News Tossers

[old.Tohtori]

Then it's a matter of the figures.

Taxation vs strain, before that, we can't really have a discussion without speculating the crap out of it

I stick to my original point i gave you; it's a maybe. Can't judge the whole thing based on figures given by, usually, biased party.

Are the deaths and injuries sustaine in driving ok, simply because driving is a necessity? Or is it a freedom given risk?

Are those smokers, who don't get ill, wrognfully paying for your childs healthcare(if need be)? Or is it better we pull the same cord, without looking at who pays what?

Also on same note; if you think smoking taxation should be higher(even with this ridicilous amount), how would you feel if i (non driver) would demand they raise car taxes and road taxes more?

It's always easy to judge and demand if you don't do something, or want something, or need something.

 

[Bugz]

Thorwyn:

Smoking:

Cigarette Tax Receipts v Cost of Running the NHS - WhatDoTheyKnow

Drinking:

£3bn cost of alcohol to NHS every year - Telegraph

3 billion cost a year - report in 09

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/tax.pdf

revenue in 09 (unknown) but revenue in 04/05 was 14000 million -> 14 billion.

Conclusion: there is no NHS burden caused by smokers & drinkers in terms of monetary figures.

Please do not go 'crap websites.' Rather provide counter-links/evidence!

 

[Thorwyn]

Are the deaths and injuries sustaine in driving ok, simply because driving is a necessity? Or is it a freedom given risk?

Casualties and injuries from car accidents are just that... accidents. Driving is in fact a neccessity unlike smoking. PLUS: if someone fooks up, causes an accident and injures someone else, the injured person will get a compensation from the car insurance of the driver who caused the accident.

Are those smokers, who don't get ill, wrognfully paying for your childs healthcare(if need be)? Or is it better we pull the same cord, without looking at who pays what?

Fair point, although I think that a smoker will always "eat up" the share he pays in, not neccessarily through terminal illnesses like cancer, but smaller illnesses caused by a weaker immune system, bad teeth etc.

 

[georgie]

Fair point, although I think that a smoker will always "eat up" the share he pays in, not neccessarily through terminal illnesses like cancer, but smaller illnesses caused by a weaker immune system, bad teeth etc.

I can't speak for anyone one else, but in 18 years of smoking I had 1 bout of flu and 5 or 6 heavy colds. Since quitting 4 and a bit years ago, I've had at least a dozen heavy colds and the flu twice.

According to Bugz's links (and they do tally with figures I have read before) smokers could eat up five times the current cost with their weakened immune systems and bad teeth and still not be a burden.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Casualties and injuries from car accidents are just that... accidents. Driving is in fact a neccessity unlike smoking. PLUS: if someone fooks up, causes an accident and injures someone else, the injured person will get a compensation from the car insurance of the driver who caused the accident.

Fair point, although I think that a smoker will always "eat up" the share he pays in, not neccessarily through terminal illnesses like cancer, but smaller illnesses caused by a weaker immune system, bad teeth etc.

Ok, the car thing is a pisspoor exampel, but it's the one iin use.

Driving, with public transport, is not a necessarily a necessity, think about it, would you survive without it? Would thousands of londoners be ok without driving? Or is drivig simply a "rite of passage" for a young man(and woman) and as such, similar thing as you mentioned about smoking in society

We could also argue that smoking related illness is an accident, as it doesn't happen to all and even MORE claim it an "accident" when a friend gets the cancer and not the smoker.

The second point;

Yes, there could be people who spend the same they pay in, but there are others who do this too with sporting injuries(sports, useless again), babies (not needed really, we've got enough orphans as is), etc. Also there are smokers who've never been sick and even so, haven't been to the doctors for it, while others go to the doctors for the sniffles and spend ridicilous amounts on say...h1n1.

We can't pick and choose which person gets which money from taxes, based on what they do or don't, if we want to claim to have a democratic civilizaton.

You can ban indoor smoking, pub smoking, teach people how to smoke politely, talk about smoking at home, etc etc to ALL aspects of life, but outright banning things for good is never the answer, because it's never for good.

 

[Bugz]

Since we've now dispelled the problem of taxation & financial burdens. What arguments do people have for making smokers give up beside passive smoking?

Those smokers who make sure they do not smoke around anyone are actually giving positive externalities to the country.

 

[Thorwyn]

Since we've now dispelled the problem of taxation & financial burdens. What arguments do people have for making smokers give up beside passive smoking?

Those smokers who make sure they do not smoke around anyone are actually giving positive externalities to the country.

Sorry, Bugz, but you have dispelled nothing, at least not the central point.
According to the figures, my assumption that taxes < NHS are wrong (which leads me to the question why the hell my health care fees are constantly going up). But alcohol and smoking related illnesses are still consuming significant ammounts of money that NON-smokers have to pay for. Money, that could be used somewhere else...

 

[georgie]

The figures posted are for the UK, of course, Thor.

I don't know what they might be for Germany.

 

[Thorwyn]

Ok, the car thing is a pisspoor exampel, but it's the one iin use.

Driving, with public transport, is not a necessarily a necessity, think about it, would you survive without it? Would thousands of londoners be ok without driving? Or is drivig simply a "rite of passage" for a young man(and woman) and as such, similar thing as you mentioned about smoking in society

I´m having a drivers licence, but I don´t have a car. I usually go by train or bus. I´m living in the center of my hometown and have a 30 minute train ride to my office.
If I would still live where I was born (small village, 10km away from the town), there was zero chance to live without a car.
The rite of passage thing you mentioned is certainly there, but as people are getting older, the car becomes more and more an object of utility.

We could also argue that smoking related illness is an accident, as it doesn't happen to all and even MORE claim it an "accident" when a friend gets the cancer and not the smoker.

According to Bugz´s figures, 80+% of deaths from lung cancer are caused by smoking. I´d say that´s not exactly an accident anymore, is it?

We can't pick and choose which person gets which money from taxes, based on what they do or don't, if we want to claim to have a democratic civilizaton.

No, but we can try to evoke a conscience about what we´re actually doing and why. People need to realise, that smoking and alcohol *are* drugs, just like weed or whatever.

You can ban indoor smoking, pub smoking, teach people how to smoke politely, talk about smoking at home, etc etc to ALL aspects of life, but outright banning things for good is never the answer, because it's never for good.

...which is why I never said that banning is an option (for now).

The figures posted are for the UK, of course, Thor.

I don't know what they might be for Germany.

Yep, I know. But I assume that the figures are at least roughly comparable.

 

[Bugz]

But alcohol and smoking related illnesses are still consuming significant ammounts of money that NON-smokers have to pay for. Money, that could be used somewhere else...

That is not the case at all.

If smokers generate 10 billion & they cost 3 billion, then their tax revenue to the govt is 7 billion. That 7 billion means the proportion of taxes levied on us non-smokers is less than with no smokers at all.

If we had no smokers. We would have 0 billion generated & 0 billion costs by smokers. We are actually experiencing a taxation deficit in comparison to the previous scenario (of 7 billion).

IF we wanted to have the same govt spending as the previous scenario, we'd have to generate 7 billion in taxation through other means.

So in short - smokers who are careful that they don't pass the negative externalities of smoking onto others, provide positive externalities to the economy.

 

[Dahakon]

If we are talking about a danger to the general public/people around you, then what about alcohol? I'm a casual smoker but after smoking a few cigarettes, or even a whole pack I've never trash a bar, or got in a fight with a total stranger etc etc. Not only is alcohol abuse on a comparative level of danger to smoking, but it also causes a lot of social problems, especially in England. However as it's social acceptable, and banning it would loose a party votes, no one talks about it.

Similarly, if we are just looking at banning things which are bad for you, then why are some drugs like weed and ecstasy illegal? they are much less dangerous for you than tobacco or alcohol, and to quote the former government drug advisor "they are about as dangerous for you as horse riding". (btw, he got fired for saying that and that alcohol should be about a class B drug, even though it was based on statistical evidence, showing that the drug polacies in this country are to do with public attitude, not actually risk to people).

 

[Thorwyn]

Ok, I`ve done some research and apparently, the figures for Germany *are* differnt. I can provide you with (serious) links, but they´re in german and won´t be helpful.

According to the figures, we roughly generate 14 billions via tobaco taxes and have an expense of 34 billions for smoking-related healthcare.
The figures for alcohol are similar and even worse (up to 1:20 ratio depending on the year).

Would be interesting to compare the systems and find out, where the differences are coming from and how they´re being compensated.

 

[Bugz]

Germany's tax on cigarettes is less England/Ireland's tax.

A 200 pack of the cheapest are about 22 pounds here. That means 1000 is about 110 pounds. The average cost of them in Germany is 140 euros per thousand.

Higher tobacco taxes push smokers to contraband cigarettes - The Local

That said - pre-financial crisis and current prices (inflation doesn't hit cigarettes in the same way it does conventional goods), those figures you have found seem very high.

Germany has Europe's fourth-highest tax on cigarettes, which means its still pretty high! So how the UK have a substantial revenue surplus and you have a substantial revenue deficit is certainly cause for concern!

 

[Amanita]

Argument over smoking #434.

Been here before haven't we?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Argument over smoking #434.

Been here before haven't we?

Civil before this

Thorwyn, i'll answer in the morning when i'm a bit clear headed'er.

 

[georgie]

Argument over smoking #434.

Been here before haven't we?

Welcome to teh intawebz.

 

[CorNokZ]

How do you hang your toilet paper?

 

[georgie]

How do you hang your toilet paper?

Like this:

 

[CorNokZ]

Good.. The other way around is caveman style and they wipe towards the balls, lol

Shitty nuts you guys

 

[fettoken]

Like this:

Or this

 

[Bugz]

Derailment by hobos inc!

Oh wait...too late

 

[Laddey]

Legalise the weed, tax people on it, build more hozzys! problem solved. lulz

 

[Everz]

ban smokers, your all ***** with your habit tbh, drain on the health system.

 

[Tuthmes]

ban smokers, your all ***** with your habit tbh, drain on the health system.

Just like all the people who have a mental problem, chronic desease, addicts (yes games too), are fat, etc. Your country needs a working class hero that behaves...
It wont be long (actually we are there) before your health insurance company will determine if your bankroll is enough for you to be able to smoke, drink alcohol and what not. Capitalism is going down the same path as Communism, it just isn't working.

So ie. Fkoff with the selfish society thats based on survival of the fittest following Nazi rules, because that will yield the most profit.

Oh and hi Everz on and stuff!

 

[CorNokZ]

Smoking and drinking are choices.. Mental problems and chronic diseases are not

 

[yaruar]

Thorwyn:

Smoking:

Cigarette Tax Receipts v Cost of Running the NHS - WhatDoTheyKnow

Drinking:

£3bn cost of alcohol to NHS every year - Telegraph

3 billion cost a year - report in 09

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/tax.pdf

revenue in 09 (unknown) but revenue in 04/05 was 14000 million -> 14 billion.

Conclusion: there is no NHS burden caused by smokers & drinkers in terms of monetary figures.

Please do not go 'crap websites.' Rather provide counter-links/evidence!

It's not that simple though, those are direct costs i'm assuming. How much expertise and research is used to deal with smoking and alcohol related issues which could be used elsewhere. How much does it cost to train the extra medical staff required to treat smoking and alcohol. How much potentially could a baby who died if SIDS have contributed to the economy if their parents hadn't smoked, etc.

 

[old.Tohtori]

1: I´m having a drivers licence, but I don´t have a car. I usually go by train or bus. I´m living in the center of my hometown and have a 30 minute train ride to my office.
If I would still live where I was born (small village, 10km away from the town), there was zero chance to live without a car.
The rite of passage thing you mentioned is certainly there, but as people are getting older, the car becomes more and more an object of utility.

2: According to Bugz´s figures, 80+% of deaths from lung cancer are caused by smoking. I´d say that´s not exactly an accident anymore, is it?

3: No, but we can try to evoke a conscience about what we´re actually doing and why. People need to realise, that smoking and alcohol *are* drugs, just like weed or whatever.

4: ...which is why I never said that banning is an option (for now).

Quick numerical answers;

1: But you see my point about it not being absolutely vital, especially in motropolitan areas with massive transit? As such, driving and smoking are akin, social aspects, things we've done, yet could live without. Same goes for sugar, alcohol, weed, drugs of any kind etc.

2: Now now, didn't you say you don't trust those figures Yeah, 80% of that cancer may be smoking related, but it only seems high if it's only smoking related. You'd have to look at how many smokers vs how many with that cancer and get the real "death toll".

3: I don't think people think alcohol & tobacco aren't drugs, like i said, just like weed etc. Fun to individual needs.

4: Which is good

What a nice polite conversation, where's the angermob?

 

[Azurus]

Our lecturer was talking about this today during a lecture on Liberty. He made the point it was almost Orwellian the way the government can beamingly announce smoking will no longer exist in 50 years, a few decades ago this would have been seen as unacceptable interference in our lives.

If you aren't free to chose badly (that is if it affects you and only you) you aren't free at all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Our lecturer was talking about this today during a lecture on Liberty. He made the point it was almost Orwellian the way the government can beamingly announce smoking will no longer exist in 50 years, a few decades ago this would have been seen as unacceptable interference in our lives.

If you aren't free to chose badly (that is if it affects you and only you) you aren't free at all.

Good point.

Isn't taking away our 'harmful' ways just a reverse kind of dictatorship?

I always thought that telling the people what they can and can't do, if we don't go into laws of the land, is a bit silly, especially if it's to 'protect ones self'.

 

[yaruar]

a few decades ago this would have been seen as unacceptable interference in our lives.

1920 - Dangerous Drugs Act
1928 - cannabis added to the dangerous drugs act
1966 - Outlawing LSD
1967 - Stop and Search clause added to the Act
etc
etc