[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

That is an inadequate reason to prohibit something. There are plenty of things that I find unpleasant, but it is both impractical and ethically repugnant to prohibit them on that basis alone.

Its repugnant to force people to inhale chemicals they don't want to out of, what boils down to, a drug addiction. But fair enough it should go to a vote. Let the majority decide.

[Fromthetrees]

If we're banning stuff can we start with diesel cars?

I hate the idea of banning stuff but understand if it effects other peoples health than banning certain things seems alright, smoking in a public park is not going to increase the chances of anyone getting cancer but me, it's a plain ridiculous idea.


http://digitaljournal.com/article/326563

[opinion guy]

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

Not at hand, although I've been tempted to dig one up, or the underlying statistics to extrapolate it, for years. It was originally presented in an economics lecture I attended when I was in college by one of the more colourful and eccentric lecturers in UCD (I'm sure some can guess which).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate:

• Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.
• Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.
• People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.
• Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.
• Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

Collate the above, extrapolate social welfare and pension costs if smoking related deaths were eliminated and smokers lived to ripe old ages plus loss of duty revenue, versus treatment costs and I'd wager that you're better off letting people smoke financially.

It's a pretty utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, but not entirely meant seriously, of course.

You are making an extremely facetious argument here Corinthian.

Until you actually run the numbers you don't know how it would come out. If you did there wouldn't be any point in running the numebrs in the first place.

So I'll tell you what - if you want to make this argument and be taken seriously, go off and run the numbers and then present us your findings (with workings so we can scrutinise your methods)

[The Corinthian]

Originally Posted by opinion guy

So I'll tell you what - if you want to make this argument and be taken seriously, go off and run the numbers and then present us your findings (with workings so we can scrutinise your methods)

So you want me to effectively spend a few hundred hours of research on this, to prove the hypothesis beyond doubt, otherwise you won't accept anything I've said? We can dismiss any medical rational for an outdoor ban in this thread then, by the same logic. Indeed, few threads would be able to stand here if that level of proof was required.

You'll note I did supply evidence, which while certainly not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, is still evidence which has yet to be rebutted.

So, I'll tell you what - if you want to rebut that evidence, then I'll presume you're debating the issue, rather than trying to impose insane criteria before it is even discussed, as a means of avoiding such debate.

[opinion guy]

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

Not at hand, although I've been tempted to dig one up, or the underlying statistics to extrapolate it, for years. It was originally presented in an economics lecture I attended when I was in college by one of the more colourful and eccentric lecturers in UCD (I'm sure some can guess which).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate:

• Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.
• Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.
• People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.
• Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.
• Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

Collate the above, extrapolate social welfare and pension costs if smoking related deaths were eliminated and smokers lived to ripe old ages plus loss of duty revenue, versus treatment costs and I'd wager that you're better off letting people smoke financially.

It's a pretty utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, but not entirely meant seriously, of course.

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

So you want me to effectively spend a few hundred hours of research on this, to prove the hypothesis beyond doubt, otherwise you won't accept anything I've said? We can dismiss any medical rational for an outdoor ban in this thread then, by the same logic. Indeed, few threads would be able to stand here if that level of proof was required.

You'll note I did supply evidence, which while certainly not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, is still evidence which has yet to be rebutted.

So, I'll tell you what - if you want to rebut that evidence, then I'll presume you're debating the issue, rather than trying to impose insane criteria before it is even discussed, as a means of avoiding such debate.

What insane criteria ?
You're predetermining the result of the analysis without having done4 it.

To call a spade a spade - you are just making **** up to back your view point and aggressively challenging anyone who dare disagree.

Now you might do well to note at this point, I haven't declared an opinion either way on an outdoor ban - so for all you know I agree with your opinion on this.

But you're contention that smoking saves the govenment money is waht I am calling you out on. You say you have posted evidence to back this - what evidence. A story about how an economics prof once talked about it is not evidence. Its an anecdote. In the first post I've quoted - you said it would be 'not difficult to show this' over and over and over. Now you are sayin it would be hundreds of hours of research (for the record - it wouldn't).

You are making outrageous claims with no evidence and flipflopping as suits you.

In essence - put up, or shut up.

[The Corinthian]

Originally Posted by opinion guy

To call a spade a spade - you are just making **** up to back your view point and aggressively challenging anyone who dare disagree.

Actually, I dropped the argument several pages ago letting the other person have the last word on it because I frankly wasn't too bothered on it. You're the one who'd decided to pull it up again after two months.

Now you might do well to note at this point, I haven't declared an opinion either way on an outdoor ban - so for all you know I agree with your opinion on this.

The whole smokers save the government money theory is completely OT from having an outdoor smoking ban and I've said as much, so what your opinion on the latter is, is irrelevant.

But you're contention that smoking saves the govenment money is waht I am calling you out on. You say you have posted evidence to back this - what evidence. A story about how an economics prof once talked about it is not evidence. Its an anecdote. In the first post I've quoted - you said it would be 'not difficult to show this' over and over and over. Now you are sayin it would be hundreds of hours of research (for the record - it wouldn't).

Why did you not read my other posts? For example in this one I specifically cited data supplied by the poster opposing my contention and along with data introduced by me demonstrated what I was discussing. I further went onto citing an article reporting that cigarette companies use this rather cynical logic to convince governments of the savings.

Of course, to more definitively prove this hypothesis, I would need to either find a study supporting it or conduct my own study (presumably by collecting compatible data to calculate from). And as I've already said, I'm not so bothered on this as to spend that amount of time researching this.

You are making outrageous claims with no evidence and flipflopping as suits you.

In essence - put up, or shut up.

And as I pointed out, I did shut up; you're the one who decided to dredge it up after two months.

However, I also did put up, as per the post I've cited above. If you wish to rebut that, then by all means. Otherwise I suggest you follow your own advice.

[opinion guy]

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

Actually, I dropped the argument several pages ago letting the other person have the last word on it because I frankly wasn't too bothered on it. You're the one who'd decided to pull it up again after two months.

I didn't read it as you dropping it I read it as him dropping arguing with the brick wall. Yes you gto me though -this was 2 months ago I didn't realise that. Is that somehow important ?

The whole smokers save the government money theory is completely OT from having an outdoor smoking ban and I've said as much, so what your opinion on the latter is, is irrelevant.

Why did you bring it up in the first place so ?

Why did you not read my other posts? For example in this one I specifically cited data supplied by the poster opposing my contention and along with data introduced by me demonstrated what I was discussing. I further went onto citing an article reporting that cigarette companies use this rather cynical logic to convince governments of the savings.

I did read your posts. As difficult as it is to read long mutli-quote posts (like this one )
You specififed data from a different year.

Actually chuck misquoted his figure as did you misquote yours.

From chucks link table 4.5 total cost of smokingt,health care, sick days etc in 2006 = 946.5 million
From your link figure 1 total tax take from cigarettes in 2006 approx = 1.1 billion.

So you can see there isn't wasn't much in it in 2006. (FYI - you quoted the figure for duty from cigarettes + alcohol + fuel)

The duty was narrowly covering the cost of treating resp disease with about 150million to spare.

Since that time the duty intake from cigarettes has barely risen - again according to your link about 1.2billion in 2009.
I can't find more uptodate health costs. That 2006 Inhale publication has not been updated since it would seem.

But we all know the cost of healthcare has steadily risen since then. I'd wager its at least equalled the rise in cigarette tax take and probably then some. So no, I don't believe that now, the duty outweighs the costs.


Of course, to more definitively prove this hypothesis, I would need to either find a study supporting it or conduct my own study (presumably by collecting compatible data to calculate from). And as I've already said, I'm not so bothered on this as to spend that amount of time researching this.

And as I pointed out, I did shut up; you're the one who decided to dredge it up after two months.

However, I also did put up, as per the post I've cited above. If you wish to rebut that, then by all means. Otherwise I suggest you follow your own advice.[/QUOTE]

[The Corinthian]

Originally Posted by opinion guy

I didn't read it as you dropping it I read it as him dropping arguing with the brick wall. Yes you gto me though -this was 2 months ago I didn't realise that. Is that somehow important ?

If he had been the one dropping the argument, my response would have been the last one in the discussion. I let him have the last word, as I shall with you now, and the argument came to an end until you read the first two or three pages of this thread and weighed in.

Why did you bring it up in the first place so ?

Because the 'cost argument' is often trotted out by people without ever being questioned. I fully admit that when I interjected, it was effectively OT and largely based upon anecdotal evidence. However, my purpose was to question whether we should simply take as fact something that there is no questioning of and is not actually proven, AFAIK.

Honestly, if I'd known how upset some people are by my daring to suggest it, I wouldn't have bothered, as it's not exactly something that's been widely, or at least openly, studied (I suspect for political reasons) and so it would be a nightmare for anyone trying to argue my point. And I'm simply not bothered to spend that amount of time on it.

So no, I don't believe that now, the duty outweighs the costs.

I never contended that it is simply a question of duty outweighing cost. Duty certainly offsets the medical costs, but to fully study the cost, one would have to look at the opportunity cost to society of smokers living to ripe old ages if they didn't smoke.

It's a very cynical and utilitarian approach to the problem, but then again so is quoting cost as a reason to ban smoking - and whether it is more or less expensive for a society to ban smoking or not, the cost really should not be the reason, because if it is, it may turn out that it was cheaper to let smokers die younger.