nany state based on morals

Custardpi

I've always wondered about the actual balance between smoker's tax contributions & the extra money they cost the health system through increased lung disease, etc, do they really not end up paying for themselves? What if you include the fact that they're less likely to avail of things like a state pension, over 70's medical cards & free transport (due to being dead), would that not tip the balance in their favour in terms of net cost/contributions to the state? It'd be interesting to read any articles by people who've done the maths on this.

IM0

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

There is not a single type of cancer. Smoking is an established risk factor for not only cancer but also cardiovascular disease, the no.1 killer in the western world and also preventable in the majority of cases.

ah the language of the the new religion. statistics!!

all hail statistics!!

you have a 50% chance of everything in life, stuff will or wont happen
regardless of what statistics will have you believe


again life is risky, no one lives forever

again, if I place a rock in my garden that I believe keeps tigers away does that mean there are no tigers in my garden because the rock is keeping them away?

RaRaRasputin

orestes wrote: »

But they aren't illegal (apart from abortion, and that's looking like it's gonna change soon too) so morals don't rule the country, laws do, that was my point.

yes i agree with you, but i was referring to the common boards law makers

ashers22

oops, sorry I forgot it was progressive to not give a shít.

feelgoodinc27

IM0 wrote: »

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

ect, get in the sack!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtZQEaixmY

HondaSami wrote: »

Is it ok if the taxpayer's lungs/liver packs in?

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Everyone pays taxes, it's a give and take system. Get over it.

If the OP wants to take full responsibility, including financial, for what they do fine. Most people pay tax sure but why would you want to add to the burden of a system that can't even properly look after those who need help through no fault of their own.

HondaSami

I'm sure it's friday, the weekend is for having fun, nothing wrong with having a few drinks, smokes, and sex with strangers.

Boombastic

People who get knocked down by cars shouldn't be treated either, I mean if they're not going to look where they're going, tough sh1t really

HondaSami

Boombastic wrote: »

People who get knocked down by cars shouldn't be treated either, I mean if they're not going to look where they're going, tough sh1t really

And fat people don't forget them. Everyone should be skinny.

heyjude

Mr Whirly wrote: »

If someone smokes 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax they will contribute (very) roughly 130,000 euro in tax. Surely that should cover it? Not to mention the people who never get ill because of it still contributing.

But you are ignoring the fact that nobody has smoked 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax, but they may very well have to use hospital/medical services that will have to be paid for at todays rates. Tax rates on cigarettes 50 years ago may have been just a few pence a pack, so a single day in hospital now or a single prescription of certain drugs may account for a years worth of tobacco taxes paid then. You also forget about the loss in productivity caused by smokers missing more days off work during their working lives and the possibility that smokers may have to give up work early and go on disability payments. Medical expenses aren't the only issue.

Mr Whirly

heyjude wrote: »

But you are ignoring the fact that nobody has smoked 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax, but they may very well have to use hospital/medical services that will have to be paid for at todays rates. Tax rates on cigarettes 50 years ago may have been just a few pence a pack, so a single day in hospital now or a single prescription of certain drugs may account for a years worth of tobacco taxes paid then. You also forget about the loss in productivity caused by smokers missing more days off work during their working lives and the possibility that smokers may have to give up work early and go on disability payments. Medical expenses aren't the only issue.

Fair enough but you're forgetting about the ones who never get sick/ quit before it has any major implications to their health, have health insurance, don't undergo any treatment, get sick or killed by something else first and so on.

Mince Pie

I would imagine that drinkers and smokers contribute a little more to the coffers than the obesity epidemic. So I'll keep on keeping on enjoying my glass of vino and ciggie whilst eating a fairly decent diet.

gollyitsolly

Its all about freedom really,isnt it? Free to consume what you want.

Why do people obsess about obese/fat people so much? Leave them alone. Look at the amount of money they put into the economy. They spend vast amounts on food,bigger clothes,bigger chairs,bigger beds,toilet rolls.

What do skinny health obsessed people contribute? They hardly eat,dont drink ,dont smoke?

Who wants to lie in a coffin looking fit and healthy?

The goody brigade get my goat.

wendell borton

What are morals?
To me i don't give a **** what an indivual does to theirself just as long as it dosen't harm any one else. Must of the actions mentioned by the op do have knock on consequences for others.

DEFTLEFTHAND

You're not allowed to divulge certain info about tobacco, such as the 'moderation theory'. The extremists like to shout over anything that goes against their views.

sock puppet

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

How strange. It seems like tobacco PR rep from the 1970s has somehow found their way on to boards.

Siuin

The basic problem with the OP's assertions is that he's under the false impression that every man is an island. No, you're not. You're part of a wider society on which negative actions can have negative consequences. You have your individual rights, but when they have such negative consequences for wider society, that society has the right to enact laws which will balance out your rights with their well-being as a whole in a way that is reasonable.

IM0

Siuin wrote: »

The basic problem with the OP's assertions is that he's under the false impression that every man is an island. No, you're not. You're part of a wider society on which negative actions can have negative consequences. You have your individual rights, but when they have such negative consequences for wider society, that society has the right to enact laws which will balance out your rights with their well-being as a whole in a way that is reasonable.

dont patronise me please :rolleyes:

and at least give examples and make some points to debate about

Siuin

IM0 wrote: »

dont patronise me please :rolleyes:

and at least give examples and make some points to debate about

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

Boombastic

Siuin wrote: »

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

Get in the sack

IM0

Siuin wrote: »

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

and ok now were getting somewhere, the problem is most modern life is based on statistics, the problem is not so much what the statistics say, but more the for example lets use smoking, people of die of lung cancer smokers and non smokers alike, but please tell me you can see the difference between dying while doing something [smoking for during life] and dying, but then looking retrospectively at a life and saying they smoked, and putting 2 and 2 together and getting 46 until someone debunks what has been said, and suddenly a new truth comes to light that actually they were wrong.

Siuin

IM0 wrote: »

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

How am I trying to put words in your mouth? You said in your OP;

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

I said: It's not as simple as "my money, I'll do what I want with it." Your actions have consequences on wider society and therefore it is fitting that these actions are monitored within reason.

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

and ok now were getting somewhere, the problem is most modern life is based on statistics, the problem is not so much what the statistics say, but more the for example lets use smoking, people of die of lung cancer smokers and non smokers alike, but please tell me you can see the difference between dying while doing something [smoking for during life] and dying, but then looking retrospectively at a life and saying they smoked, and putting 2 and 2 together and getting 46 until someone debunks what has been said, and suddenly a new truth comes to light that actually they were wrong.

That would be better appreciated in the Conspiracy Theories Forum, mainly because like most conspiracy theories is is utter rubbish.

IM0

WileyCoyote wrote: »

That would be better appreciated in the Conspiracy Theories Forum, mainly because like most conspiracy theories is is utter rubbish.

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

there is a very simple experiment to prove it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

You're either nuts or you should live under a bridge and eat goats!:D
Paradigm me arse!

mikemac1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Insufficent to meet the cost of alcohol/tobaccco related illnesses, fact.

Aren't you constantly asking other posters for links and references and evidence for their posts and now you add fact after your own.


Yes there are hospital costs.
There are also people dieing younger so no paying out pensions for decades.

Lou.m

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Doctors do not claim you cannot get cancer of the lungs by other means. They say that smoking is a leading cause of cancer of the lungs.

Causation has been established legally and scientifically. They understand that the carcinogens cause a mutation in the cells in your lungs.

No one ever claimed it was the sole cause it is the LEADING CAUSE of cancer .

It is not merely a correlation it is a causation relationship between smoking and cancer (and many other diseases too).

If you choose to smoke you have to face up to the consequences...you can't just hide in the warm fuzziness of make believe.

Death and Taxes

mikemac1 wrote: »

Aren't you constantly asking other posters for links and references and evidence for their posts and now you add fact after your own.


Yes there are hospital costs.
There are also people dieing younger so no paying out pensions for decades.

You are disputing the fact?
If you want links ask for links like a good little boy:p

IM0

Lou.m wrote: »

Doctors do not claim you cannot get cancer of the lungs by other means. They say that smoking is a leading cause of cancer of the lungs.

Causation has been established legally and scientifically. They understand that the carcinogens cause a mutation in the cells in your lungs.

No one ever claimed it was the sole cause it is the LEADING CAUSE of cancer .

It is not merely a correlation it is a causation relationship between smoking and cancer (and many other diseases too).

If you choose to smoke you have to face up to the consequences...you can't just hide in the warm fuzziness of make believe.

as oppose to the warm fuzziness youre hiding in of unfounded notions, something is unfounded untill it is proven to be 100% and no statistic will ever say that something causes something because the truth is alot of assumptions have been made to arrive at the data they arrived at.

Pherekydes

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Maybe the truth is somewhere between those two ridiculous extremes?

Lou.m

IM0 wrote: »

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

there is a very simple experiment to prove it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

Science is that which can be falsified. It does not use paradigms as it rarely uses words. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation. The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.
This is rudimentary explanation , I am only a lay person.

Also the theory that science occurs in revolutions ( a theory remains until another opposing one more fitting to the current needs arises) is based on 'science' and methods from hundred of years ago.Science does not really occur in revolutions any longer it has not for a long time You are not distinguishing an untested unproven theory and a proven theory.

Modern science is a much steadier progression. Also you are using the concept of a theory or the idea of a scientist interchangeably with what has been proven. Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causational relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy). This causation was established between smoking and cancer. You could possibly say that it is possible that a few smokers who had lung cancer got it from another root cause but that does not negate the statement that smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer. An the odds are that smoker got cancer from smoking.

The theory of relativity.....was accepted because it was thought to be the best theory at the time...it is not a proven fact. No scientist claims it is. The


Science does not really occur in revolutions any longer it has not for a long time.
When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses. In addition to testing hypotheses, scientists may also generate a model based on observed phenomena.

But again if you are going to attack science you have to distinguish between proven and unproven hypothesis and theory and proven and unproven models.
Otherwise you are attacking something that science does not clam to have proven in the first place.


It is sad though we see with research into the human genome and with the discovery of the Higgs Bosson that science and scientists have progressed so far beyond the minds and intelligence of the ordinary layperson that comprehension is difficult and people's imagination paranoia, suspicion and arrogance takes over.

e it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

I am no expert but I always thought G-force was a unit of measurement of any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass" The g-force acceleration acts as a multiplier of weight-like forces for every unit of an object's mass, and (save for certainelectromagnetic force influences) is the cause of an object's acceleration in relation to free-fall.

This acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces acting on an object free to move. The accelerations that are not produced by gravity are termed proper accelerations, and it is only these that are measured in g-force units.

Also I imagine in you scenario the acceleration would depend on the distance travelled.
More fascinating stuff here
http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/pdfs/falling-objects-calculations.pdf