Smoking ban?

[sasguru]

Exceopt your already paying for it in NIC and Taxes to pay for the NHS treatment of all those selfish buggers that have smoked themselves to the point of death and have to be treated for it.

Now, if they allowed smoking but refused treatment on the NHS for smoking related illnesses.......

That argument is totally incorrect. Smokers more than pay in tobacco tax for any extra treatment they may need. Plus they die younger so are less of a drain on the system. The Treasury worked this out a long time ago.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact16.html

According to ASh smoking costs 1.5 billion but tobacco tax income is 8,000 million. Now isn't that 8 billion? I wonder why they wrote it like that?!

[DaveB]

That argument is totally incorrect. Smokers more than pay in tobacco tax for any extra treatment they may need. Plus they die younger so are less of a drain on the system. The Treasury worked this out a long time ago.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact16.html

According to ASh smoking costs 1.5 billion but tobacco tax income is 8,000 million. Now isn't that 8 billion? I wonder why they wrote it like that?!

In direct costs then yes, cost to the NHS for direct treatment is about £1.5 Billion a year, against around £8 Billion in tax revenue.

However, when you factor in long term costs for invalidity, income support and other social benefits for those unable to work through smoking related illness, plus the cost to the economy for lost productivity and absence and then add the economic cost of the loss of life, estimated by the home office at £393,580 in 2000 then the cost of smoking in the UK comes in at around 47 Billion a year.

Smokes cost the country money. Simple as that. Which costs us money as tax payers to pay for it.

Oh, and if you dont like those figures you could always try these ones from the DoH. :

SMOKE FREE WORKPLACES AND PUBLIC PLACES: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

[sasguru]

In direct costs then yes, cost to the NHS for direct treatment is about £1.5 Billion a year, against around £8 Billion in tax revenue.

However, when you factor in long term costs for invalidity, income support and other social benefits for those unable to work through smoking related illness, plus the cost to the economy for lost productivity and absence and then add the economic cost of the loss of life, estimated by the home office at £393,580 in 2000 then the cost of smoking in the UK comes in at around 47 Billion a year.

Smokes cost the country money. Simple as that. Which costs us money as tax payers to pay for it.

Hmmm very dubious statistics going from 1.5 billion to 47 billion, just like that. Have you factored in that smokers on average die 10-12 years younger and are less of a drain? Where's the evidence? Point me to a scientific study.

[sasguru]

Just read that analysis. It's highly speculative. Personally I wouldn't put that particular analysis in front of a customer. But the guys who wrote it are public sector jobsworths.

[DaveB]

Hmmm very dubious statistics going from 1.5 billion to 47 billion, just like that. Have you factored in that smokers on average die 10-12 years younger and are less of a drain? Where's the evidence? Point me to a scientific study.

Added more sources as an edit above.

However I didnt do it "Just like that". Smokers actually die on average 7.5 years earlier and those figures include the loss of income to the treasury caused by that, cost in additional benefits to those who cant support themselves due to smoking related illness etc etc. As I said above.

The Government figures come from the DoT who calculated the total cost of the loss of a life at around £1 million in total. The DoH figures break that down further but roughly speaking 114,000 people per year die from smoking related illness. Allowing for the fact that they are not a total loss, having only lost on average, 7.5 years, then the £47 billion figure, whilst not hugely accurate, is certainly in the right ball park.

[DaveB]

Just read that analysis. It's highly speculative. Personally I wouldn't put that particular analysis in front of a customer. But the guys who wrote it are public sector jobsworths.

You're not a politician are you? If you don't like the figures smear the guys who wrote them

[foritisme]

I only smoke during and after sex. Can anyone recommend a good lubricant. Currently using blackcurrent jelly.

[ASB]

Exceopt your already paying for it in NIC and Taxes to pay for the NHS treatment of all those selfish buggers that have smoked themselves to the point of death and have to be treated for it.

Now, if they allowed smoking but refused treatment on the NHS for smoking related illnesses.......

A commonly held view. However the amount in revenue raised by tobacco related taxes (some 12 bn) far exceeds that spent on care (1.5bn). The exchequer savings through early death are also considerable, but not really calculable.

A (outright) ban would cost the country currently 10.5 bln a year in lost revenue.

[Some of this would be compensated for by longer life expectancy whilst economically active - but there would also be other losses due to pension being collected longer thourgh better health].

[Francko]

Added more sources as an edit above.

However I didnt do it "Just like that". Smokers actually die on average 7.5 years earlier and those figures include the loss of income to the treasury caused by that, cost in additional benefits to those who cant support themselves due to smoking related illness etc etc. As I said above.

The Government figures come from the DoT who calculated the total cost of the loss of a life at around £1 million in total. The DoH figures break that down further but roughly speaking 114,000 people per year die from smoking related illness. Allowing for the fact that they are not a total loss, having only lost on average, 7.5 years, then the £47 billion figure, whilst not hugely accurate, is certainly in the right ball park.

Sorry, Dave but I cannot give any scientific validity to any study of this type and I am sure neither any respectable scientist would ever claim that.
The reason is simple, how can you completely isolate the impact of the smoke from the other negative causes that may affect your health? It's pratically impossible. You would need to screen a set of people, feed them in the same way, let them live in the same area, let them have the same job, and let them drink the exact amount of alcohol (and also hope that they have a similar genetic background). All those studies are pure rubbish I think. They only calculate the cost of diseases affecting the people who smoke. But there is no proof that the disease is caused by or only by cigarettes, and if yes (very likely), to what extent (I am sure that those studies give 100% extent like leading other dangerous bad habbits doesn't have any impact). It is also very possible that some smokers indulge in many other pleasures (therefore they might also drink more than average or eat more than average, raising the risk exponentially) but other people (no-smokers) may indulge in other pleasure as they see not smoking as something missing in their life, again it would very important to calculate all potentially dangerous habbits, which most of them are not measurable by nature (stress, frustration,depression, etc.). What it can certainly be said is that it is one of the factors that provoke serious health problems in the long term but shooting figures like those studies claim is simply ridicolous. What's the cost of stress related illnesses in UK? I am sure is just as high as smoking. Why doesn't the government do something to make the workplaces a more healthy environment instead of abusing documents of no scientific value?

[Denny]

If it was that simple to equate smoking with some of the illnesses that smoking is supposed to be attributed to then the tobacco companies would have been successfully sued by now in numous crippling compensation claims.

As the poster above says, so called smoking related illnesses can be triggered by other accompanying factors. How come someone can smoke 60 a day for 30 years and never get cancer and someone in their 30s can die from passive smoking? Genes, lifestyle, diet all play a part too. The only thing I believe is unequivocally true is that smoking does enhance someones' risk of getting lung cancer but that's not the same as treating this belief as knowledge that it most definitely will.

I'm not suggesting that smoking is good for you or even to suggest that those who don't like the smell should tolerate it in public places. I do think that people have a choice though to as to where they eat and drink and there are plenty of non-smoking establishments around.

Those who smoke and don't intend to give up will only spend more time at home smoking which isn't going to reduce potential cancer victims at all.
Businesses will suffer too from loss of revenue over lost custom.

I like the way things stand at present and see no reason to change it. Nearly every town and city has a good mix of non-smoking and smoking permitted coffee bars and restaurants so it's simply a question of choosing where to go to get the most enjoyment. Encroaching on smokers' liberties and choice to smoke is no more acceptable that forcing everyone to enhale smoke whether they like it or not. That's why I think it is fundamentally right to disallow smoking in offices or other enclosed workplaces which don't involve customers who smoke. Again, for workstaff in bars and so on, they choose where to work. No one is forcing them to take these jobs on.