Is it time to ban cigarettes/tobacco?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
I read the link and noticed some "cherry picking" going on here...

Yes, there certinaly is some cherry picking going on in those costs.

According to the think tank, the cost of smoking is made up of the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (£2.7 billion)

Yes

loss in productivity due to smoking breaks (£2.9 billion)

GET BACK TO WORK SERFS.

Coffee is to be taxed now at 300%, watercoolers are to be removed as they encourage talking, all workers will be sealed in cubicles, talking to other staff members is prohibited.

Härter arbeiten Leibeigenen!

***And on a serious note, this is a cost to employers, don't see how this justifies extra tax to the government, are they going to give this money back to employers as compensation, pull the other one.


increased absenteeism (£2.9 billion)

See above ***


The cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million)

Yes

The cost of smoking-related fires (£507 million)

Cost to insurance bodies, not to governments, as per ***



and the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers and passive smokers (£4.1 billion and £713 million respectively).

Funny how they count the deaths of people as economic costs (lost productivity).

They do that for farm animals too, you want to associate yourself with such people.

You to can be a health nazi.

You do alot of assuming I've noticed, I could assume the cost of fire is down to the emergency services and treatment due to fire...

"This annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate, say the Dr Allender and colleagues, because it does not include indirect costs, such as lost of productivity and informal care; the costs of treating disease caused by passive smoking, or the full range of conditions associated with smoking. "

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090609_1.html

Do you really want me to start digging out data about the cost of smoking?

I have spent time in the respitory ward at hospital due to my asthma in the past and you see people who can hardly breath getting life saving treatment then when well enough they can't get out of bed quick enought for a cig!!! I bet you are one of these people, well if you inflict this on yourself I can't see how you can expect to be treated.

So you say tax generated from cigs pays for their treatment? Yeh right, just like raod tax pays for the roads!!

Get a life.
 
This annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate, say the Dr Allender and colleagues, because it does not include indirect costs, such as lost of productivity

347133-53418-31.jpg


Here we go again, "lost productivity", bad cattle BAAAadddd.

Pensioners are no longer productive, the disabled, children, and many people with self inflicted disabilities. should we start considering them a cost to society as they are "not productive", should we start restricting activities or items that may lead to "lost of productivity" Or does this argument only apply to people doing things you and other prod noses disapprove of?

If people wish to smoke, knowing what it causes, it's their decision, I find it rather disgusting that people would try to justify against it because it means they won't be paying as much tax.

To justify banning/controlling it because it will stop them being "productive", people are not cattle.


Do you really want me to start digging out data about the cost of smoking?

Yes please, show me the costs to the state healthcare system, as it is the state that taxes it, not costs to employers, or costs to insurance, and certainly not "costs" in "lost productivity", people are not cattle!

You will also have to show the savings, savings in state pensions no longer being paid out, or the cost of old age care no longer being required.

Because you do want to present a balance case yes?

You do alot of assuming I've noticed {snip} I bet you are one of these people, well if you inflict this on yourself I can't see how you can expect to be treated.

I don't, and haven't ever been a smoker.

But I can see when people are simply being discriminatory.
 
Here we go again, "lost productivity", bad cattle BAAAadddd.

No we don't go again because if you would care to read the article you will see that productivity isn't factored into the equation, it was mentioned at the very last para of the article.

So read the article and come back to comment or is there nothing in it other than the notion that people are cattle..?


Pensioners are no longer productive, the disabled, children, and many people with self inflicted disabilities. should we start considering them a cost to society as they are "not productive", should we start restricting activities or items that may lead to "lost of productivity" Or does this argument only apply to people doing things you and other prod noses disapprove of?

Whos says pentioners are no longer productive, you? The issue isn't that people are or become unproductive, the issue is that people who have the full facts in front of them carry on smoking when it causes a massive cost on our NHS due to health problems that are "self inflicted" we are not talking about children running around falling over here.


If people wish to smoke, knowing what it causes, it's their decision, I find it rather disgusting that people would try to justify against it because it means they won't be paying as much tax.

The real cost is not money it's lives, the lives of the smoker who drains the NHS of needed cash that could goto saving children etc Money could be better spent if only....

To justify banning/controlling it because it will stop them being "productive", people are not cattle.

But this is the problem, you cling onto productive to the death to support your argument but this is not the argument I put forward. And I don't even agree with your stance on cattle. Equall consideration is my philosophy when it comes to animals, after-all, I'm one of the more notorious animal rights activist of recent times...


Yes please, show me the costs to the state healthcare system, as it is the state that taxes it, not costs to employers, or costs to insurance, and certainly not "costs" in "lost productivity", people are not cattle!

You have a good start with what I've posted but you cling onto this productivity slant mentioned in the last para and not even part of the study!! Get your teeth into it and I will respond in kind.

You will also have to show the savings, savings in state pensions no longer being paid out, or the cost of old age care no longer being required.

Because you do want to present a balance case yes?

You have a balance but you ignore the facts. So you assume everyone treated on the NHS for smoke related illness are of pention age? :rolleyes:

I don't, and haven't ever been a smoker.

But I can see when people are simply being discriminatory.

:rolleyes:
 
AAron. I guess you would want to see heroin and crack cocaine, crystal meth and the like freely available? If not - then why not. Will you tell me? (he won't). :mrgreen:
 
No we don't go again because if you would care to read the article you will see that productivity isn't factored into the equation, it was mentioned at the very last para of the article.

From your article, Smoking costs NHS over £5 billion a year.

Revenue generated £9 billion.

So...?

the issue is that people who have the full facts in front of them carry on smoking when it causes a massive cost on our NHS due to health problems that are "self inflicted"

As above.

They pay more than they cost, 9 is higher than 5.

The issue isn't that people are or become unproductive

And yet someone in this very thread posted a link (cancer research) counting smoking related deaths as lost productivity.

You even seem to think that it costs more than it get's taxed, yet youre own figures don't show this, and the only figures that point to this include lost productivity.

hmmm?

The real cost is not money it's lives, the lives of the smoker who drains the NHS of needed cash that could goto saving children etc Money could be better spent if only....

Could be better spend if only....

What part of the numbers don't you get, they pay 9 billion in tax, it costs the NHS 5 billion (or 2.7 billion according to the NHS itself)

That's 9 billion that the NHS wouldnt have if not for smokers.

So how many children can you save with the change from 5 or 2.7 depending.

Hmmmm?




You have a balance but you ignore the facts. So you assume everyone treated on the NHS for smoke related illness are of pention age? :rolleyes:

Ermm that's kind of the point.

They won't be drawing a pension.

They won't be costing the NHS in as much old age care.
 
To hell with Chisora and Haye, this one looks like it might go the distance... :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :mrgreen:
 
AAron. I guess you would want to see heroin and crack cocaine, crystal meth and the like freely available?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://norml.org/news/2009/11/12/dutch-marijuana-use-lower-than-european-average-study-says

"According to the 2009 annual report, entitled "The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe," among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent are cannabis users, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent."

(Netherlands = cannabis legal)
 
AAron. I guess you would want to see heroin and crack cocaine, crystal meth and the like freely available?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://norml.org/news/2009/11/12/dutch-marijuana-use-lower-than-european-average-study-says

"According to the 2009 annual report, entitled "The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe," among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent are cannabis users, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent."

(Netherlands = cannabis legal)

I think this is now under a control order. While still "legal" to Dutch citizens it's no longer freely sold like it used to.
 
AAron. I guess you would want to see heroin and crack cocaine, crystal meth and the like freely available?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://norml.org/news/2009/11/12/dutch-marijuana-use-lower-than-european-average-study-says

"According to the 2009 annual report, entitled "The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe," among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent are cannabis users, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent."

(Netherlands = cannabis legal)

Answer the question Aaron (he won't). :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top