Call to raise cost of tobacco to cut cancer rates

Mrs Woman · 06-02-2017 11:19AM

newwan wrote: »

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Life is short and then we die. Who really cares what kills us? If you didn't get cancer from smoking you'd most likely get it from something else anyway.

Stupidest post of the year. Maybe of all time? The money needed to pay for that cystic fibrosis drug for little kids to breathe is being spent on smokers...
Tax money is spent on dodgy fags

Well given the price of a packet of fags and the portion of tax on it I wouldsay the smoker more than contributes to their healthcare over a lifetime. Anyway why do we even spilt hairs about who deserves healthcare. Lets just say everyone does!

Your Face · 06-02-2017 11:22AM

They're going to have tax a lot more than tobacco in order to cut cancer rates.
This is just money grabbing under the guise of caring about the people.

Politicians really are scumbags.

Widdershins · 06-02-2017 11:25AM

Not sure what that ^^^ is about. I'm a smoker and no money's being spent on me. I look after my health in many ways and am fit as a fiddle. I hope to stay that way, and will give up smoking, my only vice, when I feel ready, but I pay my own way and for my own healthcare anyway. Why am I being implicated in taking from CF sufferers? Why not point the finger at drinkers and people with rubbish diets?

Constant picking on people is hypocritical and unhelpful.

dr.fuzzenstein · 06-02-2017 11:41AM

osarusan wrote: »

Rather than increase the price, I wonder how much would be saved if there was a real crackdown on illegal cigarettes.

I seem to remember a statistic that 25% of cigarettes are bought illegally here, but might be wrong on that.

Whatever it is, with such a high rate of tax on them, a crackdown would result in more tax from legally purchased cigarettes.

A real crackdown would not be cheap. Manpower and equipment is needed for that. And every time the price goes up, the profit for criminals goes up. Not every shipping container can be searched and even if the ports were made watertight, smugglers would find other means, so the navy would have to increase their patrols considerably.
So what is the cost of hundreds of customs staff to be hired, xray equipment to search every container, gardai to control markets, a few more ships and more manpower in the navy, customs and navy would probably need a few more buildings, the list is endless.
So in the end there would be less tax take and increased smuggling and a massive cost on an unwinnable "war on fags".
And I nearly forgot, a few more prisons to house all the criminals that were caught.
Then there's airports and car ferries...
In the end the state would have to spend billions to save millions. Unworkable.

El_Duderino 09 · 06-02-2017 11:43AM

Widdershins wrote:

Hmm..no I think the risks posed by vaping are serious in their own right. I don't think it's possible to definitively say which is worse when new information's being released all the time. Although I know there's quite a lot of ''junk'' in cigarettes too.

Oh I'm open to whatever evidence comes forward. We have tons of damning evedence about the consequences of cigarettes and some evidence that vaping might be bad in some ways.

Going by the evidence we have right now it's, simple to say which is worse. That might change in time but right now it's simple.

Widdershins wrote:

I don't think it's a good solution and I thought it was not supposed to be used as a full time cigarette substitute anyway. Just my own opinion, can't say much more since it appears that little is known about vaping yet.

Sure vaping isn't beneficial to health. Nobody said it is. The evidence so far says it's less harmful than smoking tobacco. That's all we can say right now and that's all we need to know to answer the following question: which is more harmful to health, smoking or vaping?

Let the science do its job and let us form our opinion based on the results. So far, it's an obvious answer that cigarettes are more harmful.

the evasion_kid · 06-02-2017 11:43AM

Widdershins wrote: »

Vaping is not good for you, either.

I agree with the other posters pointing out various things that people do despite it being known those things cause cancer. Living in a city and being exposed to exhaust fumes and general air pollution is as bad as passive smoking. I don't remember if first hand or passive smoking are worse but that seems bad enough to me. Add to that the diet of processed food, red meat and alcohol that many people consume, and there's plenty to be worrying about without obsessing over other peoples' cigarettes.

Up to 95% less harmful than smoking according to the royal college of surgeons(you know those fellas than linked lung cancer to cigarettes back in the day).As far as harm reduction goes I know were I'd hedge my bets!

Widdershins · 06-02-2017 11:48AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I'm open to whatever evidence comes forward. We have tons of damning evedence about the consequences of cigarettes and some evidence that vaping might be bad in some ways.

Going by the evidence we have right now it's, simple to say which is worse. That might change in time but right now it's simple.

Sure vaping isn't beneficial to health. Nobody said it is. The evidence so far says it's less harmful than smoking tobacco. That's all we can say right now and that's all we need to know to answer the following question: which is more harmful to health, smoking or vaping?

Let the science do its job and let us form our opinion based on the results. So far, it's an obvious answer that cigarettes are more harmful.

Yes, you're right. It's still looking less harmful than cigarette smoking but by a narrower margin all the time, so I don't trust vaping to be the miracle solution it's sometimes presented as.

For me personally it wasn't an option as it made me unwell. Immediate negative effects.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/vaping-bad-as-smoking-cigarettes-damage-key-blood-vessel-e-cigarettes-nhs-heart-experts-a7216096.html

Pyr0 · 06-02-2017 11:50AM

Along with price increases they should limit the sale of tobacco in the mornings and late in the evening, maybe start a bit later on a Sunday for good measure.

I imagine it'd be very effective in cutting cancer rates and will surely curtail underage smoking.

newwan · 06-02-2017 12:16PM

srsly78 wrote: »

newwan wrote: »

Please post this study.

Maybe if you reckon killing people off in their 40s and 50s is good health economics...

Smokers dying young saves money, this is a fact. Whether is it desirable or not is debatable - but the money argument does not work.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

That is a 20 year old study. And extremely poor level evidence

goose2005 · 06-02-2017 12:22PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Wondering if anyone has correlated the cost and strain of treating smoking related illnesses on our beleagured health service?

if people didn't die of smoking they'd die of something else, possibly even more expensive to treat

learn_more · 06-02-2017 01:06PM

The minutes of the ICS meeting where this recommendation was conceived have been leaked.

Chairman: Hello, welcome to our monthly meeting. Anyone have any innovative suggestions as how to tackle the cancer crisis?
Member 1: I suggest recommending the government to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes to 28 euro and 50 cent.
Chariman: All those for?
All Members: Aye
Chairman: Those against?
All Members: silence
Chairman: The ayes have it. Member 1, send the email. This meeting is adjourned.
Chariman: Drinkies anyone ?

Dyr · 06-02-2017 01:08PM

What happened to the idea of a rolling age ban?

So its made illegal for under 21s this year, then under 22's next then under 23's etc.

Cigarettes are too much of a revenue source for our own good

srsly78 · 06-02-2017 02:01PM

newwan wrote: »

That is a 20 year old study. And extremely poor level evidence

Well it's better than making wild assertions with zero evidence whatsoever don't you think?

the_syco · 06-02-2017 02:34PM

Parachutes wrote: »

I'd say cigarettes will be completely banned by 2050.

Sort of like how drugs are banned, no doubt. Everyone will still smoke, but the government won't be raking in as much tax, so the health service will be on its knees.

Parachutes wrote: »

It seems strange that people think its okay to completely ostracize cigarettes to the point where they're almost impossible to enjoy on a regular basis just because they're bad for you. If we applied the same standard to processed food or drink for example and put in the same amount of public spending and policy would people feel the same way?

For some reason you can't call out people for being fat. I'd say this will change once they fleece the smoking ban.

Parachutes wrote: »

I think the dangers of smoking are completely overblown, I know people in there 70's and 80's who have smoked their entire lives who are as strong and healthy as an ox.

I've found that many people that are "strong and healthy as an ox" have most often lived a very active lifestyle (mainly farmers). IMO, more research should be done on finding out why these people don't get cancer, to see if they can find a cure that way :P

Parachutes wrote: »

I say educate people and let them make their own decisions.

People tend to be stupid. They don't like being told what to do, but expect the government to pay for their bad life choices.

ScumLord · 06-02-2017 02:47PM

They say smoking kills 2 out of 3 people, I know it's a long shot but there's a 33% chance I can become immortal by smoking. I think it's worth the risk.

It's always pretty shocking how willing people are to get the state to restrict other peoples lifes. They'll probably shout nanny state when they go after something they like but at that stage it's too late, they've set the precedent.

Neon_Lights · 06-02-2017 02:48PM

Let's raise the cost of every carcinogen until we're all facile vegan puppets with no free will

El_Duderino 09 · 06-02-2017 02:58PM

the_syco wrote:

Sort of like how drugs are banned, no doubt. Everyone will still smoke, but the government won't be raking in as much tax, so the health service will be on its knees.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. They overall tax receipts would be lower so they would be made up somewhere else - or not. The idea that tax from smoking can't be made up elsewhere is miles out.

Call Me Jimmy · 06-02-2017 05:34PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They say smoking kills 2 out of 3 people, I know it's a long shot but there's a 33% chance I can become immortal by smoking. I think it's worth the risk.

It's always pretty shocking how willing people are to get the state to restrict other peoples lifes. They'll probably shout nanny state when they go after something they like but at that stage it's too late, they've set the precedent.

First they came for the howiyas...

Tom05 · 06-02-2017 08:09PM

Putting up the price of smokes will just play into hands of Dissident Republicans who already making millions from importing them.

Eggonyerface · 07-02-2017 10:53AM

I'm off the smokes since august thanks to vaping. Just saw this this article this morning too

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0207/850694-e-cigarettes/

dr.fuzzenstein · 07-02-2017 01:57PM

Eggonyerface wrote: »

I'm off the smokes since august thanks to vaping. Just saw this this article this morning too

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0207/850694-e-cigarettes/

A long term study of 6 months...

Call to raise cost of tobacco to cut cancer rates

Comments