Similar to other drugs I would imagine, jail for supplying/growing/importing and fines/warnings for using. I have to stress that this would be a long long time away, 40+ years as an uneducated estimate.
Alcohol fuelled violence
- Thread starter moyjos
- Start date
Similar to other drugs I would imagine, jail for supplying/growing/importing and fines/warnings for using. I have to stress that this would be a long long time away, 40+ years as an uneducated estimate.
The Govt tax goes towards covering the cost of the health bills associated with the effects on one's health from alcohol and smoking...
Therefore - having worked in an ICU for 3 years and seen the results of both things - I am happy for the Gubbmint to tax the living daylights out of both....
Don't get me started on the subject of a junk food tax for the obesity epidemic. Many ICU patients are there due to obesity related illnesses, and in a lot of cases - all 3.
Or, in reverse; give Companies a subsidy for heart health type products to encourage lower costs and to encourage folks to eat better food.
Therefore - having worked in an ICU for 3 years and seen the results of both things - I am happy for the Gubbmint to tax the living daylights out of both....
Don't get me started on the subject of a junk food tax for the obesity epidemic. Many ICU patients are there due to obesity related illnesses, and in a lot of cases - all 3.
Or, in reverse; give Companies a subsidy for heart health type products to encourage lower costs and to encourage folks to eat better food.
Last edited:
I don't see anywhere near as many smoking (cigarettes that is) or drink driving like teens (and young adults) once did, and I've had many teens and older here having drinks over the years (leave 2 ashtray buckets out too which rarely have much if any in them, and see few if any butts thrown to the ground).
On smokers generally...they pay adequate tax, and i would think do cover their medical expenses easily - those that don't die from cigarettes still have medical expenses too as the chances are they'll still get cancer or heart disease, etc. and require treatment before dropping dead without paying this tax.
My concern is always about how these things impact others, and where it's a few troublesome people out of a whole group, then target the few not everyone, ie. huge penalties for drink driving don't affect drinkers that don't drink and drive for example.
Make it a huge penalty for drink fighting then, or place long drinking bans on thugs that drink and fight (caught drinking and get instant jail) better police presence around trouble hotspots.
If you look at it in terms of medical cost only, then living a long and mostly healthy living life is often the most costly.
In fact it's so much of an issue that it's now one of the governments biggest dilemmas.
Just have to look at all the elderly clogging up the hospital system due to all that repeat successful and costly treatment and huge amounts of life saving drugs they take, only to end up infirm and needing lots of costly support because the ticker just keeps on going
.
No, not pro smoking, but don't think smokers harm or cost others as much as people make out when compared to those that live longer.
In fact it's so much of an issue that it's now one of the governments biggest dilemmas.
Just have to look at all the elderly clogging up the hospital system due to all that repeat successful and costly treatment and huge amounts of life saving drugs they take, only to end up infirm and needing lots of costly support because the ticker just keeps on going
.No, not pro smoking, but don't think smokers harm or cost others as much as people make out when compared to those that live longer.
Last edited:
The costs associated with smoking outweigh savings from premature death across medical, hospital, pharmaceuticals and ambulance services. The only real saving is in aged care residential services.
For NSW alone in 2006/7 that "cost" was in the order of 230 million.
Oh, and thats without even looking at social costs (sick days, reduced/lost income, decreased productivity, fires, antismoking advertising .... list goes on )
Not to mention the cost of cigarettes to the individual/family and poverty associated with income spent on tobacco.
Source: The Social Costs of Smoking
in NSW in 2006/07 and the Social Benefits of Public Policy Measures to Reduce Smoking Prevalence (table on Page 6 ) published by NSW health.
For NSW alone in 2006/7 that "cost" was in the order of 230 million.
Oh, and thats without even looking at social costs (sick days, reduced/lost income, decreased productivity, fires, antismoking advertising .... list goes on )
Not to mention the cost of cigarettes to the individual/family and poverty associated with income spent on tobacco.
Source: The Social Costs of Smoking
in NSW in 2006/07 and the Social Benefits of Public Policy Measures to Reduce Smoking Prevalence (table on Page 6 ) published by NSW health.
Agree smoking incurs these costs, but what i'd like to see is figures of lifetime costs for a smoker, minus revenue paid per person from tabacco tax, compared to lifetime costs of a non smoker, including cost associated with aging and support due to longevity.
If you go to that document I quoted (available on line) you could likely make an estimate Weg, as it has a lot of that data. I'm predicting it's still an overall large cost to society.
If you are ever in doubt, just go hang outside your nearest public hospital, around any of the entry/exits and take a look at all the patients with drips, plaster casts and the like in tow puffing away. Sometimes directly in front of the no smoking signs. Every time I go there i have to hold my breath as I walk in and try not to step on all the butts.
If you are ever in doubt, just go hang outside your nearest public hospital, around any of the entry/exits and take a look at all the patients with drips, plaster casts and the like in tow puffing away. Sometimes directly in front of the no smoking signs. Every time I go there i have to hold my breath as I walk in and try not to step on all the butts.
Smokers still have all the costs of ageing. They just have them earlier and with more complications and medical interventions.
While the smokers are gasping away on their O2 cylinders in he nursing homes the non smokers are still out contributing to society, paying taxes and the like.
While the smokers are gasping away on their O2 cylinders in he nursing homes the non smokers are still out contributing to society, paying taxes and the like.
Life expectancy in smokers is dramatically reduced according to stats - between 10 to 25 years depending where you look, so even if you do carry an oxygen cylinder around the chances are it probably wouldn't be in a nursing home.
One of the biggest increases in nursing home admissions is actually due to dementia - increased age being the significant risk factor.
My FIL 87, a non smoker, spent about 5.5 months in hospital last year, (6 wks in a public hospital and 4 months in an elderly assessment unit) before being admitted into a nursing home.
My father on the other hand, a smoker (gave up at 60), died suddenly at 71 of an abdominal aortic aneurysm.
He had never spent time in hospital for anything smoking related, and no more time in the doctors surgery than most his age.
So a 16 year difference.
Most people aren't in FIL financial position either, so in most instances someone like him would have been on a pension for 20 odd years prior to incurring further costs associated with disability of 'very' old age.
Btw, average time in a nursing home is around 2 years.
Like i said, I'd like to see the stats.
so much misinformation on this thread, I have businesses in this industry.
You want to fix the problem you start issuing CIVIL (spelling) infringement notices in the thousands, but on those members of the public that are the problem. Stop picking on the venues that supply the alcohol. It will fix the problem very quickly.
You want to fix the problem you start issuing CIVIL (spelling) infringement notices in the thousands, but on those members of the public that are the problem. Stop picking on the venues that supply the alcohol. It will fix the problem very quickly.
I guess it depends how long it takes for the cancer sticks to get you
Meh, everyone dies. I might get hit by a bus tomorrow or struck by lightening.
this is just my interpretation...........its probably not a problem of just booze per se, but a more fundamental value set.
if one knows that one has a pre disposition to be aggressive from history, and to be more so when on the booze......... that person is making a judgement call while sober, that all other people around them at their drinking time and place are a fair target for their actions.
ta
rolf
Not if you keep standing in the middle of the road or hold bits of metal in storms, you might last awhile longer if you stop smoking.
Your theory is based on your own observation or anecdotal evidence Weg. The research evidence however does not support your theory. If it did, the gubberment would be more interested in getting us all hooked on tobacco so we could save them a fortune.
Did you look at that NSW Health report?
Did you look at that NSW Health report?
Just for you Weg: But I was interested to see what I could find too.
A scholarly article with the info you seek.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2004; 14: 95?100
? European Public Health Association 2004; all rights reserved
The total lifetime costs of smoking SUSANNE R. RASMUSSEN, EVA PRESCOTT, THORKILD I.A. S?RENSEN, JES S?GAARD *
This is there synopsis below, but you can read the whole article on line if you like. It's in english even though it was published in Denmark. The Danes do some fabulous health related research as they have one of the best respected and longest running cohort studies in the world. Search the title and main author and you will find it. I could do a medline search and literature reveiw for you, but I've got a heap of home chores to do tonight.
Background: Net costs of smoking in a lifetime perspective and, hence, the economic interests in antismoking policies have been questioned. It has been proposed that the health-related costs of smoking are balanced by smaller expenditure due to shorter life expectancy. Method: A dynamic (life cycle) method taking differences in life expectancy into account. Main outcome measures were direct and indirect lifetime health costs for ever-smokers and never-smokers, and cost ratios (ever-smokers to never-smokers). The estimations were based on annual disease rates of use of the healthcare services, smoking relative risks, smoking prevalences, and costs. Results: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders. The direct and indirect cost ratios were highest at age 45 for women, and at age 35 and 40 for men, respectively. Taking life expectancy differences into account, direct and indirect lifetime health costs for men aged 35, discounted by 5% per year were 66% and 83% higher in ever-smokers than in never-smokers. Corresponding results for women were 74% and 79%, respectively. The results are insensitive to a broad range of relative risk-estimates and discount rates including no discounting. Excess costs of ever-smokers disappear if the inclusion of smoking-related diseases is narrowed to that of previous studies. Conclusion: Smoking imposes costs to society even when taking life expectancy into consideration ? both in direct and indirect costs.
A scholarly article with the info you seek.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2004; 14: 95?100
? European Public Health Association 2004; all rights reserved
The total lifetime costs of smoking SUSANNE R. RASMUSSEN, EVA PRESCOTT, THORKILD I.A. S?RENSEN, JES S?GAARD *
This is there synopsis below, but you can read the whole article on line if you like. It's in english even though it was published in Denmark. The Danes do some fabulous health related research as they have one of the best respected and longest running cohort studies in the world. Search the title and main author and you will find it. I could do a medline search and literature reveiw for you, but I've got a heap of home chores to do tonight.
Background: Net costs of smoking in a lifetime perspective and, hence, the economic interests in antismoking policies have been questioned. It has been proposed that the health-related costs of smoking are balanced by smaller expenditure due to shorter life expectancy. Method: A dynamic (life cycle) method taking differences in life expectancy into account. Main outcome measures were direct and indirect lifetime health costs for ever-smokers and never-smokers, and cost ratios (ever-smokers to never-smokers). The estimations were based on annual disease rates of use of the healthcare services, smoking relative risks, smoking prevalences, and costs. Results: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders. The direct and indirect cost ratios were highest at age 45 for women, and at age 35 and 40 for men, respectively. Taking life expectancy differences into account, direct and indirect lifetime health costs for men aged 35, discounted by 5% per year were 66% and 83% higher in ever-smokers than in never-smokers. Corresponding results for women were 74% and 79%, respectively. The results are insensitive to a broad range of relative risk-estimates and discount rates including no discounting. Excess costs of ever-smokers disappear if the inclusion of smoking-related diseases is narrowed to that of previous studies. Conclusion: Smoking imposes costs to society even when taking life expectancy into consideration ? both in direct and indirect costs.
I'm not arguing the effects of cigarette smoking or the cost.
I've worked in healthcare for 33 years and have seen it all, which is why i question a smokers life time costs minus tax excise paid vs. the life time cost of a non smoker who lives PAST the productive tax paying years into old age, accessing pensions, demanding increased healthcare and medicine, as well as support (care).
If you had posted the next paragraph to your article you would have also seen this.
Also, keep in mind this study does not take into account revenue from cigarette excise either.
This article written by a Oxford University sociologist does.
http://www.openpop.org/?p=646
The gubberment never squealed over smoking costs like they do with the costs associated with living longer.
I've worked in healthcare for 33 years and have seen it all, which is why i question a smokers life time costs minus tax excise paid vs. the life time cost of a non smoker who lives PAST the productive tax paying years into old age, accessing pensions, demanding increased healthcare and medicine, as well as support (care).
If you had posted the next paragraph to your article you would have also seen this.
Also, keep in mind this study does not take into account revenue from cigarette excise either.
This article written by a Oxford University sociologist does.
http://www.openpop.org/?p=646
The gubberment never squealed over smoking costs like they do with the costs associated with living longer.
I ride my bike around the neighbourhood like a king on wheels. Someday I'm gonna get taken out and ride my bike to glory.
Then I'll be able to smoke all the fags and drink all the beer I want without fear of repercussion.
