Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: DoctorBeaver on 01/04/2009 10:29:52
-
According to official government figures, smokers contributed £8.1 billion in excise duty and £1.9 billion in VAT to the British treasury in 2006/7. Government figures also say that smoking-related illnesses cost the NHS £2.7 billion. So, there's a profit to the government of £7.3 billion.
You want our troops out of Afghanistan? STOP SMOKING! (The war in Afghanistan cost the British taxpayer £3.3 billion in 2008)
It seems the British government are quite happy to spend £3.3 billion per year trying to kill people yet complain about spending £2.7 billion per year treating people. I assume there's some kind of logic in there somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it [???]
-
Quite so Beaver, I did raise this point before somewhere, and alcohol has a net cost to the taxpayer.
So give up the booze if you want more troops sent to Afghanistan.
-
Right. So we all need to stop drinking and start smoking if we want to stick it to Bin Laden (who probably isn't anywhere near Afghanistan).
-
Thinks of all the money saved by the government on welfare payments, pensions payments and social care saved by people dying prematurely of smoking related disease and not living to pensionable age.
-
Thinks of all the money saved by the government on welfare payments, pensions payments and social care saved by people dying prematurely of smoking related disease and not living to pensionable age.
And all that money they have to give me because it was their fault I breathed in asbestos dust.
-
Do smokers cost society money?
It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.
House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.
Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."
However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.
The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.
Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.
"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."
Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.
The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."
Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.
"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."
http://www.physorg.com/news158395954.html
-
Humans are such flawed creatures. I sat down with a group of 14 year old smokers and worked out the stuff they could buy if they saved the money they spent on fags. It started getting to fast cars after saving for 15 years and one kid said "I don't want to live that long, life stinks, I'd be really old by then anyway."
The next day I caught the same kids smoking. Money is not a reason to stop if your life stinks and you can't visualise your own future. These kids were all for "live for today, die young, stay beautiful." So sad, but true.
-
Old smokers and new drinkers only can suggest these ideas!!!! [;D] [;D]
-
Humans are such flawed creatures. I sat down with a group of 14 year old smokers and worked out the stuff they could buy if they saved the money they spent on fags. It started getting to fast cars after saving for 15 years and one kid said "I don't want to live that long, life stinks, I'd be really old by then anyway."
The next day I caught the same kids smoking. Money is not a reason to stop if your life stinks and you can't visualise your own future. These kids were all for "live for today, die young, stay beautiful." So sad, but true.
There's such a lack of proactivity and optimism out there. Have they not considered that life is what they make of it? If they want it to get better, they can do a whole lot about seeing that it does by themselves. I think people have this idea that someone (often the government) owes it to them to sort all their problems out for them.
They're more than happy to give up, and smoke and drink themselves to death, rather than put in bit of effort and make something of themselves.
If you want to stop someone smoking, the most effective way would be to encourage them to become close to someone who is dying from lung cancer caused by smoking. They'd have to be hell-bent on self-destruction to continue after that.
-
We bought in a Dad that had a heart transplant. He was a smoker and had a bad diet. Still no result. They talked about it for a couple of weeks and then it was forgotten. I guess really knowing someone that dies of a smoking related disease might work but Doctors are often heavy smokers so they obviously don't get it.
-
You're right. When I worked in the hospital, almost everyone smoked. Crazy. They don't help; you see them smoking and people must think that if it was that bad, then they wouldn't do it.
-
The point is, governments do not want us to stop smoking. It would mean a hefty hike in personal taxation, which no politician wants to do, for fear of the consequences.
If there was a genuine quest to stop smoking, it could be done over a period of time without the need to raise duty and tax on tobacco. Simply raise the minimum age for the legal purchase of tobacco by one year, every year.
-
Humans are such flawed creatures. I sat down with a group of 14 year old smokers and worked out the stuff they could buy if they saved the money they spent on fags. It started getting to fast cars after saving for 15 years and one kid said "I don't want to live that long, life stinks, I'd be really old by then anyway."
The next day I caught the same kids smoking. Money is not a reason to stop if your life stinks and you can't visualise your own future. These kids were all for "live for today, die young, stay beautiful." So sad, but true.
*sigh*
This is really sad. So you got a group of 14 year old kids who already feel futureless, hopeless and without any goal in life. I don't think it's a flaw in humans, but in society as a whole. We've the same type of kids here in Germany, they just hang around, drink beer, smoke (and not just tobacco)... Getting a job is next to impossible for them, they have no education to speak of. They see all the bling of consumerism and want to have all that stuff too, but can't. Instead of using that as a reason to study and to get a good job, they either give up completely or start stealing the stuff they want. *even bigger sigh* Generation Hopeless they have been nicknamed.
I'd say not wanting to give up smoking is merely a symptom of the problem. There is no sense of achievement left for them. Their parents are on the dole and are the wrong role modell for those kids. The problem perpetuates from one generation to the next.
A few private organisations are trying to help, but they are just a drop in the ocean.
-
But those who are real smoker they cann't quit smoking as i am i tried a for a lots of time but rally unable to quit this habit. So i think its a tuff one You can quit drinking but cann't quit smoking. But i rally want to any big advice ?
-
But i rally want to any big advice ?
No advice is of any use unless you have the will.
-
If you want to stop someone smoking, the most effective way would be to encourage them to become close to someone who is dying from lung cancer caused by smoking. They'd have to be hell-bent on self-destruction to continue after that.
The problem with smoking its like saying to someone "touch that kettle and in 25 years you might get burnt". We all know not to touch a hot kettle because we will get burnt and the pain is immediate, smoking related illnesses seem such a long way off. Plus there is the addiciton to cope with, the same as any addicition the person you are battling against is yourself, and there is no harder battle than one with yourself.
I have known people have to have heart surgery because of smoking and then still continue smoking after that! What bigger warn off would there be??!!!
-
Good advice..I'm trying very hard to stop smoking but hard luck..I can't.
-
Some sound advice on this forum... the information you have provided is very sobering.
I have just started to quit smoking but finding it very tough indeed. Thankfully theres plenty of advice to be found on the internet. One thing I am doing is blogging about my experience, this helps keep me motivated and people willingly offer support :) [link removed] is my blog.
So if you are trying to quit smoking, try blogging or writing a diary, it really helps.
Jessica
I removed your link, since it was linking to commercial quit-smoking sites -mod
-
I'm locking this thread, since it seems to be attracting a lot of spam lately. If anyone's seriously interested in bringing it back up, feel free to start a new thread.