Smoking Outside the Ground - Time to be banned

[Mister_A]

And how much do non smokers cost the system?

Mate, that figure is from issues directly resulting from smoking, not all smokers in the system. As in that literally means that number is directly attributed to smoking vs non-smoking. You're trying to fight an unwinnable argument.

 

[wal]

Mate, that figure is from issues directly resulting from smoking, not all smokers in the system. You're trying to fight an unwinnable argument.

Why don't you answer the question? Everybody eventually is a drain on the health system.

 

[Gralin]

And how much do non smokers cost the system?

the better question would be what would the burden of smokers be on the system if they weren't smokers

 

[Mister_A]

Why don't you answer the question? Everybody eventually is a drain on the health system.

It is completely irrelevant. Please re-read my last post...

Mate, that figure is from issues directly resulting from smoking, not all smokers in the system. As in that literally means that number is directly attributed to smoking vs non-smoking. You're trying to fight an unwinnable argument.

"and was estimated to cost Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs in 2004-05"

That second quote there means smokers cost the healthcare system $31.5 billion per year (in 04/05). The revenue made back from taxing smokers was...

"In 2009-2010, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products exceeded $7 billion"

That means people smoking costs the system a net value of somewhere around $23bil per year. That means smokers cost the system somewhere around $23bil per year more than non-smokers. The first article I linked shows us that it took up 7.8% of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia in 2003.

I hope you understand, I'm not having a go, this is fairly simple mathematics.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Why don't you answer the question? Everybody eventually is a drain on the health system.

That's solid. not. You're arguing like a 10-year-old.

 

[wal]

That's solid. not. You're arguing like a 10-year-old.

Do you think non smokers just die quietly in their sleep and at no cost to the taxpayer? How naive can you possibly be?

 

[juppy]

That's just complete horseshit.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by Subject/4364.0.55.001~2014-15~Main Features~Smoking~24

"and was estimated to cost Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs in 2004-05"

Smoking costs the healthcare system more that any other factor. The types of illnesses it causes can often require major surgeries early in life which also tend to be the high cost surgeries like heart disease, cancer and conditions like diabetes which have massive costs over time, too.

If you want to be pro-smoking at least do it the 'smart' way through the liberty argument rather than taxation because what it brings in doesn't come close to the costs it lumps on taxpayers through healthcare.

Are you overweight? Or even a bit chubby? An ex smoker here, but fat asses actually now officially cost the health care systems more than smokers, which I believe was the point he was getting at. All those knee reconstructions, diabetes checks, chol trig HDL..... need I go on.

 

[Mister_A]

Are you overweight? Or even a bit chubby? An ex smoker here, but fat asses actually now officially cost the health care systems more than smokers, which I believe was the point he was getting at. All those knee reconstructions, diabetes checks, chol trig HDL..... need I go on.

Not that I don't believe you, but I would love to see the numbers. The 04-05 figures (the same as the numbers I was using before) state $21bil on weight-related issues, which is still way less than smoking.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/5/cost-overweight-and-obesity-australia

Regardless, that is a separate issue altogether and deflecting away from the real issue here. A point, by the way, about which I actually believe in a junk-food tax, cola tax, etc..

 

[Hawk_francais]

Do you think non smokers just die quietly in their sleep and at no cost to the taxpayer? How naive can you possibly be?

How naive can I be? Not enough to believe that we're all going to end up straining the health system to exactly the same extent, just because we all die.

How dare you call me naive after your dumbass comment. Just take a walk to your local hospital and ask the triage nurse: "How many times a day do you roll your eyes because a smoker has just arrived complaining of respiratory problems?"

 

[Mister_A]

Do you think non smokers just die quietly in their sleep and at no cost to the taxpayer? How naive can you possibly be?

Look man, you literally have the figures in front of you and refuse to interpret them, yet he is the naive one?

 

[wal]

Look man, you literally have the figures in front of you and refuse to interpret them, yet he is the naive one?

You haven't posted the figures on what it costs the taxpayer for non smokers to die.

 

[Mister_A]

You haven't posted the figures on what it costs the taxpayer for non smokers to die.

Clearly you've made your bed and wish to lie in it. I'll let my previous posts stand for themselves for anyone who wants to take this seriously. If you have any numbers that you wish to discuss, please post them and we can go on.

 

[wal]

Go to bed and live in your fairyland, there is a reason smoking is not prohibited, the economy needs the revenue

 

[Mister_A]

Go to bed and live in your fairyland, there is a reason smoking is not prohibited, the economy needs the revenue

No, the reason is that it is economically and politically ingrained into the system, on top of the libertarian argument of the right to privacy and unrestricted freedoms.

If you cut the taxes the revenue goes away, but the long term costs that smoking causes would take a century to fully remove from the budget. Pollies would rather not create a further massive short term cost on a system they are already looking to cut back from.

In other words, in the long term a massive amount of money would be made once the effects slowly wear off over time, but in the sort term it would cost $7bil per year. Most politicians don't want to have to find an extra $7bil per year just hanging around doing nothing (or more likely cut other services).

 

[wal]

My grandfather died at 58, he was a smoker. My grandmother is still alive at 94. She is at the doctor's daily, has been hospitalized numerous times over the last 20 years. Who has cost the taxpayer more? I will agree with your argument on health reasons, but not financial, it is a furphy, overall governments profit from tobacco

 

[Mister_A]

My grandfather died at 58, he was a smoker. My grandmother is still alive at 94. She is at the doctor's daily, has been hospitalized numerous times over the last 20 years. Who has cost the taxpayer more? I will agree with your argument on health reasons, but not financial, it is a furphy, overall governments profit from tobacco

Great anecdote, but it is meaningless when we as a society have proven it to be an anomaly through rigorous research in the last 50 years. You may have personally experienced it differently, but as a whole, smoking costs society FAR more than people who don't smoke over their lifetimes - even with taxation included. This is far from controversial amongst economists or healthcare research.

I'll say for clarification that I understand you are trying to say that someone who lives 40 years longer will cost the system more, but smokers don't just die at 50. Some do, but most that have these conditions will survive and cost the system in recovery costs from a much younger age. Smoking cuts life expectancy by 10 years, not 40.

Thanks for taking the time to debate brother, but I'm off to bed. Will reply further in the morning if I see a reply.

 

[Demons Advocate]

I love how people get all high and mighty about "filthy smokers" etc. haha. **** off mate I enjoy having a dart, it impacts you in no way.

In terms of the rule I don't really see it as a massive issue it's only an extra 50 metres but at 1/4 time by the time you leave your seat, get outside, punch one, line up to get back in you can miss a few minutes of match play/miss a goal which is shit.

 

[The_Reaper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Smokers and the obese actually cost the health department less over their lives than those with healthy lifestyles.

 

[JG22]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Smokers and the obese actually cost the health department less over their lives than those with healthy lifestyles.

This study is basically based off that smokers/obese people die earlier so they're cheaper. That's not success

 

[DemonTim]

This study is basically based off that smokers/obese people die earlier so they're cheaper. That's not success

Yeah. This thread is getting to peak levels of stupid.

 

[DemonTim]

I love how people get all high and mighty about "filthy smokers" etc. haha. **** off mate I enjoy having a dart, it impacts you in no way.

In terms of the rule I don't really see it as a massive issue it's only an extra 50 metres but at 1/4 time by the time you leave your seat, get outside, punch one, line up to get back in you can miss a few minutes of match play/miss a goal which is shit.

Second hand smoke impacts others in no way? Really?

 

[Monkey King]

Do you know how much tax is on a packet of cigarettes? Governments love smokers

That second quote there means smokers cost the healthcare system $31.5 billion per year (in 04/05) ... That means people smoking costs the system a net value of somewhere around $23bil per year.

I'm not one to support smoking and consider this ban to be a good thing; however, it really is worth reading beyond the headline when critically evaluating research conclusions.

According to the source material - total healthcare costs account for just $318m of that $31.5b total figure; so if we off-set the $7b in tax and duties paid on cigarettes, there is definitely a significant net contribution to the public purse in real dollar terms.

The bulk of the $31.5b figure actually consists of $19b of "intangible social costs" resulting from loss of life; and other "tangible costs" such as reduction of the work force ($5.7b) - yes, don't forget we're all just worker ants busting our humps for the good of the colony - and unpaid household labour ($9.8b).

 

[Gough]

TTs and non smokers bore people to death talking of their virtue.

 

[Gavin Excell]

TTs and non smokers bore people to death talking of their virtue.

Amen.

Ditto earnest lefties.......

 

[ashep]

You're walking around a car park with hundreds of vehicles moving around spewing out carbon monoxide. Time to ban cars outside the grounds.


I no longer smoke but seriously stop being such a baby. You're outside in the world, not everything is going to cater to you.

Enjoy walking around with your head six inches from tailpipes do you?