J
JMLanders
"Is likely to" is hardly a quantitative argument
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,854
- Reaction score
- 2,663
- Country
L
Lincsbodger
"Is likely to" is hardly a quantitative argument
Because it almost unquantifiable. No records exist for the number of days taken off work by people coughing there guts up from inhaling smoke, but you can bet its more than 9000
J
JMLanders
Has anyone calculated the number of days on non-payment of pension from the public coffers (pun"Is likely to" is hardly a quantitative argument
Because it almost unquantifiable. No records exist for the number of days taken off work by people coughing there guts up from inhaling smoke, but you can bet its more than 9000
) due to premature, smoke related, deaths?Sponsored Links
L
Lincsbodger
Has anyone calculated the number of days on non-payment of pension from the public coffers (pun"Is likely to" is hardly a quantitative argument
Because it almost unquantifiable. No records exist for the number of days taken off work by people coughing there guts up from inhaling smoke, but you can bet its more than 9000
Internet memes are lost on you, arent they........
J
JMLanders
D'Oh
If you don't smoke then you can afford IbizaThere you go then.
Easyjet to Benidorm.
2000 fags to bring back.
Holiday paid for out of the saving.
Think I would rather keep smoking!
So we've got the British Heart Foundation and the European Institute of Oncology can't even agree on exactly how "bad" a thing smoking is.
We've also got, as JML pointed out, ALL of the research ignoring the saving to the taxpayer in pension payouts resulting from smokers (on average) earlier deaths.
Plus there's then the saving of the cost of all the treatment for chronic but not fatal conditions which many of those dead smokers would have needed in older age - things like care costs for Alzheimers and dementia sufferers, life long medication for late onset diabetes, arthritis or heart conditions, hip replacement surgery, the list goes on.
Plus there's the saving on the cost of the treatment for whatever disease or ailment would have eventually carried all those prematurely dead smokers off.
It aint a simple bit of maths and it will always be open to massaging of the figures by all interested parties.
But one thing is for certain. If every smoker in the country gave up tomorrow it would leave a huge hole in the public finances, and the NHS would STILL be paying out to treat all the cases of smoking related illnesses for decades to come.
We've also got, as JML pointed out, ALL of the research ignoring the saving to the taxpayer in pension payouts resulting from smokers (on average) earlier deaths.
Plus there's then the saving of the cost of all the treatment for chronic but not fatal conditions which many of those dead smokers would have needed in older age - things like care costs for Alzheimers and dementia sufferers, life long medication for late onset diabetes, arthritis or heart conditions, hip replacement surgery, the list goes on.
Plus there's the saving on the cost of the treatment for whatever disease or ailment would have eventually carried all those prematurely dead smokers off.
It aint a simple bit of maths and it will always be open to massaging of the figures by all interested parties.
But one thing is for certain. If every smoker in the country gave up tomorrow it would leave a huge hole in the public finances, and the NHS would STILL be paying out to treat all the cases of smoking related illnesses for decades to come.
J
joinerjohn
I'd like to know , how much this research is costing the British taxpayers though? I thought most research was carried out by charitable organisations, like British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research, etc etc.
These are funded through donations from the public, not donations from the government.
These are funded through donations from the public, not donations from the government.
I'm not sure that's true. What would happen to the money you spend on slow suicide? It wouldn't disappear.
But wait!
You're pretending that you smoke as a public service, are you?
We went there for a weeks diving spent the week ***tting instead
it really is a ****hole. nearly spent that on meds.
J
JMLanders
Cheap ciggies though
We went there for a weeks diving spent the week ***tting instead
it really is a ****hole. nearly spent that on meds.
Coughing and ***tting
J
joinerjohn
A bit of a blasé statement there JohnD
I don't know of any smokers who think their providing a public service. But they do realise that they are paying heavily with the taxation raised through duty on tobacco.
If everyone did pack up tomorrow, There would be billions lost from treasury coffers. How do you think they'd make up this loss of revenue?
Perhaps you think that all the people who packed up would find something else to spend their money on? Perhaps they would, but I bet whatever they spent it on wouldn't raise as much money as the cash cow that is tobacco duty.
I personally think, that if everyone did pack up smoking, the treasury would be forced to raise vat and personal taxation to cover the deficit.
That way, everyone pays one way or another.
Senior Service are nicer.
Can't beat quality untipped. Available at Morrisons, bit steep though!
Sponsored Links
