Smoking Bans

[Nathan]

correction: arseholes drinking alcohol related.

Most people manage to behave themselves after a few drinks. The problem is with people who are already arseholes, and alcohol amplifying their existing behaviour.

[Waewick]

It is the same with police putting speed as a reason for a crash.

They put it as a default regardless of if it had to do with speed or not.

[monotonehell]

It is the same with police putting speed as a reason for a crash.

They put it as a default regardless of if it had to do with speed or not.

Not the same at all. Even if you are a good driver, something can go wrong causing an accident. If you are speeding, the resultant crash has a great deal more energy with which to do damage.

Arse-holes getting drunk are still arse-holes, just drunken arse-holes.

Of course if they then get into a car...

[Waewick]

It is the same with police putting speed as a reason for a crash.

They put it as a default regardless of if it had to do with speed or not.

Not the same at all. Even if you are a good driver, something can go wrong causing an accident. If you are speeding, the resultant crash has a great deal more energy with which to do damage.

Arse-holes getting drunk are still arse-holes, just drunken arse-holes.

Of course if they then get into a car...

I'm suggesting otherwise.

I am suggesting however that speed and alcohol are easy scapegoats

[Dog]

I am for user pays, if smoking costs the Aussie economy $35bn a year and we are only collecting $15bn in taxes we need to put smokes up to $40 a pack. Same goes for Alcohol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Waewick]

I am for user pays, if smoking costs the Aussie economy $35bn a year and we are only collecting $15bn in taxes we need to put smokes up to $40 a pack. Same goes for Alcohol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'd like to see user pays for everything, I sick of certain things being cherry picked for "user pays".

I might add, me paying more for my grog because of the damage it does to others isn't user pays.

you want user pays for that? pretty simple stop medicare, and compulsory insurance and put the cost back on the individual, in Australia we are so focused on spreading the cost over the broader community people like me are constantly paying overs to subsidies others.

[Aidan]

I am for user pays, if smoking costs the Aussie economy $35bn a year and we are only collecting $15bn in taxes we need to put smokes up to $40 a pack. Same goes for Alcohol.

I've no objection to putting those taxes up, but if you look at the actual cost, ITYF it's nowhere near $35bn.

[Dog]

2009 figures $31bn
The cancer council puts it at $35bn
Tax and excise collected $7bn


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arki]

I absoloutely cannot BELIEVE that people think smoking really costs the economy $31bn a year. What a load of BULLSHIT. Far out the Australian public are ridiculously dumb if they believe this tripe.

Maybe you should read this
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 6689781351#

To summarise, $318.4 million is the reported burden of smoking on the healthcare system, about 30.7bn short of your ridiculous figure and MUCH less than the $8.85bn tax revenue generated from tobacco sales.

Pull the damn wool out of your eyes and realise that your government couldn't give a shit what the real 'burden' is.

[monotonehell]

I absoloutely cannot BELIEVE that people think smoking really costs the economy $31bn a year. What a load of BULLSHIT. Far out the Australian public are ridiculously dumb if they believe this tripe.

Maybe you should read this
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 6689781351#

To summarise, $318.4 million is the reported burden of smoking on the healthcare system, about 30.7bn short of your ridiculous figure and MUCH less than the $8.85bn tax revenue generated from tobacco sales.

Pull the damn wool out of your eyes and realise that your government couldn't give a shit what the real 'burden' is.

You're both correct, just quoting a different stat. M$318 was the 2004/5 net health cost of smoking, while M$31,485 was the total cost of smoking to society as a whole in 2004/5 considering all aspects.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugs ... mono64.pdf

[arki]

My point is that 31bn is a ridiculous figure (19bn of which is derived from 'Intangible Costs' which is - get this - 'pain and suffering' and valuation of life costs. The cost of life most certainly can't be quantified and it's pathetic to see a randomly plucked number reported in a supposed economical figure). The rest of the figure comes from absenteeism due to smoke related illness and then very questionably the cost of resources used to produce cigarettes (?). So I guess there is no one benefiting from having a damn job in these companies and the suppliers such as tobacco growers are not benefiting from the purchase of their goods. Needless to say and anyone with half a brain can see that the costs to society are grossly over exaggerated.

Just ask yourself, if the direct health expenditure due to smoking in the very same report is so low at ~318m do you honestly believe that the total cost to society figure would rise so high? Give me a break.

[Will]

I am for user pays, if smoking costs the Aussie economy $35bn a year and we are only collecting $15bn in taxes we need to put smokes up to $40 a pack. Same goes for Alcohol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Alcohol is one of the last few things this country manufactures. Think about that when asking for alcohol to be made more expensive.....

[serca]

Yeah good one . Lets hope we don't Seymour threads like this one hey

[Dog]

Smoking results in an annual 750,000 bed days in hospital.
Kills 15,500 Australians per year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Aidan]

Smoking results in an annual 750,000 bed days in hospital.
Kills 15,500 Australians per year.

Are you basing that claim on the 2003 figures like in the graph? The smoking rate has fallen a lot since then.

Anyway, why are you bothering to post all this waffle? Everyone already knows smoking is harmful and kills a lot of people.
But the claims about the cost to taxpayers are still as dubious as ever, and nothing less than a complete cost breakdown will change that.