Is it time to ban cigarettes/tobacco?

[AronSearle]

2. it's an opinion piece.

No different than yours then.
Or should yours be "opinionated"?

I try and back up all my opinions with fact, hence linking to articles showing previous examples of discrimination leading to lower use rates.

The article is an opinion piece by Lt. Ted Belling, a police office (non biased my bum).

It's strewn with medical opinions on drugs (from someone with no doctorate and no links to sources of information). Various "I Thinks" and "in my experience", the guy clearly approaches the issue with confirmation bias.

Excuse me if I prefer to form my opinions from scientific studies and from case examples.

 

[joe-90]

Crystal meth at the newsagent? Great idea.

 

[peaps]

And yet again, you post the same that was posted on the previous page, that shows smokers only cost more than they pay, if you include loss in productivity, yet again comparing people to cattle.

Yet you ignore the data I posted in the post before this one....

I have always stated that life the issue not the cost but since you can't argue against this I have touched on the monetry cost. It's not as simple as you make out and you don't have the correct figures yourself!

Loss of productivity is a valid equation when talking about tax! A worker contrubutes tax but if they become ill this tax isn't collected, it's a loss and it's right to calculate it.

After you spend a page denying that's the case.

I did show that even without productivity factored in the cost is still higher than tax paid, you ignored this however. Upto around 4 billion is calculated from illegal tobacco.....

Round and round we go

Yes you do but it's not helping your case at all.

You can't show any evidence that smokers cost state services more than they pay in tax, YOUR OWN LINKS prove this.

the links DO prove the costs you just ignore some links and add your cattle rant to dismiss what doesn't fit your agenda.

Now of course I expect you to make cheap jibes about how I think life is cheap (oh wait.... you did that) and that no price is to high to prevent smoking related deaths.

It's not just the life of the smoker though is it?

Just ignore that massive growing black market driven by excessively high prices, ignore that the black market sees "deadlier" counterfeited fags used, and criminal organisations created.

If you would have read the link you would see that it's not been ignored, costs are calculated into the equation and we get between 4 and 10 billion for illegal tobacco..

Ignore that a vast majority of smoking related illness is self inflicted (personal choice).

Personal choice becomes a problem when it affects others, unborn children, children living in a smokers enviroment, adults living in a smoking enviroment.

 

[LargeWrench]

If you think we need a population dependent on hard drugs - then you really are a spanner.

You mean like we already have? Alcohol is a very dangerous drug and isn't far of being as harmful as the hard drugs you've mentioned. That isn't my opinion either, it's a medical fact. Many people choose to ignore this however as its seen as socially acceptable to drink alcohol and get drunk. Yet if you choose another drug that happens to be illegal yet less harmful than alcohol, your somehow seen as a 'scumbag' or 'junkie' by some. This isn't me being a 'spanner' either, it's medical fact. Go and have a look, all the information is our there.

Legalisation/decriminalisation wouldn't lead to everyone being hooked on hard drugs. Portugal decriminalised personal drug use a few years ago and guess what, drug use has decreased and crime has decreased. Over there rather than it being a criminal matter it's treated as a health matter. The results speak for themselves. The results of the current system are the opposite. Drug use has risen year upon year, drug dealers profits have continued to soar and thousands of people are killed in areas where drug trafficking occurs. Look at whats going on in mexico at the moment with the drug cartels.

You can bury your head in the sand as much as you want and call people who offer a solution a 'spanner', but many people hold the same view as me. Many of whom have expertise in the field rather than just spouting sensationalist nonsense that all drugs are bad and drug users are scumbags.

 

[peaps]

Heroin

Class A drug. Originally used as a painkiller and derived from the opium poppy. There were 897 deaths recorded from heroin and morphine use in 2008 in England and Wales, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS). There were around 13,000 seizures, amounting to 1.6m tonnes of heroin.

Alcohol

Subject to increasing concern from the medical profession about its damage to health. According to the ONS, there were 8,724 alcohol deaths in the UK in 2007. Other sources claim the true figure is far higher.

Tobacco

A stimulant that is highly addictive due to its nicotine content. More than 100,000 people a year die from smoking and tobacco-related diseases, including cancer, respiratory diseases and heart disease.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list

ADRs cause 106,000 a year...... Don't make sence!

 

[AronSearle]

Yet you ignore the data I posted in the post before this one....

Point it to me again, you linked to two articles in particular.

One showed the cost to be 5 million, one to be 13.7 billion (with +9 billion being “lost productivity).

I have always stated that life the issue

Up to smokers if they want to “kill” themselves.

And you can’t pull the “they use up valuable resources” argument unless you show they take more than they pay.

Loss of productivity is a valid equation when talking about tax! A worker contributes tax but if they become ill this tax isn't collected, it's a loss and it's right to calculate it.

1. It is only fair to calculate this “loss” if you also calculate savings (if they die and no longer pay tax, neither do they draw a pension, nor old age care), funny how only the costs are being considered no?

2. Do you really want to go down this route, “people who die no longer pay tax and this costs the state”. Other than the obvious comparison to treating people like economic units, please explain then why this doesn’t apply to the thousands of other activities that may lead to “loss of tax”.

I did show that even without productivity factored in the cost is still higher than tax paid

No. You. Did. Not.

One of your links showed it to be 5 billion cost to the NHS. (Oxford University research suggests).

One of your links showed 13.7 billion in costs, but almost 8-9 of this was in “lost productivity”. And a 2.7 billion cost to the NHS.

The NHS itself provides the 2.7 billion cost.

One of your links was to an academic slide (light on stats), scanning through it shows no costs that support your costs, and 1 table that shows prices of US fags vs costs (not UK fag prices).

If you would have read the link you would see that it's not been ignored, costs are calculated into the equation and we get between 4 and 10 billion for illegal tobacco..

Where did you pull the 10 billion figure from, your bum?

(From your link)Their estimate for 2007 is £16.6 billion, suggesting spending on smuggled tobacco products was around £4 billion."

Firstly you can't count "4 billion not collected" as a cost, If I don't give you 4 pounds, you haven't lost anything, other than the opportunity.

And that's 4 billion consumer expenditure, even if that had been legal purchases less than 4 billion would be tax.









I don’t know why you find it so hard to just post the information, instead “go read the links”, well I did and can’t see what you allude to.

 

[joinerjohn]

Aaron, your chasing a lost cause here. Peaps really wants to save "Bertie the smoking Beagle"

Besides He'll try to blind you with "Statistics" (which can be made to show , whatever the person publishing those statistics wants).
At the end of the day, the point about lost productivity, is quite useless, unless the data contained in the statistics can quantify the cost of production.(and what they are producing) For all we know, 10,000 of the people who died and lost productivity, could have been cleaners on the minimum wage. A thousand of them may have been aero engineers on £20 an hour. A hundred of them could have been barristers on £500 an hour.
So without the data to quantify the statement "Lost Productivity" the statistics are essentially useless.

 

[peaps]

Aaron, your chasing a lost cause here. Peaps really wants to save "Bertie the smoking Beagle"

Besides He'll try to blind you with "Statistics" (which can be made to show , whatever the person publishing those statistics wants).
At the end of the day, the point about lost productivity, is quite useless, unless the data contained in the statistics can quantify the cost of production.(and what they are producing) For all we know, 10,000 of the people who died and lost productivity, could have been cleaners on the minimum wage. A thousand of them may have been aero engineers on £20 an hour. A hundred of them could have been barristers on £500 an hour.
So without the data to quantify the statement "Lost Productivity" the statistics are essentially useless.

How do you work that out? I'm a smoker

You also need to go look at the links and you will see what work group are affected, there is a % you know.

By the way, Beagle are not used in smoking tests, dogs don't get cancer from smoking like humans do

 

[peaps]

Yet you ignore the data I posted in the post before this one....

Point it to me again, you linked to two articles in particular.

One showed the cost to be 5 million, one to be 13.7 billion (with +9 billion being “lost productivity).

I have always stated that life the issue

Up to smokers if they want to “kill” themselves.

And you can’t pull the “they use up valuable resources” argument unless you show they take more than they pay.

Loss of productivity is a valid equation when talking about tax! A worker contributes tax but if they become ill this tax isn't collected, it's a loss and it's right to calculate it.

1. It is only fair to calculate this “loss” if you also calculate savings (if they die and no longer pay tax, neither do they draw a pension, nor old age care), funny how only the costs are being considered no?

2. Do you really want to go down this route, “people who die no longer pay tax and this costs the state”. Other than the obvious comparison to treating people like economic units, please explain then why this doesn’t apply to the thousands of other activities that may lead to “loss of tax”.

I did show that even without productivity factored in the cost is still higher than tax paid

No. You. Did. Not.

One of your links showed it to be 5 billion cost to the NHS. (Oxford University research suggests).

One of your links showed 13.7 billion in costs, but almost 8-9 of this was in “lost productivity”. And a 2.7 billion cost to the NHS.

The NHS itself provides the 2.7 billion cost.

One of your links was to an academic slide (light on stats), scanning through it shows no costs that support your costs, and 1 table that shows prices of US fags vs costs (not UK fag prices).

If you would have read the link you would see that it's not been ignored, costs are calculated into the equation and we get between 4 and 10 billion for illegal tobacco..

Where did you pull the 10 billion figure from, your bum?

(From your link)Their estimate for 2007 is £16.6 billion, suggesting spending on smuggled tobacco products was around £4 billion."

Firstly you can't count "4 billion not collected" as a cost, If I don't give you 4 pounds, you haven't lost anything, other than the opportunity.

And that's 4 billion consumer expenditure, even if that had been legal purchases less than 4 billion would be tax.









I don’t know why you find it so hard to just post the information, instead “go read the links”, well I did and can’t see what you allude to.

"In UK, individual cross border shopping of cigarettes is equal to approx 8%
of market, and illegal movements from resale some 10-19%.
• Revenue loss from these sources £2.2–3.5 bn (actual revenues approx £10
bn)"


"The complexities of calculating the direct costs of disease ensure that these sorts of studies are not carried out regularly, say the authors in the Department of Public Health, prompting reliance on figures that quickly become out of date."


Come back when you have read the links provided.

Yes the oxford study said suggest, I would be more inclined to rely on their study thatn your browsing...

 

[joinerjohn]

"The complexities of calculating the direct costs of disease ensure that these sorts of studies are not carried out regularly, say the authors in the Department of Public Health, prompting reliance on figures that quickly become out of date."

They think of a number they can agree on then use that as a basis for publication.
In other words, they just don't know do they.

PS I didn't know that little fact about dogs and smoking. Perhaps it was Barry the smoking Barbary you were concerned about.

 

[AronSearle]

• Revenue loss from these sources £2.2–3.5 bn (actual revenues approx £10bn)"

Do you not understand the difference between a cost, and uncollected tax?

Either you don't, or you are simply so desperate to prove your case you want to twist the stats to show falsely high costs.

The 3.5bn is not money taken, but money not paid.

Or let it put it simply, if I give you 10 pounds, then I don't give you another 4 pounds.

Do you have 10 pounds or 6 pounds?

Nope, I didn't "cost" you 4 pounds, you still have 10 pounds.

Or to put it another way.

I am going to put a £2 tax on all packets of crisps, this will raise 16 billion pounds on current consumption.

But a large number of people buy black market crisps, and so only 10 billion is raised in this new tax.

That does not mean 6 billion pounds was "lost", which is what you are suggesting is happening with the duties.

The complexities of calculating the direct costs of disease ensure that these sorts of studies are not carried out regularly, say the authors in the Department of Public Health, prompting reliance on figures that quickly become out of date.

Translation = The NHS provides it's own statistics that say the cost is 2.7 billion, but this does not fit with my opinion so I'm going to say it's out of date or too complex to be accurate and just state it must be higher because I want it to be so.

Yes the oxford study said suggest, I would be more inclined to rely on their study thatn your browsing...

My "browsing" is based upon the NHS statistics, which you actually linked to

Come back when you have read the links provided.

Yes, please do read your own links.

 

[masona]

The Scottish are the biggest hard-drug users in the EU

According to the reports Scotland have a low life expectancy due unhealthy behaviours, such as smoking and heavy drinking or illicit drug use

Since the smoking banned, it's too early for the statistics but have seen an improvement in health

 

[AronSearle]

The Scottish are the biggest hard-drug users in the EU icon_eek.gif

More northerly latitudes (depression due to lower sunlight) + poverty = not good.

 

[Alarm]

Oh so we can blame it on low sun and coldness, with global warming hitting us all............................

 

[joinerjohn]

Alarm, do keep up dear,, Since scientists realised the world isn't going to get warmer, they re-names it "Climate Change".