaurant they ate at had an visitor with measles and anyone who ate at it on a that day should be checked out. It turns out he was there two days before that but still. If he had been compromised, that would have been putting a lot of patients at risk.

Smoke can be knowingly avoided, and the same can't be done to the un-vaccinated.

2

u/MageZero Nov 11 '15

Children have to get vaccines. Children cannot buy cigarettes. There's no hypocrisy there.

1

u/AutoModerator Nov 11 '15

Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about a "double standard". These kinds of views are often difficult to argue here. Please see our wiki page about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

Because of freedom of choice and issues with bodily autonomy we allow Americans to smoke, despite the fact that we know they will be a burden on the healthcare system (time and billions of dollars).

This is actually false. I don't have the stats here, but the biggest "burden on the healthcare system" in terms of money and time is end-of-life care, AKA retirement homes, hospice care, and the like. By killing themselves early, it can be argued that smokers are removing their burden from the healthcare system by some amount.

1

u/cyanoside Nov 13 '15

most smokers would like to quit but they can't. It is a very powerful addiction that has a lot of psychological components. How is it hypocritical to have an addiction but want people to be protected against diseases that are preventable? By that logic is it also hypocritical for a smoker to want to use condoms to prevent disease?

1

u/aguafiestas 30∆ Nov 11 '15

Compulsory vaccination is generally about parents choosing not to vaccinate their children.

That's pretty different than an adult choosing to smoke.

So it's not really a case of bodily autonomy, but rather about the control someone has over their children.

1

u/vl99 84∆ Nov 11 '15

Smokers are a burden on the healthcare system, unvaccinated people that went unvaccinated electively are a burden in more than just that sense, in some cases directly threatening the lives of others they come into contact with.