Sick of people saying smokers and drinkers are costing the state to much

tiocimarla

Is it just me or does anybody else get really annoyed when politicians and groups like ASH give their view on this subject. To me it is scandalous that they constantly state that smoking and alchohol related illnesses are costing the state enormous figures.

I mean, a box of smokes costs €8.40 of which the Government takes around €6.70 of that in excise duty and VAT.

Also the price of a Pint on average in dublin costs over €5.00 of which the Government takes 21% of that in excise duty and VAT.

Now what if the average smoker would smoke about 20 a day and have 8 pints a week. How much tax are they paying in their lifetime. Lets say for arrguments sake that their cumsumption lifetime averages 40 years. This would leave the figure for paid tax at.

Cigarettes: €139,360
Tax: €15,288
Total: €154,648

Now after looking at these figures I believe that the Government and lobbying groups have some neck in saying that smokers and drinkers are a burden on the system. In fact they pay more to our Government over the coarse of their lives. These figures dont even include the tax they pay on their income but that alone of which they pay in tax for alchohol and tobacco.

In fact first class rooms with a personal Jester should be provided for these people for the amount of money they pump into the system in their lives.

Groups like ASH Ireland said price was the largest factor in getting people to quit. What is it their right to say what other people do and how they live their lives. It is in my view that willpower is the largest factor in getting people to quit and thats if they choose to, its their body and they can choose to do what they want with it.

I started this thread as i was arguing with a friend "in the pub" last weekend while "having a smoke" and he was throwing his views at me trying to solve the problems of the world. He was so adamant we are a burden on the health system and wouldnt back down that I decided to do my homework and as you can see its pretty shocking.

If you are a smoker and you take nothing from this then at least the next time you get the anti-smoker pouring his opinion down your throat just remember the figures that are involved here and put them to sleep.

Id also like to see what everyone elses view on this issue is. Is the Government just using this burden crap to cover up their incompetence as a ruling body. All opinions are welcome here even that of the smug X-smoker

Wagon

This thread 20 pages in will be reduced to about 6 people arguing over the rights and wrongs and people will be banned for saying the bad things and people will stop being friends.

I hope you're happy OP, you've opened a bag of worms and ruined AH. You made me cry! bastard! :pac:

That said, i agree with you.

MagicMarker

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

TheZohanS

MagicMarker wrote: »

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

About two-fiddy.

Well done Chucky, good OP.

Biggins

MagicMarker wrote: »

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

Blood tests
Mri scans
x-ray scans
Specialist doctors
Other medical equipment needed (including breathing equipment)
Admin/staff nurse time
State sick pay benefits! (where all is paying because of a cancer stick)
Long term after-care
And so on....

tiocimarla

MagicMarker wrote: »

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

Yes true and I havnt the time now but I will update it when i do. Remember also that only a percentage of these people become ill through their habits and some get treated privatly, some abroad and some dont recieve any treatment at all so there is no way it could cost that much for treatment. Lets say for now that 1 in 3 gets ill because if their lifelong habits, that would still mean there is €463,944 in revenue to that 1 in 3. But as I say this is not Fact and I will try and get figures later.:)

jiltloop

The biggest burden in this country are the generations and generations of families who live on social welfare, get social housing etc etc. Of course there are lots of people out there who use the state when they genuinely need it but there is a section of people out there who leech off tax payers habitually, who couldn't be bothered contributing anything and raise their kids to do the same. Plus there would be a large criminal element arising from this section of people who are an even bigger burden.
That bothers me more than people who drink or smoke.

kippy

tiocimarla wrote: »

Is it just me or does anybody else get really annoyed when politicians and groups like ASH give their view on this subject. To me it is scandalous that they constantly state that smoking and alchohol related illnesses are costing the state enormous figures.

I mean, a box of smokes costs €8.40 of which the Government takes around €6.70 of that in excise duty and VAT.

Also the price of a Pint on average in dublin costs over €5.00 of which the Government takes 21% of that in excise duty and VAT.

Now what if the average smoker would smoke about 20 a day and have 8 pints a week. How much tax are they paying in their lifetime. Lets say for arrguments sake that their cumsumption lifetime averages 40 years. This would leave the figure for paid tax at.

Cigarettes: €139,360
Tax: €15,288
Total: €154,648

Now after looking at these figures I believe that the Government and lobbying groups have some neck in saying that smokers and drinkers are a burden on the system. In fact they pay more to our Government over the coarse of their lives. These figures dont even include the tax they pay on their income but that alone of which they pay in tax for alchohol and tobacco.

In fact first class rooms with a personal Jester should be provided for these people for the amount of money they pump into the system in their lives.

Groups like ASH Ireland said price was the largest factor in getting people to quit. What is it their right to say what other people do and how they live their lives. It is in my view that willpower is the largest factor in getting people to quit and thats if they choose to, its their body and they can choose to do what they want with it.

I started this thread as i was arguing with a friend "in the pub" last weekend while "having a smoke" and he was throwing his views at me trying to solve the problems of the world. He was so adamant we are a burden on the health system and wouldnt back down that I decided to do my homework and as you can see its pretty shocking.

If you are a smoker and you take nothing from this then at least the next time you get the anti-smoker pouring his opinion down your throat just remember the figures that are involved here and put them to sleep.

Id also like to see what everyone elses view on this issue is. Is the Government just using this burden crap to cover up their incompetence as a ruling body. All opinions are welcome here even that of the smug X-smoker

I notice you havent done the approximate health care costs associated with heavy smoking/drinking........
Like an income expenditure account for the state from one smoker/drinker using the same figures you have.
Also what life time are you giving to that smoker as that would have an impact on the income for the state for that person.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Blood tests
Mri scans
x-ray scans
Specialist doctors
Other medical equipment needed (including breathing equipment)
Admin/staff nurse time
State sick pay benefits! (where all is paying because of a cancer stick)
Long term after-care
And so on....

Holy ****! Look at all the people we are responsible for employing!

I cant quit now

Nodin

...biggest drain on the state sat on the Boards of Directors of Financial institutions. And yes, I can fucking prove it, thanks.

TheZohanS

[quote=[Deleted User];66126424]Holy ****! Look at all the people we are responsible for employing!

I cant quit now[/QUOTE]

Yeah but that's only if we get sick...if we don't get sick all teh money goes on building roads, childrens allowance and helping those that lost der jebs.

Biggins

[quote=[Deleted User];66126424]Holy ****! Look at all the people we are responsible for employing!

I cant quit now[/QUOTE]
Questionable to see that your willing to gamble on an earlier death then, just to keep people employed then?
I'd prefer that you give up, stay healthier and able to stay (as such) on the boards longer to debate.

omahaid

Normally I'd be saying "feckin smokers and drinkers, draining society" but ya, there are a few "institutions" that have cost the taxpayer a lot more and we have received a lot less in benefit. So, my point is, feckin bankers!!!!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2100288041_7dcb8d1449.jpg

Dravokivich

Sorry lads... extended recession was actually my fault... Started smoking and drinking a lot less...

Riamfada

The only reason smokes are still legal is the fact that the tax generated from the sale of this mind altering cancer causing addictive substance is massive.

I smoke and I wish they were illegal. Then I could quit.

drkpower

tiocimarla wrote: »

Is it just me or does anybody else get really annoyed when politicians and groups like ASH give their view on this subject. To me it is scandalous that they constantly state that smoking and alchohol related illnesses are costing the state enormous figures

What's your point, OP?
Smokers/drinkers shouldnt pay as much tax or are you just upset that someone is bad-mouthing you?

kippy

tiocimarla wrote: »

Yes true and I havnt the time now but I will update it when i do. Remember also that only a percentage of these people become ill through their habits and some get treated privatly, some abroad and some dont recieve any treatment at all so there is no way it could cost that much for treatment. Lets say for now that 1 in 3 gets ill because if their lifelong habits, that would still mean there is €463,944 in revenue to that 1 in 3. But as I say this is not Fact and I will try and get figures later.:)

There is "no way" it would cost that much for treatment?
Thats a pretty big assumption to make based on the figures you've used and without knowing the costs associated with lung cancer and other health effects of smoking/drinking.

In fairness to you 8 pints a week isnt a heavy drinking habit but 20 a day is relatively high nowadays.
I read an article recently which stated that 60% of the US healthcare funding was spent on treating Smoking/Alcohol related ailments.

tommy21

tiocimarla wrote: »

Is it just me or does anybody else get really annoyed when politicians and groups like ASH give their view on this subject. To me it is scandalous that they constantly state that smoking and alchohol related illnesses are costing the state enormous figures.

I mean, a box of smokes costs €8.40 of which the Government takes around €6.70 of that in excise duty and VAT.

Also the price of a Pint on average in dublin costs over €5.00 of which the Government takes 21% of that in excise duty and VAT.

Now what if the average smoker would smoke about 20 a day and have 8 pints a week. How much tax are they paying in their lifetime. Lets say for arrguments sake that their cumsumption lifetime averages 40 years. This would leave the figure for paid tax at.

Cigarettes: €139,360
Tax: €15,288
Total: €154,648

Now after looking at these figures I believe that the Government and lobbying groups have some neck in saying that smokers and drinkers are a burden on the system. In fact they pay more to our Government over the coarse of their lives. These figures dont even include the tax they pay on their income but that alone of which they pay in tax for alchohol and tobacco.

In fact first class rooms with a personal Jester should be provided for these people for the amount of money they pump into the system in their lives.

Groups like ASH Ireland said price was the largest factor in getting people to quit. What is it their right to say what other people do and how they live their lives. It is in my view that willpower is the largest factor in getting people to quit and thats if they choose to, its their body and they can choose to do what they want with it.

I started this thread as i was arguing with a friend "in the pub" last weekend while "having a smoke" and he was throwing his views at me trying to solve the problems of the world. He was so adamant we are a burden on the health system and wouldnt back down that I decided to do my homework and as you can see its pretty shocking.

If you are a smoker and you take nothing from this then at least the next time you get the anti-smoker pouring his opinion down your throat just remember the figures that are involved here and put them to sleep.

Id also like to see what everyone elses view on this issue is. Is the Government just using this burden crap to cover up their incompetence as a ruling body. All opinions are welcome here even that of the smug X-smoker

Long-version: But you didn't do your homework at all. In fact you just ignored "your friend", discounting his views without even looking at the statistics. Look at the direct costs of alcohol - a 92% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions between 1995 and 2002. Alcohol had a role in 28% of all accident and emergency injury admissions in 2005, with 64% of individuals admitting they would not be there if they had not been drinking. Alcohol-related intentional injuries saw an 85% rise between 1995 and 2003. These are fairly old statistics but if anything all these figures have since risen. These don't account for the indirect costs - harm to innocent bystanders via drunken assaults, damage to family and personal relationships, road traffic accidents, risky sexual behaviour leading to a rise in STDs, legal implications and a subsequent burden on the legal system amongst many others.

For smoking - more than 7000 die thanks to smoking each year. Now if they want to do so at home or on their own time then so be it. But these 7000 and the many thousands more who become ill and either recover or last a number of years don't do that. They go to the GPs and the hospitals and avail of the services as is their right, but this doesn't mean they are not a burden. Cardiovascular disease is probably one of the biggest strains brought on by smoking and excessive drinking, along with COPD, various cancers and many others. Our unhealthy lifestlyes in combination with years of resource mismanagement by incompetent subsequent governments have left the health service in the mess it is in.

While I may be an ex-smoker, I am far from smug (one year and three months free, couldn't resist ). If you want to smoke, then that is your choice and I applaude that. But to believe that smoking and drinking are not a huge drain across the board is foolhardy - that is what is scandalous here!

Short-version: It is just you.

tiocimarla

[QUOTE=kippy;66126423
Also what life time are you giving to that smoker as that would have an impact on the income for the state for that person.[/QUOTE]

Im giving 40 years give or take for arguments sake. Also Smokers die younger and many dont see their pensions. Extra state income in some cases where no family or will has been made. Also those with state pensions that die young save the state money.

Sea Sharp

Yeah screw that. Even as a poor, tax dodging student I've probably paid my NAMA bill in the form of tax on cigarettes.

tommy21

tiocimarla wrote: »

Yes true and I havnt the time now but I will update it when i do. Remember also that only a percentage of these people become ill through their habits and some get treated privatly, some abroad and some dont recieve any treatment at all so there is no way it could cost that much for treatment. Lets say for now that 1 in 3 gets ill because if their lifelong habits, that would still mean there is €463,944 in revenue to that 1 in 3. But as I say this is not Fact and I will try and get figures later.:)

Private care doesn't cost nor does going abroad? Some get no treatment? So if they die is this not a cost? "Let's just say for now..." I hope your not an economist or working in the health sector!

javaboy

tiocimarla wrote: »

Lets say for now that 1 in 3 gets ill because if their lifelong habits, that would still mean there is €463,944 in revenue to that 1 in 3. But as I say this is not Fact and I will try and get figures later.:)

The much touted 1 in 3 figure is for the general population. I imagine it's higher for regular smokers and drinkers. And you might be surprised how little that 150 to 450 thousand actually covers when specialists and consultants enter the equation.

Collie D

Regardless of whether smokers and drinkers (of which I am both) pay their way through excises etc, I am more annoyed at non-smokers taking over our beer gardens during the summer. Feck off back inside

Nodin

Grimes wrote: »

The only reason smokes are still legal is the fact that the tax generated from the sale of this mind altering cancer causing addictive substance is massive.

I smoke and I wish they were illegal. Then I could quit.

No, because then there'd be the buzz of getting your illegal nicotine fix....

tommy21

tiocimarla wrote: »

Im giving 40 years give or take for arguments sake. Also Smokers die younger and many dont see their pensions. Extra state income in some cases where no family or will has been made. Also those with state pensions that die young save the state money.

What about the cost to the future econmy due to premature deaths in terms of what otherwise would have been produced by the individual? What about absenteeism?

On a lighter note - will somebody please think of the children?

Biggins

[quote=[Deleted User];66126424]Holy ****! Look at all the people we are responsible for employing!

I cant quit now[/QUOTE]

O' and while I think of it.
Look at all the time your taking up, the resources you've wasted, the drugs you might be swallowing, etc...
...and all because of something you inflicted on yourself (but we all end up paying for too).

Whereas the person that is sick due to NO fault of their own, with a non self-inflicted illness, is shoved back further down the waiting list queue because your calling through your cancer coughs for faster treatment quick before you die, from the bed space your taking up!

tiocimarla

tommy21 wrote: »

Private care doesn't cost nor does going abroad? Some get no treatment? So if they die is this not a cost? "Let's just say for now..." I hope your not an economist or working in the health sector!

Ok I have only done half my homework on this, but it would take a long time to get real figures from the health system and tot them up and no I will stick to carpentry I agree I would make a terrible economist but what ive stated in the OP is accurate.

dlofnep

Grimes wrote: »

The only reason smokes are still legal is the fact that the tax generated from the sale of this mind altering cancer causing addictive substance is massive.

I smoke and I wish they were illegal. Then I could quit.

I quit when the smoking ban came in. Prices were going up drastically, and it seemed pointless to have to stand outside in the cold to smoke (this is long before they started creating custom smoking areas in pubs). Seemed like an opportune time to quit. 6 years on, and dlofnep is still smoke free!

How much are a pack of smokes nowadays anyways? I remember buying 10 smokes for 1.24, and a box of matches were 6P. If you have 1.50, you'd still have change for a touchdown bar, and a packet of chickatees! (or a bottle of score orange). Think 20 smokes was like 5.50 or around that when I quit. Can't remember.

A Primal Nut

MagicMarker wrote: »

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

Nothing if they have private insurance like everyone should have.

Nodin

I remember 62p for 10 Major.........

Biggins

dlofnep wrote: »

...I remember buying 10 smokes for 1.24, and a box of matches were 6P. If you have 1.50, you'd still have change for a touchdown bar, and a packet of chickatees! (or a bottle of score orange)...

I know its off topic but I remember that awful Score orange stuff.
Watery cheap stuff indeed. That was years and years ago. Gawd I getting old!

tiocimarla

tommy21 wrote: »

What about the cost to the future econmy due to premature deaths in terms of what otherwise would have been produced by the individual? What about absenteeism??

If someone dies id be fairly sure that job would regenerate tax.

tommy21 wrote: »

On a lighter note - will somebody please think of the children?

lol

javaboy

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Nothing if they have private insurance like everyone should have.

Where do you think the money comes from?

tommy21

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Nothing if they have private insurance like everyone should have.

Nothing to the state you mean - but what if someone is desperately trying to hang on to their private insurance as may be the case in the recession. Their disposable income is reduced = cost to the state.

tommy21

tiocimarla wrote: »

If someone dies id be fairly sure that job would regenerate tax.



lol

But that person who died would have paid tax for the rest of their life and made other non-measurable contributions to society. Sure someone may take their place, but it is still one less person.

Paddysnapper

Collie D wrote: »

Regardless of whether smokers and drinkers (of which I am both) pay their way through excises etc, I am more annoyed at non-smokers taking over our beer gardens during the summer. Feck off back inside

Before I quit the weed, this was my biggest gripe...When you go out for a cig, light up and some muppet starts coughing in an exaggerated fashion..Stuff 'em I say!

tommy21

tommy21 wrote: »

What about the cost to the future econmy due to premature deaths in terms of what otherwise would have been produced by the individual?

More than offset by the lack of state pension that needs to be paid to them - alleviating the upcoming pensions time bomb

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Questionable to see that your willing to gamble on an earlier death then, just to keep people employed then?
I'd prefer that you give up, stay healthier and able to stay (as such) on the boards longer to debate.

I love drinking and I love smoking and if that means I'm going to die a little earlier well then so be it.

tiocimarla

tommy21 wrote: »

But that person who died would have paid tax for the rest of their life and made other non-measurable contributions to society. Sure someone may take their place, but it is still one less person.

Yes but the gap will be filled and from maybe a lower position and that from a lower possition again all the way down the chain to the unemployed. So really smokers are getting everyone promotions and creating jobs

sponsoredwalk

MagicMarker wrote: »

You've only done half your homework.

How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?

Bhaha, I think this settles it

Oh wait, these cheap services don't count;

Biggins wrote: »

Blood tests
Mri scans
x-ray scans
Specialist doctors
Other medical equipment needed (including breathing equipment)
Admin/staff nurse time
State sick pay benefits! (where all is paying because of a cancer stick)
Long term after-care
And so on....

:rolleyes:

tommy21 wrote: »

Long-version: But you didn't do your homework at all. In fact you just ignored "your friend", discounting his views without even looking at the statistics. Look at the direct costs of alcohol - a 92% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions between 1995 and 2002. Alcohol had a role in 28% of all accident and emergency injury admissions in 2005, with 64% of individuals admitting they would not be there if they had not been drinking. Alcohol-related intentional injuries saw an 85% rise between 1995 and 2003. These are fairly old statistics but if anything all these figures have since risen. These don't account for the indirect costs - harm to innocent bystanders via drunken assaults, damage to family and personal relationships, road traffic accidents, risky sexual behaviour leading to a rise in STDs, legal implications and a subsequent burden on the legal system amongst many others.

For smoking - more than 7000 die thanks to smoking each year. Now if they want to do so at home or on their own time then so be it. But these 7000 and the many thousands more who become ill and either recover or last a number of years don't do that. They go to the GPs and the hospitals and avail of the services as is their right, but this doesn't mean they are not a burden. Cardiovascular disease is probably one of the biggest strains brought on by smoking and excessive drinking, along with COPD, various cancers and many others. Our unhealthy lifestlyes in combination with years of resource mismanagement by incompetent subsequent governments have left the health service in the mess it is in.

You sound just like the OP's friend in the pub trying to solve all of the problems of the world :rolleyes:



OP, it's brilliant how you've used one part of the population that are at way higher risk of dying young, how variable is this 40 year lifetime blanket statistic you've given us for smokers & drinkers?

It's great how the OP got so angry in his/her rant throwing in insults so far & wide the casual reader has nothing to think except;

hey, wait a minute, all those doctors are wrong after all...

tiocimarla wrote: »

If you are a smoker and you take nothing from this then at least the next time you get the anti-smoker pouring his opinion down your throat just remember the figures that are involved here and put them to sleep.

Oh this just gets funnier & funnier

Biggins

Paddysnapper wrote: »

Before I quit the weed, this was my biggest gripe...When you go out for a cig, light up and some muppet starts coughing in an exaggerated fashion..Stuff 'em I say!

...but if they are outside with you in the smoke area, would they not be smokers too and they are coughing for a reason?
(I know some others elsewhere do what you say)

Dravokivich

Tommy21... my response below are in regards to the statments you've reproduced and brought into this topic, not you...

tommy21 wrote: »

Look at the direct costs of alcohol - a 92% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions between 1995 and 2002.

Percentages are just ratios mixed around to suit the shock of the report. We need to be given an actual figure. 92% increase could just mean... right... there were 8 recorded issue's back then... but now we've got 15....

(Yes I know it's really not like that... but the figures will make more sense then a percentage)

tommy21 wrote: »

Alcohol had a role in 28% of all accident and emergency injury admissions in 2005

How many sober? Wait... 72% 0.0”

tommy21 wrote: »

with 64% of individuals admitting they would not be there if they had not been drinking.

If they had not been drinking... but it was still them drinking... not the drink. You can't push the responsibility onto Alcohol. The individual made the desicion to drink.

tommy21 wrote: »

Alcohol-related intentional injuries saw an 85% rise between 1995 and 2003.

You mean mobs of people fighting against each other or attacking other people? These people may have been drinking, but I don't see any reason for Alcohol to make them start going at it against each other. They would of had the intention prior to the drinking.

tommy21 wrote: »

They go to the GPs and the hospitals and avail of the services as is their right, but this doesn't mean they are not a burden.

We all pay for our GP visits here.... don't we? Smokers will still have to pay for the visit themselves... Unless the individual is on a Medical Card...

tommy21 wrote: »

Cardiovascular disease is probably one of the biggest strains brought on by smoking and excessive drinking

And many other forms of unhealthy living... Over eating... not being actively fit...

Collie D

Paddysnapper wrote: »

Before I quit the weed, this was my biggest gripe...When you go out for a cig, light up and some muppet starts coughing in an exaggerated fashion..Stuff 'em I say!

Agreed, fair enough if it was indoors. I don't want to force my habit on anyone else's lungs but if I'm outdoors, tough.

dotsman

Biggins wrote: »

Blood tests
Mri scans
x-ray scans
Specialist doctors
Other medical equipment needed (including breathing equipment)
Admin/staff nurse time
State sick pay benefits! (where all is paying because of a cancer stick)
Long term after-care
And so on....

And non-smokers die suddenly and peacefully in their sleep, having lived a perfectly healthy life?

As a person gets older, the more they cost the state. It is the elderly who make up the highest concentration of hospital beds. Think of all those people who live into their 80's and 90'. They are in and out of hospital, from minor colds, to falling and breaking their hip to minor strokes etc. When they're not in hospital, they're at their GPs. All of which is state funded. The average smoker dies younger.

If a smoker needs any of the above, then there is a good chance they will be paying for it out of their own pocket (as they are still young and not receiving state-aid.

Non-smokers cost the state huge amounts of money with regards pensions. From an economical point of view, it would be brilliant if everyone died the day they retire. Smokers die younger, and take a lot less in pension benefits etc.

The fact is that none one has ever done a complete study of it in Ireland. In fact, the only study into it seems to have taken place in the Czech Republic, but was immediately slammed by politicians, media, lobby groups worldwide. It was also a major international dispute between the EU and the Czech Republic as governments, such as our own, were horrified at the thought of someone seeking the truth on the matter.

tiocimarla

dotsman wrote: »

And non-smokers die suddenly and peacefully in their sleep, having lived a perfectly healthy life?

As a person gets older, the more they cost the state. It is the elderly who make up the highest concentration of hospital beds. Think of all those people who live into their 80's and 90'. They are in and out of hospital, from minor colds, to falling and breaking their hip to minor strokes etc. When they're not in hospital, they're at their GPs. All of which is state funded. The average smoker dies younger.

If a smoker needs any of the above, then there is a good chance they will be paying for it out of their own pocket (as they are still young and not receiving state-aid.

Non-smokers cost the state huge amounts of money with regards pensions. From an economical point of view, it would be brilliant if everyone died the day they retire. Smokers die younger, and take a lot less in pension benefits etc.

The fact is that none one has ever done a complete study of it in Ireland. In fact, the only study into it seems to have taken place in the Czech Republic, but was immediately slammed by politicians, media, lobby groups worldwide. It was also a major international dispute between the EU and the Czech Republic as governments, such as our own, were horrified at the thought of someone seeking the truth on the matter.

This is the kinda report on Ireland I was looking for and couldnt find.:)

Biggins

dotsman wrote: »

And non-smokers die suddenly and peacefully in their sleep, having lived a perfectly healthy life?

As a person gets older, the more they cost the state. It is the elderly who make up the highest concentration of hospital beds. Think of all those people who live into their 80's and 90'. They are in and out of hospital, from minor colds, to falling and breaking their hip to minor strokes etc. When they're not in hospital, they're at their GPs. All of which is state funded. The average smoker dies younger.

If a smoker needs any of the above, then there is a good chance they will be paying for it out of their own pocket (as they are still young and not receiving state-aid.

Non-smokers cost the state huge amounts of money with regards pensions. From an economical point of view, it would be brilliant if everyone died the day they retire. Smokers die younger, and take a lot less in pension benefits etc.

The fact is that none one has ever done a complete study of it in Ireland. In fact, the only study into it seems to have taken place in the Czech Republic, but was immediately slammed by politicians, media, lobby groups worldwide. It was also a major international dispute between the EU and the Czech Republic as governments, such as our own, were horrified at the thought of someone seeking the truth on the matter.

So what we should do is give the elderly a cancer stick and hope they pop their cloggs quicker?

I know of the Czech report (one sponsored by Marlborough Cig' company by the way - but you failed to mention that too!).
The one that failed to show an estimated alone £710,000 was spent on medical treatment for the lung cancer of President Vaclav Havel, a chain smoker.

WHO facts:
The new figures derived from estimates of rates of smoking disease from World Health Organization (WHO) data, which indicates that smoking causes 27% of deaths in men and 10% in woman (2005 figures).

Of course its easy to gloss over the costs to the economy caused by loss of work and productivity due to illness, and any diseases caused by passive smoking in non-smokers. Also, other conditions caused by smoking are not included in numbers.
Sure lets kill those off too a little earlier. I'm sure their offspring would approve too (not!).

sponsoredwalk

dotsman wrote: »

And non-smokers die suddenly and peacefully in their sleep, having lived a perfectly healthy life?

As a person gets older, the more they cost the state. It is the elderly who make up the highest concentration of hospital beds. Think of all those people who live into their 80's and 90'. They are in and out of hospital, from minor colds, to falling and breaking their hip to minor strokes etc. When they're not in hospital, they're at their GPs. All of which is state funded. The average smoker dies younger.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the topic?

If you'd read the first post the OP was talking about how terrible it is that politicians complain about the strain on the system smokers & drinkers are causing simply by consciously choosing to engage in activities that are detrimental to health.

Using biological determinism (in the form of getting old with no say in the matter) is not something people can help.

Oh wait, yes they can...

Do smoking and drinking not age people, gradually destroy the body, destroy brain cells etc... etc...

If people are lucky enough not to die from lung cancer, destroyed liver, etc... etc... then would they not be going to hospital more frequently than those healthier individuals who did not smoke & drink?
So, in old age what people, in general, would require more medical treatment?

tommy21

Dravokivich wrote: »

Tommy21... my response below are in regards to the statments you've reproduced and brought into this topic, not you...




Percentages are just ratios mixed around to suit the shock of the report. We need to be given an actual figure. 92% increase could just mean... right... there were 8 recorded issue's back then... but now we've got 15....

(Yes I know it's really not like that... but the figures will make more sense then a percentage)



How many sober? Wait... 72% 0.0”



If they had not been drinking... but it was still them drinking... not the drink. You can't push the responsibility onto Alcohol. The individual made the desicion to drink.


You mean mobs of people fighting against each other or attacking other people? These people may have been drinking, but I don't see any reason for Alcohol to make them start going at it against each other. They would of had the intention prior to the drinking.



We all pay for our GP visits here.... don't we? Smokers will still have to pay for the visit themselves... Unless the individual is on a Medical Card...



And many other forms of unhealthy living... Over eating... not being actively fit...

72% may have been sober, but it is still pretty damning that the other 28% were not.

The individual may have made the decision to drink, but their inhibitions are lowered the more they drink. The responsibilty does partly lie with alcohol as a result.

On assaults - you can't see any particular reason? Again alcohol lowers inhibitions and fuels violence as a result. Sure some people go out to cause trouble, but not all intend to prior to downing a lake's worth of alcohol. There is a link there.

On GPs and Hospitals - you don't mention the burden on hospitals...

On cardiovascular disease - sure I agree with you here, alcohol and smoking are but one part of the picture.

tommy21

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Bhaha, I think this settles it

Oh wait, these cheap services don't count;



:rolleyes:



You sound just like the OP's friend in the pub trying to solve all of the problems of the world :rolleyes:



OP, it's brilliant how you've used one part of the population that are at way higher risk of dying young, how variable is this 40 year lifetime blanket statistic you've given us for smokers & drinkers?

It's great how the OP got so angry in his/her rant throwing in insults so far & wide the casual reader has nothing to think except;

hey, wait a minute, all those doctors are wrong after all...





Oh this just gets funnier & funnier

Since you base most of your argument on smiley faces, I shall do the same.
:rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk

Biggins wrote: »

I know of the Czech report (one sponsored by Marlborough Cig' company by the way - but you failed to mention that too!).

No way :eek:

I think people should be reading that posters diatribe as:

dotsman wrote: »

And non-smokers die suddenly and peacefully in their sleep, having lived a perfectly healthy life?

As a person gets older, the more they cost the state. It is the elderly who make up the highest concentration CLICK HERE! of hospital beds. Think of all those people CLICK HERE! who live into their 80's and 90'. They CLICK HERE! are in and out of hospital, from minor colds, to falling and breaking their hip to minor strokes etc. When they're not in hospital, they're CLICK HERE! at their GPs. All of which is state funded. The average smoker CLICK HERE! dies younger.

If a smoker needs any of the above CLICK HERE! , then there is a good chance CLICK HERE! they will be paying for it out of their own CLICK HERE!

Non-smokers cost the state huge CLICK HERE! amounts of money with regards pensions. From an economical point of view, it would be brilliant if everyone CLICK HERE! died the day they retire. Smokers die younger, and take a lot less in pension benefits etc.

The fact is that none one has ever done a CLICK HERE! complete study of it in Ireland. In fact, the only study into it seems to have taken place in the Czech Republic, but was immediately slammed by politicians, media, lobby CLICK HERE! groups worldwide. It was also a major international dispute between the EU and the Czech Republic as governments, such as our own, were horrified at the thought of someone seeking the truth on the matter. pocket (as they are still young and not receiving state-aid.

Biggins

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No way :eek:

Yes way sadly.
The clue was also in the link dotsman also provided but used a single word link rather than possibly expose the actual source people)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm)

dotsman wrote: »

...the only study into it seems to have taken place in the Czech Republic, but was immediately slammed by politicians, media, lobby groups worldwide.

I wonder why? Maybe because a cig' rate company started up and paid for this report I wonder and tried to pass it off as 100% true than actual company spin.

O' and dotsman forgot to include this too:

The funding and public release of this study which, among other things, detailed purported cost savings to the Czech Republic due to premature deaths of smokers, exhibited terrible judgment as well as a complete and unacceptable disregard of basic human values.

For one of our tobacco companies to commission this study was not just a terrible mistake, it was wrong. All of us at Philip Morris, no matter where we work, are extremely sorry for this. No one benefits from the very real, serious and significant diseases caused by smoking.
We understand the outrage that has been expressed and we sincerely regret this extraordinarily unfortunate incident.
We will continue our efforts to do the right thing in all our businesses, acknowledging mistakes when we make them and learning from them as we go forward.
We are not distributing copies of the report, however, we thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

Corporate Communications
Philip Morris Management Corp.