Cigarettes! Get your cigarettes here!

jochenstacker

Right, advertising for cigarettes and tobacco products is now pretty much illegal in any way. A box of fags now costs around 8 quid and tobacco (25g) around the same.

People still smoke (including me), but now have to suffer greatly in a financial way.
Let’s get this straight:
The government couldn’t give two sh*ts about whether we smoke or not, if they can’t be bothered about A&E’s, care for children, the elderly and most certainly not the handicapped. These people are seen as an expense, one that must be minimised or eradicated.
Anyway, back to the subject.
As a smoker you are an easy target and by adapting the handwringers rhetoric, the government has all the excuses to bleed you dry. And if you drink (no, how dare you!), you get hit twice.
Ireland has the highest taxes on booze and fags in Europe. This is simply for the purpose of screwing as much money out of you under the pretext of being all fuzzy, warm and caring about you.
Yeah right.

But there’s help at hand and the EU is but a short hop away.
I personally buy all my tobacco abroad whenever I’m over on the continent.
Fly over for a long weekend (Germany, Spain, wherever), bring 2 empty suitcases (one checking on carry on), do all my shopping there (clothes, electronics) and bring 20-40 packs of tobacco home.
The great thing is that this is entirely legal. Under EU law you can buy and haul quite a bit of tobacco across the borders, as long as it is for your own, personal consumption and as long as you yourself go there and bring it back.
Should customs quote restrictions under the duty free act, nonsense.
First: There is no more duty free within Europe.
Second: It’s not duty free, you paid duty on it when you bought it.
Therefore duty free restrictions do not apply.
I don’t regard this as unpatriotic, what I do regard as unpatriotic is the fact that the government and the retailers have conspired to screw the people for as much money as anyhow humanly possible.
The attitude here is “gimme my money, now f*ck off!”
You don’t just slaughter the golden goose, you smash all the eggs to see if there’s more gold inside.
When a minister says that 100k is a pittance and medical consultants say 200k is “Mickey Mouse money”, you have to ask yourself “Is greed really all that good?”
Look what it brought us.
The highest prices and wages in Europe, rampant unemployment because foreign investors are fleeing the country, vast ghost towns of uninhabited estates and workers going on strike, because they’d rather see more of their co-workers on the dole than to forego a wage increase.
What good is an agreed wage of 50k if you're unemployed, because your industry has died out?

And a Taoiseach who earns more than any leader in the free world.
Nope, to get more than him, you’d have to be the dictator of some banana republic.

Biggins

jochenstacker wrote: »

...
And a Taoiseach who earns more than any leader in the free world.
Nope, to get more than him, you’d have to be the dictator of some banana republic.

NOPE! Just call yourself Jackie Healy Rea. He earns more.

Jackie Healy-Rae (IND)
Basic Salary: €106,581
Expenses: €89,705!!!
Secretary Allowance: €40,090
Independent Allowance: €41,152
Committee Chair: €10,241
Total: €289,769
Paycut? No - Refused! Says he's forked out enough! God knows where!!!

copacetic

presumably you'll go abroad for treatment when you get lung cancer also and not expect us to pay for it?

Prof.Badass

Non smoker here, but nice rant.

I wish they sold nicotine replacements in shops the way cigarettes are sold. It's senseless making them harder to get than cigarettes.

Considering how much safer they are, i'm sure some smokers would find a product that suits them and make the change.

Not every nicotine user wants to give up.

jumpguy

copacetic wrote: »

presumably you'll go abroad for treatment when you get lung cancer also and not expect us to pay for it?

+1

I like the way smokers can pay for their own future hospital treatment. Also, the reasons are taxes are so high on booze and fags is the government's attempts to quell our world famous booze and fags culture. It's also an attempt to make it difficult for the youth to buy them, and it's working but only to a small degree.


Even in good times, the taxes on the ole reliables went up every year. In bad times, would you prefer they hit health system and education harder to try and save a few smokers their box of fags?

bleg

i say fair play to you for going over and getting your stuff on the cheap!

My name is URL

copacetic wrote: »

presumably you'll go abroad for treatment when you get lung cancer also and not expect us to pay for it?

Sign a contract that states that no tax raised on the sale of cigarettes will go towards the treatment of any non-smoker and maybe you'd have a valid point

cornbb

jumpguy wrote: »

Even in good times, the taxes on the ole reliables went up every year. In bad times, would you prefer they hit health system and education harder to try and save a few smokers their box of fags?

Its a fair enough principle that smokers should be taxed heavily enough to cover the cost of smoking-related illnesses. Anything above that is just an unfair punishment for a lifestyle choice, and is counter-productive anyway as it is just more likely to make smokers shop abroad.

We're already one of the most expensive countries for cigarettes in Europe - this table puts us at number four but prices have shot up by over 2 euros since then: http://www.articlesbase.com/hobbies-articles/top10-most-expensive-countries-for-smokers-284721.html

Is the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses really that much higher in Ireland, or do you think the government are just nudging up the taxes because they think/know they can get away with it? Given other stupid unfair taxes (e.g. credit card/atm card taxes) I think the latter is more likely.

benj

copacetic wrote: »

presumably you'll go abroad for treatment when you get lung cancer also and not expect us to pay for it?

Bit Harsh

ScumLord

I'm not against taxing the crap out of cigarettes. They're nothing but an addiction, you get nothing out of smoking them, no high, nothing.

I think it's daft banning advertising too, all your doing is forcing these companies into pure profit. It's not like people will stop or forget about cigarettes, so the companies go on making the same money they did before but now don't have to dumb vast sums of money into advertising.

jumpguy

cornbb wrote: »

Its a fair enough principle that smokers should be taxed heavily enough to cover the cost of smoking-related illnesses. Anything above that is just an unfair punishment for a lifestyle choice, and is counter-productive anyway as it is just more likely to make smokers shop abroad.

We're already one of the most expensive countries for cigarettes in Europe - this table puts us at number four but prices have shot up by over 2 euros since then: http://www.articlesbase.com/hobbies-articles/top10-most-expensive-countries-for-smokers-284721.html

Is the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses really that much higher in Ireland, or do you think the government are just nudging up the taxes because they think/know they can get away with it? Given other stupid unfair taxes (e.g. credit card/atm card taxes) I think the latter is more likely.

Yes that's the reason. And the government know they'll get away with it. It's also why they're cutting remedial/special needs teachers.

Sure, health organisations all over the place are praising 'em for the cigarrettes tax. Being on top of that list is a good thing in some people's point of view.

Pop's Diner

Not a smoker either but I also agree with your sentiments. Things are too expensive in this country purely by design rather than necessity.

I buy a lot of luxury stuff online from foriegn companies purely because it too expensive to buy in the shops here. Right now I'm looking at bookshelf with around 800 dvds on it and I'd say I could count on the fingers of one hand the amount I bought in a retail shop in this country. Same with all my electronic gizmos and gadgets. Makes absolutely no sense that I could buy most of them for 30%-50% cheaper in France and have them shipped directly to my home , but it is the case.

Do the Irish government get a cut from online these transactions? I wouldn't be particularily bothered if they don't

jochenstacker

With all the taxes on fags and booze the government might just manage to finance a decent health service.
That would have to go along with streamlining the admin and frontline staff.
Except they don't, they just need to plug a rather sizeable hole in the countries finances right now.
Also, you can kill yourself just as effectively with breakfast rolls and burgers and chips.
Obesity, heart disease, strokes, colon cancer, etc... that stuff is nasty.
Smoking has been singled out and vilified, because it is much easier to tax cigarettes than junk food.
The problem is not just smoking, it is having a fry up or breakfast roll with a pound of butter for breakfast, chips for lunch, readymade meals (the most evil stuff on earth), doing no exercise, drinking, smoking and doing a desk or driving job. And the 17 pints down the pub don't help.
But it's easier to just point at the "evil" smoker.
At this point i can honestly say I'm in better health than a lot of people.
If you live a moderately healthy life (and you really don't have to live on water and carrots alone), 4-5 cigarettes a day won't kill you.
I smoke and drink in moderation and even indulge in the odd snack box.
Most of the time I live on a pretty healthy diet.
If I was forced to obey the health Nazis and stop drinking, smoking, the odd takeaway and live like a monk, I would just put a bullet through my head.
If you lived an entirely sensible life, totally devoid of any risk whatsoever, what's the point? You might as well get locked into a soft cell for the rest of eternity.

Wagon

It's easy to raise taxes because fanatical non smokers are fairly widespread and will agree with everything the government do to make life more miserable for smokers. And like you sort of said, they can hide it under the cover of "we're doing it for their health". Bolllocks. They're doing it for the money.

Trampas

how much are cigs in the north can anyone tell me?

Captain-America

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's daft banning advertising too, all your doing is forcing these companies into pure profit. It's not like people will stop or forget about cigarettes, so the companies go on making the same money they did before but now don't have to dumb vast sums of money into advertising.

What? That's a horrible point. Of course advertising is going to affect the amount of people who buy cigarettes. That's what advertising does, gets people to buy their product.
The more they get their image out there, the more people are going to buy the product.

ScumLord

Captain-America wrote: »

What? That's a horrible point. Of course advertising is going to affect the amount of people who buy cigarettes. That's what advertising does, gets people to buy their product.
The more they get their image out there, the more people are going to buy the product.

I've been smoking the same brands of cigarette since I first stole them off my ol' lad. John player blue, drum and Marlboro lights when I can't get drum or I'm off on holiday.

Advertising doesn't apply in the same way with cigarettes. You probably drink the same drink in the pub you always did, you might try other advertised drinks but it's very unlikely you'll change from your regular. Other drugs are the same they don't advertise them selfs but still get used. Tobacco is a drug and normal advertising rules don't apply.

Captain-America

What about trying to reel in new smokers?

ScumLord

Captain-America wrote: »

What about trying to reel in new smokers?

It's all done on the school yard.

Captain-America

And advertising.

copacetic

My name is URL wrote: »

Sign a contract that states that no tax raised on the sale of cigarettes will go towards the treatment of any non-smoker and maybe you'd have a valid point

rubbish. The tax take on cigarettes comes nowhere near to covering the cost of smoking related illness. I'd be happy enough if there was no tax on them at all and the cost of any related illness had to be covered by the smoker themselves.

jochenstacker wrote: »

If you live a moderately healthy life (and you really don't have to live on water and carrots alone), 4-5 cigarettes a day won't kill you.

jeez, the ciggies must be killing your brain cells too. The rest of your lifestyle has absolutely nothing to do with it. 4-5 cigarettes a day could certainly kill you. How exactly do you think that eating a healthy diet is saving your lungs from dying a puff at a time?

The reason the taxes are so high is that it is the only thing that can prevent stupid people from smoking even more.

HouseHippo

NOTHING pisses me off more than smokers bitching about ahving no money.
If yis didn't wittle it all away paying 8 squids to get cancer and be smelly and unattractive in the process then maybe you would have more money.
Then again people that unintelligable prob shouldn't be allowed to have a disposable income

cornbb

HouseHippo wrote: »

Then again people that unintelligable prob shouldn't be allowed to have a disposable income

Maybe you mean "unintelligent", try looking up the definition of unintelligible. Oh the ironing...

copacetic wrote: »

rubbish. The tax take on cigarettes comes nowhere near to covering the cost of smoking related illness. I'd be happy enough if there was no tax on them at all and the cost of any related illness had to be covered by the smoker themselves.

Source plz?

jochenstacker

I don't have to bitch about not having any money.
Buy buying tobacco abroad I spend less than €200 a year on smoking.
It's so cheap I can't afford to quit!

MIN2511

I think non smokers attacking smokers is most retarded thing ever, wtf are you to judge us? We pay taxes, pay health insurance, if we want to smoke our lungs out it's none of you GOD DAMMED BUSINESS!!

Sleepy

I think I've paid for about 7 packets of cigarettes in Ireland over the past 9 months and I'm sure there are many more like me that refuse to give any more tax than absolutely necessary to a government who've pissed what taxes I have given them against the wall for so long...

It doesn't even take that much effort to be honest, just a matter of picking up 3/4 cartons whenever you're abroad yourself and asking non-smoking friends or family to do the same for you.

ScumLord

copacetic wrote: »

rubbish. The tax take on cigarettes comes nowhere near to covering the cost of smoking related illness. I'd be happy enough if there was no tax on them at all and the cost of any related illness had to be covered by the smoker themselves.

I find this attitude repulsive. You'd really want someone you love turned down for treatment because they smoke?

Should we extend that to say boxers? Well he was a boxer he was bound to end up getting beat up why should we give him treatment. I know boxers and smokers aren't really close but the whole point of community is we look out for each other no matter what mistakes we make.

jochenstacker

Good point, maybe there should be someone at the hospital who will assess if you qualify for treatment.
If it is found that you in any way brought this on yourself, you get tossed back into the street!

sub-x

Ho,ho,ho,hee,hee,hee... half the people in this country truly,honestly and naively believe that "their" taxes pay for the things they're meant to pay for :rolleyes:,I too would love to live in this make believe country,where everything is as it is meant to be

Oh yeah another thing,smoking doesn't cause lung cancer but it can,there is a big difference here,anyway its immaterial anyway because soon you will be taxed on the air you breathe

copacetic

cornbb wrote: »

Source plz?

this is after hours, not politics, do your own research. it'll take seconds on google I'm sure.

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

rubbish. The tax take on cigarettes comes nowhere near to covering the cost of smoking related illness. I'd be happy enough if there was no tax on them at all and the cost of any related illness had to be covered by the smoker themselves.

Actually pretty much every legitimate study has shown that smokers on average cost the state far less than non smokers, by simple virtue of dying younger, and hence not living to the age where generally people cost more in the form of pensions, healthcare, etc - even taking into account the cost of healthcare provided for smoking related illness.

Hard to believe - but seems to be true.

I'd also add I'm a non smoker, consider it a nasty habit, but they're certainly not costing the taxpayer any more than a non smoker.

LightningBolt

Sleepy wrote: »

It doesn't even take that much effort to be honest, just a matter of picking up 3/4 cartons whenever you're abroad yourself and asking non-smoking friends or family to do the same for you.

Jesus that bugs the **** out of me when loads of people ask.

jochenstacker

Double what?
We pay double on the healthservice than we take in?
Surely not every cent spent in the HSE goes on the treatment of smokers.
There's a lot of other diseases out there.
And a huge, lumbering dinosaur of an administration that sucks up a vast portion of the tax take.

MikeC101

The Dutch study worked out that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, while for thin, healthy people it came to about $417,000, because they live so much longer.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artmorris.html

The diseases that afflict smokers tend to kill them relatively quickly, while non smokers tends to be afflicted by diseases that take longer and end up costing a lot more in treatment, simply due to the fact that they live for longer.

Not a very nice way to look at it though.

copacetic

ScumLord wrote: »

I find this attitude repulsive. You'd really want someone you love turned down for treatment because they smoke?

Should we extend that to say boxers? Well he was a boxer he was bound to end up getting beat up why should we give him treatment. I know boxers and smokers aren't really close but the whole point of community is we look out for each other no matter what mistakes we make.

You certainly could extend it to anyone who takes stupid risks. However I didn't say they should be turned down for treatment. I said if they were unwilling to pay the tax on cigarettes then maybe we should let them switch to paying directly for the cost of the illnesses that arise. Or they could pay non community rated health insurance, that'd be a start also. If it wasn't prevented by law, smokers would be paying 10 times what the rest of us are in health insurance.


It's a matter of degrees. Do you think smokers should be top of the list for lung and heart transplants, alcoholics for kidney transplants?

They aren't, they are at the bottom of the list. We already turn smokers down for certain treatments.

stackerman

jochenstacker wrote: »

Right, advertising for cigarettes and tobacco products is now pretty much illegal in any way. A box of fags now costs around 8 quid and tobacco (25g) around the same.

People still smoke (including me), but now have to suffer greatly in a financial way.
Let’s get this straight:
The government couldn’t give two sh*ts about whether we smoke or not, if they can’t be bothered about A&E’s, care for children, the elderly and most certainly not the handicapped. These people are seen as an expense, one that must be minimised or eradicated.
Anyway, back to the subject.
As a smoker you are an easy target and by adapting the handwringers rhetoric, the government has all the excuses to bleed you dry. And if you drink (no, how dare you!), you get hit twice.
Ireland has the highest taxes on booze and fags in Europe. This is simply for the purpose of screwing as much money out of you under the pretext of being all fuzzy, warm and caring about you.
Yeah right.

But there’s help at hand and the EU is but a short hop away.
I personally buy all my tobacco abroad whenever I’m over on the continent.
Fly over for a long weekend (Germany, Spain, wherever), bring 2 empty suitcases (one checking on carry on), do all my shopping there (clothes, electronics) and bring 20-40 packs of tobacco home.
The great thing is that this is entirely legal. Under EU law you can buy and haul quite a bit of tobacco across the borders, as long as it is for your own, personal consumption and as long as you yourself go there and bring it back.
Should customs quote restrictions under the duty free act, nonsense.
First: There is no more duty free within Europe.
Second: It’s not duty free, you paid duty on it when you bought it.
Therefore duty free restrictions do not apply.
I don’t regard this as unpatriotic, what I do regard as unpatriotic is the fact that the government and the retailers have conspired to screw the people for as much money as anyhow humanly possible.
The attitude here is “gimme my money, now f*ck off!”
You don’t just slaughter the golden goose, you smash all the eggs to see if there’s more gold inside.
When a minister says that 100k is a pittance and medical consultants say 200k is “Mickey Mouse money”, you have to ask yourself “Is greed really all that good?”
Look what it brought us.
The highest prices and wages in Europe, rampant unemployment because foreign investors are fleeing the country, vast ghost towns of uninhabited estates and workers going on strike, because they’d rather see more of their co-workers on the dole than to forego a wage increase.
What good is an agreed wage of 50k if you're unemployed, because your industry has died out?

And a Taoiseach who earns more than any leader in the free world.
Nope, to get more than him, you’d have to be the dictator of some banana republic.

jochenstacker, your my hero :D
Couldnt have put it better if I tried !!
As for all the PC pushers, please live your own life and listen to jochenstacker, you could learn to love him too

The_Minister

I just posted this in the Expand Your Horizons forum.
It doesn't apply to cigarettes, but I think it demonstrates quite well that our alcohol policy is in error.

copacetic

MikeC101 wrote: »

Actually pretty much every legitimate study has shown that smokers on average cost the state far less than non smokers, by simple virtue of dying younger, and hence not living to the age where generally people cost more in the form of pensions, healthcare, etc - even taking into account the cost of healthcare provided for smoking related illness.

Hard to believe - but seems to be true.

I'd also add I'm a non smoker, consider it a nasty habit, but they're certainly not costing the taxpayer any more than a non smoker.

ssssh, have you not heard? Smoking is fine if you have a healthy diet and it doesn't cause lung cancer either if you read the theas. So they can't be dying younger.

Estimates range from 1.5billion to 3 billion a year spent treating smoking related illness. Tax tax on cigarettes is about 1 billion a year. That point stands on its own.

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

If it wasn't prevented by law, smokers would be paying 10 times what the rest of us are in health insurance.

I don't agree with this - if they cost less longterm than non smokers, they'd be paying less surely?

copacetic wrote: »

It's a matter of degrees. Do you think smokers should be top of the list for lung and heart transplants, alcoholics for kidney transplants?

They aren't, they are at the bottom of the list. We already turn smokers down for certain treatments.

This seems fair - it's the way the system works at the moment I assume?

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

ssssh, have you not heard? Smoking is fine if you have a healthy diet and it doesn't cause lung cancer either if you read the theas. So they can't be dying younger.

Estimates range from 1.5billion to 3 billion a year spent treating smoking related illness. Tax tax on cigarettes is about 1 billion a year. That point stands on its own.

That's true on a very basic level - but doesn't take the big picture into account. If these people weren't smoking then they'd live longer and cost a hell of a lot more than the 3 billion spent on treating smoking related illness, and there wouldn't be the 1 billion revenue from tax.

RoundTower

copacetic wrote: »

ssssh, have you not heard? Smoking is fine if you have a healthy diet and it doesn't cause lung cancer either if you read the theas. So they can't be dying younger.

Estimates range from 1.5billion to 3 billion a year spent treating smoking related illness. Tax tax on cigarettes is about 1 billion a year. That point stands on its own.

no it doesn't. About 10 times that much is spent on treating illnesses that result from not smoking.

ScumLord

copacetic wrote: »

However I didn't say they should be turned down for treatment. I said if they were unwilling to pay the tax on cigarettes then maybe we should let them switch to paying directly for the cost of the illnesses that arise.

Well thats fair enough, like I said I've no problem taxing the fup out of cigarettes. Their dirty things that give the user nothing but an addiction and I'm a smoker.

I'd never turn just about anyone down for treatment though. People make mistakes and deserve our help.

994

jumpguy wrote: »

I like the way smokers can pay for their own future hospital treatment.

Nonsense. If a person didn't die of lung cancer, they might die of an even more costly illness. Never mind that if someone lives to 90, they leech a fortune off the state in benefits. Smokers die at 65, which is very kind of them.

copacetic

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't agree with this - if they cost less longterm than non smokers, they'd be paying less surely?

They are practically guarranteed not to die of old age, but of an expensive drawn out illness.

You saying they cost less to the country including pension etc has nothing to do with health insurance as that isn't a cost for them. They make no saving on someone dying young, they still have to pay for their treatment.

Of course if we didn't have community rating old people, diabetics etc would be paying a fortune also.

bythewoods

HouseHippo wrote: »

NOTHING pisses me off more than smokers bitching about ahving no money.
If yis didn't wittle it all away paying 8 squids to get cancer and be smelly and unattractive in the process then maybe you would have more money.
Then again people that unintelligable prob shouldn't be allowed to have a disposable income

I hate this argument- that all smokers are unintelligent.
I'm in no way promoting smoking (I'm not one), but I know many people who are both smart and smokers.

Bit of an aside, but your reply irked me.

jochenstacker

What worries me is where this is going.
First smokers. Then people who drink.
Then meat eaters, people who don't so exercise, watch TV, then what?
This is nothing but fascism and it only will get worse.
Smokers are only the beginning, soon enough there will be more excuses found to gouge more money out of you, refuse treatment or have anyone vilified.
It should be easy finding excuses.

copacetic

RoundTower wrote: »

no it doesn't. About 10 times that much is spent on treating illnesses that result from not smoking.

The illnesses don't result from 'not smoking'. Have never heard someone claim before that not smoking costs us 20 billion a year in health costs. They are part of life, genetic problems, fate. Thats a stupid comparison.

Usually not caused by people being too stupid to listen to the myriad of heath warnings. Smoking related illnesses are a direct result of people being too stupid not to smoke.

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

They are practically guarranteed not to die of old age, but of an expensive drawn out illness.

You saying they cost less to the country including pension etc has nothing to do with health insurance as that isn't a cost for them. They make no saving on someone dying young, they still have to pay for their treatment.

Of course if we didn't have community rating old people, diabetics etc would be paying a fortune also.

But wouldn't they pay out less on someone dying young than they do on paying for long (and possibly multiple) treatments for someone who lives to a much older age? Even if we only consider the health insurance issue in isolation (and ignore the state benefits and so on), I don't see it as being as simple as smokers costing more, (though it's certainly possible they do.)

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

The illnesses don't result from 'not smoking'. Have never heard someone claim before that not smoking costs us 20 billion a year in health costs. They are part of life, genetic problems, fate. Thats a stupid comparison.

Usually not caused by people being too stupid to listen to the myriad of heath warnings. Smoking related illnesses are a direct result of people being too stupid not to smoke.

Yeah, it's not true to say the illnesses are caused by "not smoking", it's just a byproduct of living longer.

In All Fairness

copacetic wrote: »

ssssh, have you not heard? Smoking is fine if you have a healthy diet and it doesn't cause lung cancer either if you read the theas. So they can't be dying younger.

Estimates range from 1.5billion to 3 billion a year spent treating smoking related illness. Tax tax on cigarettes is about 1 billion a year. That point stands on its own.

No, It doesn't. Your figures are assuming that people who don't smoke won't die. It is a well established fact that smokers cost the state less than non-smokers as pointed out earlier. I can assure you that a smoker who dies from lung cancer at 70 costs the state a hell of a lot less than a nonsmoker with Alzheimers who lives to 90. As for your suggestion to remove community rating for health insurance,this is certainly an idea but it will affect the elderly far more than the smokers. Also if you believe in this it is only just to recalculate pension payments to reflect life expectancy and pay smokers a premium rate imo.

copacetic

MikeC101 wrote: »

But wouldn't they pay out less on someone dying young than they do on paying for long (and possibly multiple) treatments for someone who lives to a much older age? Even if we only consider the health insurance issue in isolation (and ignore the state benefits and so on), I don't see it as being as simple as smokers costing more, (though it's certainly possible they do.)

I don't believe so, smokers can survive their first bouts with cancer too, being young doesn't make it any cheaper. It's just an actuarial thing. Smokers are what, say 80% likely to develop cancer. The rest of us it's 25%, we have a massively greater chance of dying of something cheap and cheerful. They are practically certain not too.