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

John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »

where's everyone else's source? a list of occupations in cancer treatment? are you trying to say only smokers get cancer? and please explain what exactely a 'natural illness' is, Google seems to be failing me.

You have got to be kidding me...

You come on and hijack a thread focusing on something I've already provided evidence for making claims with nothing to back them up & you chastise us to do your homework & to teach you how to think of phrases to type into google, jeesh:)

First off, could you answer this:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »

I understand smokers may cost the state more, but its just not the figures the anti-smoking lobby put out as they ignore the factors I previously stated.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Could you speak a bit clearer when you try to condemn people & maybe provide a few credible links to back up what you're saying, I've had to waste time browsing the whole thread to find out what you are trying to allude to & the only thing I can find is one post:

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

and I don't see what you've previously stated that backs up your insulting anti-smoking lobbyists

You've blithely ignored it & how can I take you seriously if you skip questions & then tell me to do something for you...

I think you've already shown yourself incapable of a cogent argument with this little slip up, but again I ask you what you meant & what you were referring to

Second, could you tell me how me providing evidence of what cancer sufferers have to go through in terms of mri scans, x-ray scans & the doctors & specialised tests that have to be done throughout cancer treatment is not enough evidence that nearly every cancer patient who requires tests to diagnose the extent of their illness must use up. Tell me how that doesn't answer that you asked?

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

A thread full of financial arguments for & against smoking....hmmm. It's missing something important.

My dad was just 32 when he died from cancer. He was a heavy smoker from the age 13. Trust me when I say that a financial value cannot be placed on that loss. Three young children and a loving wife lost something that was literally priceless to them.

And from the financial side of things...my dad wasn't around to pay any taxes for the last 26 years.

If you look at the study done by Philip Morris co. you'll realise a human story means nothing to these people, nothing. They explicitly said so in the study too. If it did they would have stopped selling tobacco years ago.

You have to beat these heartless bas*ards at their own game & it just so happens all the evidence is against them. The problem is that they have money on their side & that weighs in an awful lot in this world, just look at how rhetorically violent people get on threads about the dole for example, it has the capacity to drive people crazy & foster the hate, (especially during a recession even though it is a necessary function of our economy & is absolutely vital to continue the world economy).

John Lynch Ph.D wrote:

Lets not even bring into the savings in pensions from an early death.

Is that you Doctor Dick?

John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »

So in essence you agree with my points, My response was that to the shortsighted nods in agreement to the common misconception that all of the duty paid on cigarettes only pays for the added costs of a smokers health bill. Far from it.





Well the vast majority of smokers still die after retirement age, so maybe reiterate what you mean?

What

No I am not agreeing with you, you've said absolutely nothing of substance at all this entire thread, only posted a load of waffle, left plenty of things unanswered, responded with answers to claims that nobody made on this thread & posted nothing to back up whatever it is you're now trying to pretend I agree with you on.

Okay, first off I just want to majke it clear that I haven't claimed smoking or drinking, if stopped, would benefit the state economically which I feel some people assumed just because I played interlocutor position in this conversation. Quite the contrary, I think it would probably destroy our society & perhaps a good deal of the world economy & now matter how sickening that fact is it pays for people to die.

People seem to be very happy with this set up, and that's fine.

It doesn't really seem like most people ever cared about the health of people, as this discussion certainly shows. People have always been more interested in the economic factors, that's the ultimate deciding factor, contrary to human morality.

Ms Harney: I thank the Deputies for their interventions. Ireland has the second highest level of excise duty on cigarettes in the EU, 146.34 per 1,000 cigarettes compared with an EU average of 90.35. Notwithstanding what Deputy Shatter said about the consumer price index – the Minister referred to it in his budget speech – the consumer price index is drawn up following the household budget survey which is based on a calculation of what people spend their money on. [994] A total of 4.8% of the spend in Ireland is on cigarettes.
As constituency representatives, many Members will be aware – it has frequently been my experience – that when constituents come to talk about their financial circumstances concerning housing or some other matter, they may have a piece of paper with a list of their outgoings per week or per month and I am often astonished that one of the big spend items for many people on very low incomes is cigarettes. It is not infrequent that people on relatively low incomes spend £40 to £50 a week on cigarettes, which is incredible.
Last year we introduced a 50p increase on the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes. That was done for health reasons and £132 million collected in revenue went to the health services.
Mr. D. Carey Mr. D. Carey
Mr. D. Carey: There is no evidence of that, given that more people are smoking.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: The consumption of cigarettes went down last year by 1.66%.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: That is because the price of them was increased.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: I admit we are not doing that this year in order to curb inflation. We had several discussions about breaching confidentiality in this matter in relation to cigarettes. The CPI is compiled by the CSO, which also compiles a figure that excludes cigarettes. That is ignored. The international way of compiling the CPI, both here and in Europe, includes people's expenditure on particular product and cigarettes form a high proportion of what people spend their money on in Ireland, as is the case in other European countries.
If the Minister excluded it and made a unilateral decision informing the CSO accordingly we would probably be accused of fiddling the figures to get inflation down. I admit we have a number of strategies, including health strategies. Prices alone will not dictate whether people continue to smoke and a number of measures have been taken, such as the banning of advertising and the ten-cigarette pack. The latter is used by younger people in particular as they do not have the money for the larger pack, so that is being done to discourage smoking among the very young and particularly among young women. Many of the latter smoke for weight-related reasons. Instead of having a biscuit, glass of wine or other dessert they have a cigarette. We need to engage in a very active and aggressive health education campaign in relation to cigarette smoking. It is not just about the price, though price has a huge part to play.
995
When the Government took office, health service spending was £2.75 billion and as a result of today it has gone to £5.29 billion, almost double. [995] There are real issues regarding improvement in service as a result of the increased spending but we have not been found wanting regarding the money we have earmarked and ring fenced for the health services.
The tax take for cigarettes is more than £1 billion. It is £1.023 billion, a considerable amount of money. The price of cigarettes has risen much faster than the CPI, increasing by 49.9% since 1990, while next year it is envisaged that consumption will be down by another 0.5%. I admit openly that the only reason the price of cigarettes is not going up is the effect it would have on the CPI and the effect it would have on inflation. As Deputy Shatter has acknowledged, it has added almost one percentage point to the rate of inflation in the past year, though that will be out of the equation after next month. From the Government's point of view health must be a priority. Cancer and heart disease are caused by smoking but speakers have mentioned inflation already, and will probably mention it again when debating the next financial motion. There are a number of things we need to do and the Minister gave a commitment to look at how the CPI is compiled. I am not sure if we can move in that direction. They have not been able to do so in Europe.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: They have done so in Belgium.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: They have done it in Belgium but not for the harmonised EU index.
Mr. D. Carey Mr. D. Carey
Mr. D. Carey: The Tánaiste is against harmonisation.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: I am against the harmonisation of tax, yes. We are talking about different things.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: I congratulate the Tánaiste on her honesty, though I am absolutely appalled by what she just said. She confirmed to the House that the reason there is no additional imposition of taxes on cigarette products is not for health reasons but because the Government is fearful of the impact on the CPI. For the sake of the CPI the Government is prepared to sacrifice the health of our young people. For the sake of the CPI the Government is willing to allow more people suffer serious cancers such as throat cancer or cardiovascular disease. Let us look at the logic of what the Tánaiste said.
996
If the Tánaiste is concerned with health issues this matter could have been dealt with in a better and more coherent way which would have resulted in praise from this House for a coherent health policy. To tackle part of the problem of the CPI my party proposed some weeks ago that the VAT rate be reduced from 21% to 19%. The Government has chosen to reduce the VAT rate to 20%. In the context of dealing with tobacco [996] products and health issues, if the Government were taking a comprehensive overall policy view and there was genuine concern about averaging our VAT rates to a level that was in synchronisation with other EU countries while also maintaining a dynamic health policy, a choice could have been made. The choice could have been to reduce the VAT rate to 19% and to impose an additional 50p tax on a packet of cigarettes. Cigarettes could have been kept within the basket and a major problem with the CPI would not have been created.
The other choice arose 13 months ago when an Oireachtas joint committee unanimously recommended that tobacco products be taken out of the CPI. The Tánaiste was concerned that she or the Minister for Finance would have been accused of massaging the figures.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: The figures relating to the price of cigarettes—
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: It would have been difficult to level that accusation from this side of the House in circumstances where this time last year Fine Gael's health spokesperson called for the removal of tobacco products from the CPI. Clearly that criticism could not have been levied.
In the context of the overall figures, the average smoking rate among young women in their late teens and early 20s is approximately 40%, while it is somewhat below that for young men. According to the latest figures for the overall population, 34% of people smoke, which is one third of the population in practical terms; however, two thirds do not, so it does not figure in their annual cost of living index problems.
The Government should have a coherent anti-tobacco health policy which is reflected in its financial policy approach. What this Government has is a piecemeal, hiccup policy where it occasionally dips into the area to take an initiative, though when it sees the consequences in the CPI it panics and draws back. I welcome the figures given to us by the Tánaiste, as they confirm something I have been saying for three years, something the Oireachtas Joint Committee accepted and something the World Health Authority articulated in 1998, which is: if one increases the price of tobacco products the level of consumption goes down.The Tánaiste confirmed that that has happened in the past 12 months but it will not happen in the next 12 months. Why? Because the Government did not get its act together and tackle the problem in a coherent way. That is a disgrace and is something that should have been properly addressed by now. All the public relations hand-wringing the Minister for Health and Children engages in on this issue has now been seen as having no substance or weight.
997
[997] Deputy Carey raised the tobacco taxes issue earlier and the Tánaiste admitted the State took in more than £1 billion in tobacco taxes. The £132 million she mentioned derived from the 50p increase imposed on tobacco products last year but even that £132 million was not used to tackle the problem of tobacco consumption.
Mr. D. Carey Mr. D. Carey
Mr. D. Carey: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: It went into the health budget and the cardiac strategy. That strategy is valuable and important but is not solely tobacco-related. That £132 million was substitute finance going into the general area of health policy and the Tánaiste should inform us how much was used by the Government to engage in the “active and aggressive” education and advertising campaign she says is needed and which the joint committee called for. The Government has failed to put such a campaign in place in the past 12 months.
Ms Fitzgerald Ms Fitzgerald
Ms Fitzgerald: What the Tánaiste said is quite contradictory. She said smoking is a major public health issue but it appears from the budget that as soon as she had to make a critical decision she balked at it. The policy is in shreds because an annualised increase is a key component. The last time there was an increase in cost the decrease in the number of smokers was quite substantial. What we are seeing here tonight is a sacrifice of a major public health goal which the Government professes to have but when push comes to shove, it is taking a different policy decision in the budget tonight.
Mr. D. Carey Mr. D. Carey
Mr. D. Carey: In my constituency I see an increase in the numbers of young girls coming out of secondary schools at lunch time smoking cigarettes. That is a total change from the time I was at school when it was only the fellows who smoked – young girls did not smoke. That will have a long-term adverse effect on the health of the nation and has resulted in many of the difficulties women experience. The Minister got an extra £150 million in last year's budget to apply to preventing the growth in the use of tobacco by young girls, but nothing happened in that year. How can we expect something to happen this coming year?
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: Perhaps when the Tánaiste responds she might explain why the Minister for Health and Children is not in the House supporting Government policy on this issue, or whether he does support it? Will she explain if what he said three weeks ago should be taken seriously or if we should take seriously now, as part of Government policy, the fact that there is no intention to introduce such further increases?
Ms Harney Ms Harney
998
Ms Harney: I thought I had responded. The 50p increase imposed last year was the highest [998] any Government ever imposed on cigarettes, believe it or not, and my memory of it is that Fine Gael did not oppose the increase. I do not think there was a vote in this House.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter
Mr. Shatter: We did not oppose it. We supported it.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: That is what I said. I am acknowledging that.
Dr. McDaid Dr. McDaid
Dr. McDaid: Fine Gael in Government never put an increase on cigarettes.
Ms Harney Ms Harney
Ms Harney: Deputy Shatter does not even know when he is being praised.
Mr. Shatter Mr. Shatter

Clearly in the 90's the important things were the CPI & inflation & that was what mattered economically, an individual's health means nothing here.

The saddest thing is how some smart people have realised this fact, such as in this report in which Fiona Ryan, the director, says:

To translate that 10c into real lives: €9.7milllion could have funded the vaccination of 12-year-old girls against the virus that causes cervical cancer; €15million could have funded an out-of-hours social work service for children and families in crisis. Just €7million would have funded special needs classes for the 534 vulnerable children with mild learning difficulties whose needs will now not be met as a result of education cuts.”

showing something pretty crazy if you think about it for more than a second.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Eh - I'm confused!

That study you quoted came to this conclusion:

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.


So, the OP was right - smokers end up costing the Healthcare system less in the long-term?

This debate is interesting!

Noreen

Well, from that study the conclusion is that if everybody were to stop smoking today then for the next 15 years we would spend X amount on healthcare but after 15 years we would increase the cost of healthcare to Y. If you think about what that is saying is that if we had a population of people living longer, i.e. less dying from smoking related diseases then yeah, of course we would have to spend more on healthcare. Based on a smaller population we spend X on these people, many of whom die younger and are not able to live into old age to be treated for ailments (old age ailments etc...) they do not cause intentionally, (in that smokers intentionally bring on sickness through smoking, there's no way you can say otherwise as everybody knows how bad smoking is for your health).

That is nothing to do with the OP's comments though, and is something that we would have 15 years to deal with - if it is still correct in 15 years. Of course there would be so many things that would happen that things would change but it's just a prediction based on the current model.

tiocimarla wrote: »

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.

This is one those original claims I think we've contested fairly in that here we see moaning about the government's moaning about people intentionally putting the system under preventable strain, which only by lobbyists concerned about people's health & not money, are the reason the government are forced to even mention the topic.

Also, the figures are pretty close:

DublinWriter wrote: »

The direct contribution to the public purse from a pack of 20 is around €6. So someone with a 20-a-day habit is contributing €2,190 in indirect tax a year.

* Smoking 20 a day is calculated to take at least 10 to 20 years off your total life expectancy. Guess what years they are? Yep, the OAP years when you'll be entitled to the state pension, free public travel, fuel allowences and a free TV licence.

The tobacco tax level for cigarettes in Ireland is 72.2%. Therefore for every pack of 20 cigarettes which costs on average €8.45, €6.71 goes to the State in duty and VAT.

The Exchequer receives €1.77bn annually from tobacco sales (6.71*264 million packs - Govt 2008 figures), but current figures project a 15% decrease in volume sales in 2009, i.e. €265,500,000 less in revenue in 2009. So, the total actual expected revenue is €1.5 billion annually from tobacco sales, including the current decrease in demand.
If the price of a packet of cigarettes was increased by €1 (i.e. to €9.45 per packet), this would mean €7.71 would go to the State in duty and VAT and the expected tax take would be €1.7 billion, an increase of €200 million annually (assuming price elasticity, i.e. a price increase won’t affect volume of sales).
Caveat: going by the Department of Finance's tax take figures for 2009 (€701 million in receipts to end of September ) it would appear that the actual revenue level for the year will be just over €1 billion.
http://www.cancer.ie/news/news.php?newsID=297

A fun fact about alcohol:

Generated over 2 Billion for the Exchequer in 2008

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ANW2zebRKigJ:www.drinksindustry.ie/easyedit/files/ABFI_Brochure.pdf+exchequer+profit+on+alcohol&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjVM_PSlpLUaehnt44Lg7_ZcIIaAx6DQXLEIc0NeD2h34FNQyzx0TGP5GdUAmmP9SV18HqAypiQaSj4InYi6AlpanjhJWvY6_AgnSxUh2MyGRRpzfOiA7yIC28CIIsH9B6PyL9C&sig=AHIEtbRMZ6mDkwNiFYgYAkGKfSgHzfCXIg

Then, if we couple it from the number in 2002, (One of the only ones I can find but they said the cost was rising back then):

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

I've got to wonder, maybe I didn't google thoroughally enough because some of the dates are a bit off.

The alcohol medical expenses are from 2002 @ €2.65 billion yet the profit for the government in 2008 is only (6 billion minus 4 billion equals) €2 billion.

It would seem we are running at a loss if we believe the study which said the cost was rising.

It also said Irish people spent €6 billion on alcohol so if the alcohol makers
got all of that extra 4 billion then it would seem we are running at a loss through alcohol in terms of intake & cost of treating it's victims, but I've said the figures could be off.

However, here is another study from 1999 in which we lost 2 Billion and this study includes road accidents, absenteeism, and many other factors missing from the first figures.

I hope someone will
check that out more thoroughally as I've stretched my googling for the night but it does seem to me as though we're running at a loss on the beer

That said, two seperate years both arriving at 2 Billion in treatment.

Also, this other link I provided earlier shows that just one hospital spends up to 900 million treating alcohol related illness.

St Patrick's University Hospital found that dealing with alcohol-related health problems is now costing the state an estimated €900m a year. http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2010/jan/03/money-talks-gareth-naughton-the-cost-of-a-better-y/

Also, as for smoking: if you add up all the figures in this 2003 report you come to a grand total of over 2 Billion lost in just the workplace.

But that couldn't be right,

The Exchequer receives €1.77bn annually from tobacco sales (6.71*264 million packs - Govt 2008 figures), but current figures project a 15% decrease in volume sales in 2009, i.e. €265,500,000 less in revenue in 2009. So, the total actual expected revenue is €1.5 billion annually from tobacco sales, including the current decrease in demand.
http://www.cancer.ie/news/news.php?newsID=297

Unless they ran at a loss some years