World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I think people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs of they want. Maybe I’m a radical.
Have you ever had a loved one overdose?
Not as long as healthcare is a public cost.
Can I also regulate what you eat and how much you exercise, how much booze and wine, etc? Or have we decided freedom and intellectual consistency were constructs of the 20th century?
You could try to encourage it. And they do, through taxes on booze and less taxes on healthy food.
None of that is the same thing as the government deciding for people what those people can and cannot do with their own goddamn bodies.
This is Basic Freedom 101 stuff.
No, the government should not have the right to arbitrarily bifurcate the population into people it allows to be free and people it does not.
It’s not illegal to smoke. But it’s illegal to sell
So it follows the same principles
No it doesn't, at all. Unless you are advocating making it illegal to sell any food that isn't specifically designed by nutritionists to maximize health at the expense of everything else.
The luxury of growing old is even costlier. Should we just withdraw old age treatment, or go full Logan's Run?
Terrible argument
Is it? You do seem to be advocating for punishment of addicts. If not, would you care to expand on what you were getting at?
Yes, it was terrible.
Nobody asked you
Don't post on a public forum of you don't want people to say your argument is ass.
I was asking for an explanation from the person who said the thing, not some other moron.
I can give you several reasons why it is shitty, hence my comment. Now kindly get bent.
But you can't possibly explain why someone else thought it was shitty, so why are you commenting?
Just to confirm that it was a shit take so that you knew it was just not them. Maybe they don't feel it deserves a reply. Based on you shit attitude I would probably not respond to you either. Cheers!
Oh I see, you responded to the wrong comment.
Then there's this:
But, you did respond to me, unnecessarily, and to the wrong comment? And you're not confirming anything? You're saying nothing of any substance. Why are you bothering?
“Is it? You do seem to be advocating for punishment of addicts. If not, would you care to expand on what you were getting at? “
“The luxury of growing old is even costlier. Should we just withdraw old age treatment, or go full Logan's Run? “
Are these your shit takes!? Has he responded!?
What is your problem dude? Why are you acting so strangely?
So the answers respectively are yes and no then.
"But, you did respond to me, unnecessarily, and to the wrong comment?'
I confirmed your above comment about aging was a shit take. It is a public forum, I read it and that was my response. This was so you were sure of this reality with additional feedback from multiple users.
I get you don't like that I commented. As I said before, don't comment if you don't want a reply from anyone who reads your post. This is a strong possibility in a forum like this.
I woupd gladly explain why both your statements are garbage, but you only want their response. That is fine with me.
"And you're not confirming anything?"
You don't want my take you fucking said so. Are you just acting dense on purpose. Don't answer, that is rhetorical.
"You're saying nothing of any substance. Why are you bothering?"
I already explained this and you already said you don't want to hear my answer. Cheers!
If healthcare costs are the concern then they definitely should allow it since the shorter life-expectancy offsets the high cost of care later in life.
Not that I agree with that person but smokers objectively cost more than non smokers even with a shortened lifespan. Smoking increases the risk of and worsens basically every chronic condition as well as being a well linked factor to critical loss of lung function and several cancers. Unless you like, just let someone die if they get a smoking related illness (which is basically all of them depending on how liberal you are with the word “related”)
I disagree but I relent from calling you wrong until I find the research paper I found 15 years ago on the subject.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12474721/
“873 studies identified, 11 were included in quantitative synthesis, which compared 19,759,529 smokers with 206,913,108 non-smokers for direct health care costs. Mean age ranged from 34.5–60.6 years for smokers and 34.3–65.1 years for non-smokers. Mean annual health care costs ranged from $65,640–$1297.1 for smokers and $54,564–$724.4 for non-smokers. Annual incremental direct health care costs for smokers versus non-smokers ranged from –$458 (95% CI [confidence interval]: –2011.0 to 1,095.0) to $11,076 (95% CI: 10,211.9 to 11,940.1) in 2025 US dollars. Meta-analysis revealed smoking generally incurred greater health care costs than non-smoking, with a mean annual incremental cost of $1916.5 (95% CI: –439.9 to 4,272.9). The result was not statistically significant (MD = 1,916.5; p = 0.111). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 99.9%). Sensitivity analysis excluding studies of chronic disease yielded a reduced incremental cost for the general population, with a statistically significant difference (MD = 583.9, p = 0.02), although heterogeneity remained high (I2 = 98.0%).”
Literally the first recent meta I found. If you want to smoke I don’t care but suggesting it isn’t a public health burden is asinine
Yeah, I came across that one. I didn't reference it because I didn't see where that mentions cumulative lifetime costs which is not the same as annual cost. I'm arguing that the lower life expectancy offsets those increased costs, because then healthcare isn't paying for someone in old age. At this time, I still disagree with you.
Also
Your argument makes me wonder are you a proponent of banning fast-food and alcohol since they are also argued to create a "public health burden?"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1588892/
“The cumulative impact of excess medical care required by smokers at all ages while alive outweighs shorter life expectancy, and smokers incur higher expenditures for medical care over their lifetimes than never-smokers. This accords with the findings by Manning et al. (1989) of positive lifetime medical care costs per pack of cigarettes, but disagrees with the results found by Leu and Schaub (1983, 1985) for Swiss males. The contradictory conclusions of the analyses are undoubtedly due to a large difference in the amount of medical care used by smokers relative to neversmokers in the United States and Swiss data”
The only studies I can find that confirm shortened longevity incurs lower costs occur outside of America, which shifts things greatly due to cultural differences in receiving medical care and Americas totally fucked healthcare billing
Also I’ll point out that I said I don’t agree with the original poster, that I don’t care if you smoke, and now I will say that you’re a fucking moron with poor reading comprehension. Sorry that I won’t confirm your bias so you don’t feel worse about smoking, idiot. But again, smoke all you want, I don’t care, but don’t act like it doesn’t increase the cost burden on public health (as do your other examples but I also don’t care if you eat cheeseburgers every day and drink yourself to death)
I came across one study a while ago (can't be bothered to dig it up, because it was trash) that found that smokers were cheaper than non-smokers, but contrary to your study, which rightfully compares smokers to never-smokers, the study I found a while ago put people who stopped smoking right before their death into the non-smokers category.
I don't think I have to explain why this is beyond-stupid grouping, but that study was widely shared 10 or so years ago. Might be the study that @NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml referenced.
I just want to point out that consumption of fast food and alcohol have no direct effect on people around you. That is a major difference with tobacco.
Drunk people have bothered me far more often than people smoking cigarettes. They're violent, loud, and often drive drunk.
Anyway the discussion here wasn't "direct effect", it was "public healthcare burden"
There's no reason tobacco must have any effect on the people around you.
I don’t get it. Where do you think the smoke goes? It magically does not enter my nose?
Smokers cancer is a big drain though, it's not like they die immediately, and some just have chronic health issues till death
but not a bigger drain than old-age
Maybe in the USA where old age also equals obesity and health problems.
That makes more of us. Educated - of course, but also allowed.