Cigarettes! Get your cigarettes here!

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.

sub-x

jochenstacker wrote: »

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.

Excellent,we have a winner this is exactly the point,smokers,the unemployed,the disabled,unmarried mothers,homeowners,pensioners I could go on,as I have already said the plan is in motion already to pretty much tax you for the destruction we are causing the planet,apparently :rolleyes:

P.C.

jochenstacker wrote: »

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.

What have retailers got to do with the tax on cigs?
They make the same money from a pack of cigs now as they did a few years ago.
They actually make a very low margin on cigs, but most smokers buy other things (like chewing gum) when they buy their fags, and that is why they sell them.

MikeC101

copacetic wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I see your point. I'll have to see if there's anything with a breakdown of exactly how smokers save the state money - it may be solely related to pensions etc.

copacetic

In All Fairness wrote: »

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.

You can't assure me of anything, you're just making things up. If you actually read what I said it has nothing to do with lifetime costs, it's year on year net cost. Tax take year on year from smokers doesn't cover the cost of treating them. Thats a net loss to us every year. Sure, some of them die, but then someone else comes along and starts smoking to replace them.

The difference between your 70 year old smoker and 90 year old with alzheimers is that the 90 year old probably didn't cause their own illness. Which is the whole point.

I've no problem with people smoking and killing themselves slowly, it's the complaining that they shouldn't be taxed to the hilt for the pleasure I have an issue with.

sub-x

copacetic wrote: »

You can't assure me of anything, you're just making things up. If you actually read what I said it has nothing to do with lifetime costs, it's year on year net cost. Tax take year on year from smokers doesn't cover the cost of treating them. Thats a net loss to us every year. Sure, some of them die, but then someone else comes along and starts smoking to replace them.

The difference between your 70 year old smoker and 90 year old with alzheimers is that the 90 year old probably didn't cause their own illness. Which is the whole point.

I've no problem with people smoking and killing themselves slowly, it's the complaining that they shouldn't be taxed to the hilt for the pleasure I have an issue with.

Again in a prefect world but the point is that non smokers with cancer(as well as other terminal suffers) find it difficult to get treatment as much as smokers so really this is a mute point.

copacetic

sub-x wrote: »

Again in a prefect world but the point is that non smokers with cancer(as well as other terminal suffers) find it difficult to get treatment as much as smokers so really this is a mute point.

It's not a 'mute point' (sic). You are now talking about a totally different issue, a crappy heath service. Thats not the 'point' or even close to it.

Blazer

Well then I want a FAT tax..
All those fat obese overweight people should be hammered taxwise for their costs to us.
At least smokers will pay most of their way in healthcare.
The fatties pay fcukall.:mad:

jumpguy

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Well then I want a FAT tax..
All those fat obese overweight people should be hammered taxwise for their costs to us.
At least smokers will pay most of their way in healthcare.
The fatties pay fcukall.:mad:

That would be incredible. It'd be a good incentive for people to lose weight though.

It'd be called the Fat Ass Tax. Or FAT.

copacetic

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Well then I want a FAT tax..
All those fat obese overweight people should be hammered taxwise for their costs to us.
At least smokers will pay most of their way in healthcare.
The fatties pay fcukall.:mad:

I guess they pay a lot of extra VAT on all the food they stuff in their gobs, diet books, slimming pills etc? I'm with you though. How to enforce the tax is the hard bit, yearly weigh ins? cc tax scheme like cars? You could then get a yellow tax disc to wear on your arm showing you are taxed for a certain cc when stopped by the inspectors on the street. Ryanair will be charging them by weight soon enough, that'll be a start.

I went away this year and got charged €80 extra for 9 kilos or something of extra luggage. The guy beside me was about 40 kilos heavier than me and paid the same as me for his ticket. It should be your overall weight including luggage and yourself.Yo

El Weirdo

I'm sure I read somewhere that smokers are less likely to get alzheimers...