Posted on 02/01/2003 6:58:57 PM PST by qam1
BMJ 2003;326:242 ( 1 February )
News roundup
Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs
Christopher Zinn Sydney
The financial impact of tobacco and alcohol far outweigh the impact of illicit drugs, with smoking costing the community almost three times as much as any other category of drug, according to a study on the social costs of drug use in Australia.
The report, produced for the federal government’s national drug strategy, estimates that tobacco accounted for 61.2% of the costs to society of drugs, or $A21bn (£7.6bn; $12.4bn; €11.5bn). For the first time the cost calculations included an estimate of the impact of passive smoking and newly available data to assess the effect on the Australian population of absenteeism, drugs, ambulances, fires, crime, and even litter.
Alcohol accounted for 22% of total costs ($A7.5bn) and illegal drugs for 17% ($A6.0bn). The calculations for the survey period, 1998-9, included both tangible and intangible costs to individuals, companies, and governments. Tangible costs included hospital care, road crashes, loss of productivity and tax revenue, and increased crime and policing. The intangible costs included pain and suffering.
The methods used in this report, the third of its kind, differed so much from the previous reports as to preclude comparisons. Long lists of conditions associated with different types of drug use—such as hypertension (associated with alcohol), ischaemic heart disease (smoking), and low birth weight (cocaine)—were compiled. The authors found it impossible to estimate the costs of the misuse of prescribed pharmaceuticals.
One of the authors, David Collins, a professor in economics at Sydney’s Macquarie University, said the report had, for the first time, measured the cost of passive smoking, assessing it at A$47m. Fires resulting from cigarettes were estimated to cost A$81m.
"A lot of the impact of . . . involuntary smoking is on the unborn child and on children under 14 years. It hits the young very hard because they have no control over their lives," he told the Sydney Morning Herald (21 Jan). "Tobacco is still the greatest killer by far and imposes the greatest costs."
The report said the costs were all net costs and, consistent with previous studies, were estimated conservatively. Lower cost alternatives were selected when there was a choice.
Cannabis, opiates, stimulants, hallucinogens, and anabolic steroids were listed as illicit drugs.
Alcohol was found to have prevented more deaths than it caused because of the beneficial effects of moderate consumption. In the survey period 4286 people reportedly died because of alcohol but 7029 deaths were avoided.
Drug agencies said that they had been aware that tobacco and alcohol were responsible for more problems than were illicit drugs, but they added that the report would show the general public how legal drugs had much more impact.
Professor Collins said the report showed that the costs of drug use are so high that the benefits from even a small reduction in consumption could be large.
"Antitobacco programmes yield very high rates of return, and the same is true for illicit drugs," he said.
That never stopped the mainstream media from reporting it word for word or politicians using Junk Science such as this for justification for raising taxes or passing prohibition type laws.
You've got that right and the biggest reason is MONEY. they have lots of it to spend on high profile advertising and "get out the word" campaigns.
Hmmmmm... SO can we turn that around, and say that if you DON'T smoke and get anal cancer, that NOT smoking caused it?
Geezus. Calling this dreck "junk science" is a slam on the field of junk science.
PUFF
I think you're on to something here.............
Bwaha, it takes a Ph.D. in physics... ;)
Unfortunately the Anti-smoking Nazis have that covered. If you don't smoke and get anal cancer of course it was Second hand smoke that caused you to get anal cancer.
Let me bring you up to date: Maine Rebel passed away on the 13th of January. You will have to deal with "me" now.
It's LEGAL. Which makes it none of your business WHO buys and smokes it!
You truly are disgusting.
Well, if all that junk science about smoking and second hand smoke were really really true........why is it still a legal commodity, after hundreds of years? Where's the logic in THAT?
It seems our "FRiend" Myrddin is no different than the rest of the anti's here.
they seem to be in 3 categories:
1. hit and run (make a nasty comment and refuse to answer)
2. ad hominem attacks at smokers (low lifes, addicts, child abusers, etc.)
3. parrots (repeat all the appropriate phrases from the paid press releases of the antis)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.