ChatterBank1 min ago
Smoking.....
48 Answers
Why is it when any sort of discussion on smoking comes up it's never very long until someone(usually irrelevantly) will always say that it in some way contributes to the treasury when clearly the costs of smoking massively outweigh any revenue. Why does this myth endure?
Answers
The vast majority of drinkers are social drinkers, or occasional drinkers, and never get drunk to the point that they disrupt others or put themselves in harm. The majority of drinkers don't drink to excess every day - if they do they have a serious problem. The typical person that enjoys a drink does not expect to be able to take a bottle or can of alcohol to work...
13:53 Thu 28th Nov 2013
Because it is human nature for people to justify something which they know is wrong on every level - which smoking is.
If you can tell people (and yourself!) that you are contributing to the Treasury with your anti-social life-threatening ludicroulsy expensive vice (and of course you already know all that) it enables you to feel a little bit better about it.
I understand that logic, I just dont understand why people start smoking - it just looks ridiculous!
If you can tell people (and yourself!) that you are contributing to the Treasury with your anti-social life-threatening ludicroulsy expensive vice (and of course you already know all that) it enables you to feel a little bit better about it.
I understand that logic, I just dont understand why people start smoking - it just looks ridiculous!
I have bad asthma which requires daily medication and I've had to stay in hospital twice.
I stopped smoking as soon as asthma was diagnosed 20 years ago. I expect to live another 40 years so that will be 60 years of daily medication the NHS is paying for.
Thankfully I don't have emphysema and I still have two legs.
I stopped smoking as soon as asthma was diagnosed 20 years ago. I expect to live another 40 years so that will be 60 years of daily medication the NHS is paying for.
Thankfully I don't have emphysema and I still have two legs.
Well it's not a myth - it's a complex calculation.
You are simply comparing the cost of NHS Cancer treatment for smokers and forgetting that non-smokers incur other costs later in their lives.
For example suppose Mr X smokes and dies of Cancer in his late 50s after much expensive chemotherapy radiotherapy and operations.
By dying young he may be saving the country a lot of money in looking after him to a ripe old age - perhaps he might have developed prostate cancer later, had pulmonary heart disease or worse still, like my father developed dementia and had several strokes.
I strongly suspect that had my father been a smoker and died younger he would have cost the NHS less and the treasury would have been quids in.
The real point though is that the statement is irrelevant
We could decriminialise and tax illegal drugs and child prostitution and be quids in
We don't
The idea that the only motivating factor of government is money is incorrect and generally held by the uber-cynical for whom self-interest is their only motivation and are incabable of imagining that some people really can be motivated o act for the greater good
You are simply comparing the cost of NHS Cancer treatment for smokers and forgetting that non-smokers incur other costs later in their lives.
For example suppose Mr X smokes and dies of Cancer in his late 50s after much expensive chemotherapy radiotherapy and operations.
By dying young he may be saving the country a lot of money in looking after him to a ripe old age - perhaps he might have developed prostate cancer later, had pulmonary heart disease or worse still, like my father developed dementia and had several strokes.
I strongly suspect that had my father been a smoker and died younger he would have cost the NHS less and the treasury would have been quids in.
The real point though is that the statement is irrelevant
We could decriminialise and tax illegal drugs and child prostitution and be quids in
We don't
The idea that the only motivating factor of government is money is incorrect and generally held by the uber-cynical for whom self-interest is their only motivation and are incabable of imagining that some people really can be motivated o act for the greater good
"You are simply comparing the cost of NHS Cancer treatment for smokers and forgetting that non-smokers incur other costs later in their lives. "
No I'm not, see abov,e we can forget all health care costs and references for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not talking about health care costs, can we make that clear. I'm talking about the myriad of indirect costs that smokers routinely ignore in their self justifications.
No I'm not, see abov,e we can forget all health care costs and references for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not talking about health care costs, can we make that clear. I'm talking about the myriad of indirect costs that smokers routinely ignore in their self justifications.
I just found this:
"Fires
Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the primary cause of fatal accidental fires in the home and have claimed the lives of 1,231 people in the UK over the past ten years. In 2011-12, smokers’ materials accounted for 31 deaths in Great Britain - over a third of all accidental dwelling fire deaths. Smokers’ materials are also the third biggest cause of non-fatal casualties
in dwelling fires (after cooking materials and other electrical appliances). In 2011-12, there were 781 casualties."
So on average 120 people a year die directly because of fires caused by smoking. I know that is a drop in the ocean compared to road accidents but smoking is a totally unnecessary habit.
As well as the human cost of these fires, how much does it cost the fire service, the ambulance service, the insurance companies?
"Fires
Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the primary cause of fatal accidental fires in the home and have claimed the lives of 1,231 people in the UK over the past ten years. In 2011-12, smokers’ materials accounted for 31 deaths in Great Britain - over a third of all accidental dwelling fire deaths. Smokers’ materials are also the third biggest cause of non-fatal casualties
in dwelling fires (after cooking materials and other electrical appliances). In 2011-12, there were 781 casualties."
So on average 120 people a year die directly because of fires caused by smoking. I know that is a drop in the ocean compared to road accidents but smoking is a totally unnecessary habit.
As well as the human cost of these fires, how much does it cost the fire service, the ambulance service, the insurance companies?
Well like I said it's a complex calculation.
You have to also remember the cost to the country in lost productivity from people off work sick through smoking related illnesses.
It's not as if they just keel over - you've all the people who can't work because they have lung conditions and not only do we pay to support them we dont get tax revenue from their earnings.
It rather depends on what you decide to count and what you don't.
Last piece of research I recall seeing (Think it was Newcastle University) on it took Tora's side in that treasury reenues did not make up for losses but I'm sure you could calculate it to come out the other way
You have to also remember the cost to the country in lost productivity from people off work sick through smoking related illnesses.
It's not as if they just keel over - you've all the people who can't work because they have lung conditions and not only do we pay to support them we dont get tax revenue from their earnings.
It rather depends on what you decide to count and what you don't.
Last piece of research I recall seeing (Think it was Newcastle University) on it took Tora's side in that treasury reenues did not make up for losses but I'm sure you could calculate it to come out the other way
this lot reckon the EU costs of smoking amount to almost 100bn Euros:
http://
http://
Why is it that AB is the most tolerant community I have ever come across except when it comes to smoking? 20% of the population smoke and the majority started when it was not known to be 'wrong on every level'. Alcohol is equally damaging yet that's an acceptable fun thing to do. I would like to se a clear concise figure on the costs of smoking against the income it produces. One thing I'm sure of is if we all gave up tomorrow the Treasury would be in sudden poo.
