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??
tommy21 wrote: » On a lighter note - will somebody please think of the children?
A Primal Nut wrote: » Nothing if they have private insurance like everyone should have.
tiocimarla wrote: » If someone dies id be fairly sure that job would regenerate tax. lol
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
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?
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.
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.
MagicMarker wrote: » You've only done half your homework. How much the does it cost to treat smoking & drinking related illnesses in this country?
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....
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.
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.
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!
tommy21 wrote: » Look at the direct costs of alcohol - a 92% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions between 1995 and 2002.
tommy21 wrote: » Alcohol had a role in 28% of all accident and emergency injury admissions in 2005
tommy21 wrote: » with 64% of individuals admitting they would not be there if they had not been drinking.
tommy21 wrote: » Alcohol-related intentional injuries saw an 85% rise between 1995 and 2003.
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.
tommy21 wrote: » Cardiovascular disease is probably one of the biggest strains brought on by smoking and excessive drinking
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.
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.
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...
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
Biggins wrote: » I know of the Czech report (one sponsored by Marlborough Cig' company by the way - but you failed to mention that too!).
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.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » No way :eek:
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.
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.
Nodin wrote: » I remember 62p for 10 Major.........
Philip Morris is the world’s largest consumer packaged goods company operating in nearly 200 countries as a manufacturer of some of the world's top brands in food, beer and tobacco.Arthur D. Little is the world's oldest and one of the foremost management consulting firms, helping leading organizations world-wide create innovative strategies across the full spectrum of their activities.Philip Morris CR a.s. asked Arthur D. Little to analyse the negative and positive effects of smoking on public finance in the Czech Republic for 1999.
The results will indicate whether smoking imposes a financial burden on the public finance of the Czech Republic. Understanding the public finance implications of smoking is important in determining the fiscal and legislative policy applied to tobacco.The study estimates only the public finance-related effects of smoking. These are effects that have traceable and significant impact on public finances. For the purpose of this study, public finance in the Czech Republic consists primarily of the national and municipal budgets and the budgets of health insurance companies. The study does not include private costs of smoking and thus does not consider all social effects of smoking. Therefore, the results of this study should not be interpreted as defining, and no judgement can be made as to whether smoking is good or bad from the standpoint of the individual or the society.
no judgement can be made as to whether smoking is good or bad from the standpoint of the individual or the society.
In the study we use the following assumptions:Smoking poses a serious risk to the health of smokers. Smoking can lead to a reduced life span of smokers. Environmental tobacco smoke (second-hand smoking) may be harmful to the health of non-smokers. Health-care in the Czech Republic is financed through a public, state-enforced health insurance system. Taxes collected from tobacco producers and smokers (excise tax, VAT, corporate income tax, customs duties) contribute to the general-purpose government budget.
Biggins wrote: » So what we should do is give the elderly a cancer stick and hope they pop their cloggs quicker?
Biggins wrote: » Sure lets kill those off too a little earlier. I'm sure their offspring would approve too (not!).
Biggins wrote: » 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.
Biggins wrote: » 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).
Biggins wrote: » 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. .
dotsman wrote: » I'm not saying that. And that was exactly the same sensationalist reaction to the report. The question being posed is "do smokers cost the economy more?" as they are so frequently accused of. And that is exactly what the report answered. I couldn't care less if it was sponsored by aliens. If you can show how they somehow made up the figures, then by all means. Not sure what the relevance is of 1 person. It was a report on the entire population, and based on statistical evidence. We can all look at "one person" and say they are at odds with the findings of any report. I can say that my grandfather, a smoker, lived to the age of 92, and never once was ill or in hospital due to smoking related illnesses (he did break his hip, and was always in and out of hospital with his eyes). P.S. It was funded by Philip Morris, which is very clearly stated in the report. Likewise, it is in the HTML heading. So? What is the relevance to the topic? Actually, those figures were taken into the report.
Use of this report by any third party for whatever purpose should not, and does not, absolve such third party from using due diligence in verifying the report’s contents. Any use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on it, or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third party.
...the Czech republic is still about 20 years behind the United States or Western Europe in general recognition of the serious threat to people's health presented by tobacco.
LeoB wrote: » I remember 10 for 17p and in one little shop you could buy them loose.
After a year when everybody felt the bitter sting of pay cuts and higher taxes, it's surprising to see that we continue to spend a considerable portion of our disposable income on alcohol. Irish people spend more on alcohol than any other country in the world, with the average adult forking out €2,000 annually to keep themselves merry. Given that there are plenty of non-drinkers out there, it is fair to assume that some of us are spending significantly more than that. As well as being very far ahead of the EU average, this high spending on alcohol is proving very costly for the exchequer: a recent report on binge drinking by St Patrick's University Hospital found that dealing with alcohol-related health problems is now costing the state an estimated €900m a year. ... ... ...As money-saving initiatives go, smoking is a no-brainer. Someone who smokes an average of 20 cigarettes a day will spend around €3,000 feeding their habit this year – giving up would be a major boost to your finances as well as your health. That said, quitting is not easy. Studies suggest that only 1% of people who go cold turkey manage to stay off the cigarettes, so if you are planning on giving up, it is a good idea to seek help. The HSE-run National Smokers Quitline (1850 201203) provides advice and can give you details of your nearest HSE service. Free of charge, these services use a variety of support methods and drug treatments to help smokers quit and they have a 30% success rate. ..."A person on 20 a day would spend approximately €57.40 a week on cigarettes. That is buying them legitimately, which does not always happen. Looking at the nicotine replacement therapies, prices range from €23.26, which is the cheapest, to €28.83, which is the most expensive. They are saving straight away. Except for the patches, people will not use nicotine replacement therapy for three months. If they get over six to eight weeks they are usually flying," she said.Champix and Zyban are free on the medical card and available on the Drugs Payment Scheme so should cost at most €120 a month. "For Champix, they will have a saving of €402 over three months if they never got another tablet. It is a significant saving, and given what you would spend over a year on cigarettes, it is absolutely massive," she said. http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2010/jan/03/money-talks-gareth-naughton-the-cost-of-a-better-y/
Ireland’s alcohol related problems cost in excess of €2.65 billion in 2003, a figure that has risen since (Department of Health & Children, 2004a, Fanagan et al., 2008).http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NcyEJrgUW54J:www.whc.ie/documents/40_womenSubstanceAlcohol.pdf+hospital+cost+alcohol+smoking&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVbIppPIZxEVIuVb888R1tMzuei3LpW2SkB7_Pd3xB6wASEumsJI6h1aOZ6gCLpgi0pOD_gfMlHlkx0hQo7seNTcCzyh2ZcNb0Sd8Z8MkLYrR1lWyBnQjunEaNqFQF_OZ75N5h&sig=AHIEtbQN45htgo2uOW7-YlGex-C0hEuz4Q
Alcohol related problems cost Irish society €2.65 billion Current alcohol related trends cited in the Second Report of the STFA include;In a study of seven European countries, Ireland had the highest level of binge drinkers, with 58% of drinking occasions ending up in binge drinking among men and 30% among women. Alcohol related mortality has increased in line with the increases in alcohol consumption between 1992 and 2002, in particular alcohol specific chronic conditions e.g. dependency, abuse and psychosis (+61%) and acute conditions e.g. alcohol poisoning (+90%). Nearly €6 billion of personal income is spent on alcohol in Ireland representing 1,942 for every adult (15 years and over). 37% of all deaths from drowning in 2002 were alcohol related Alcohol is estimated to be involved in 40% of road deaths and at least 30% of all road accidents each year in Ireland. Alcohol is the third most detrimental risk factor for European ill health and premature death, after only tobacco and high blood pressure. http://www.dohc.ie/press/releases/2004/20040922.html
The cost of employee smoking in Ireland:Excess Absenteeism in the Workplace: Given these figures the cost of absenteeism amounts to 144m for 2002http://www.otc.ie/Uploads/Download%20David%20Maddens%20Presentation.pdf
[FONT=arial, helvetica] Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation. [/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica]Methods We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs — one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time. [/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica]Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period. [/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. [/FONT]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052
John Lynch Ph.D wrote: » You only die once. How many people need all that (or different specialists depending on what finally kills you) regardless
John Lynch Ph.D wrote: » You only die once.
John Lynch Ph.D wrote: » How many people need all that (or different specialists depending on what finally kills you) regardless
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)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dcc54fc0153c491ede3e66aef098573d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/58c9490702eef60aa9261b7927c7881b.svg)
