Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs (Junk Science & Barf Alert)

British Medical Journal ^ | 2/1/03 | Christopher Zinn Sydney

[qam1]

Expect this one to be picked up by the mainstream media soon

If anybody is interested the way the caluclated the cost is available in 121 page pdf file at

http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/publicat/document/mono49.pdf

This is Junk Science at it's finest.

4 things stand out

1st

They blame every condition possible on smoking.

Table B2:Causes of death and principal diagnoses identified as tobacco-related conditions

Oropharyngeal cancer Oesophageal cancer Stomach cancer Anal cancer Pancreatic cancer Laryngeal cancer Lung cancer Endometrial cancer Cervical cancer

Vulvar cancer Penile cancer Bladder cancer Renal parenchymal cancer Renal pelvic cancer Respiratory carcinoma in situ Ischaemic heart disease Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Tobacco abuse Parkinson 's disease Pulmonary circulation disease Cardiac dysrhythmias Heart failure Stroke Atherosclerosis Pneumonia

Peptic ulcer Crohn 's disease Ulcerative colitis Ectopic pregnancy Spontaneous abortion

I would really like to know how the hell smoking causes Anal or Penile Cancer.

So basically if you die or get sick and you smoke, The smoking caused it and it cost society.

Second

This is actually funny.

The study included in the cost to society smoking prevention and cessation programs.

So according to them they have to spend our money on governmental programs to get us to stop smoking and because they must spend this money to enlighten us they count that as a cost to society. So according to this study if they stopped all these dumb prevention programs the smokers cost to society would go down.

Third

 Of course they left out that smokers die early thus saving money in retirement programs. 

Forth

Well what about all the extra taxes paid by smokers. This study went into that and this is where this study really earns it's label of Junk Science.

Right of the bat even with all the above they are forced to admit that due to taxes smokers more than make up for these so called cost to society.

Quote

"At the outset it should be conceded that,as will be seen later in this report, Tobacco tax revenue does in fact exceed by a considerable margin the tobacco-attributable costs borne by the government sector."

and

"Tobacco tax revenue in 1998-9 exceeded tobacco-attributable costs borne by the public sector by almost $2.8 billion.The beneficiaries of this surplus were State Governments."

But of course in true Junk Science form they spin this benefit away...

Quote from the study

"This fact is often interpreted to mean that "smokers pay their way ". However,smokers themselves bear a significant proportion of the social costs of smoking, for the reasons discussed above.It is,to a very large extent,the tobacco industry which imposes the social costs, not the smokers. The question "Do smokers pay their way?' is ,in fact, the wrong question.The correct question is " Does the tobacco industry pay its way??" This question is easily answered in the negative."

There would be other,relatively minor,effects on the revenue from such taxes as fringe benefits tax,payroll tax and company income tax. However,as explained below, the revenue from these latter types of taxes should be excluded from the analysis because they do not discriminate against the alcohol or tobacco industry in any way.All industries must bear these taxes at the same rates and they can,at least partially,be viewed as benefit taxes which finance services provided by government to industry generally. They are,accordingly,not incorporated in the budgetary analysis of this study.

HUH???

Because Smokers Pay for themselves instead of the Tobacco company paying for the smokers and because other things besides cigarettes are also taxed it shouldn't be counted.

So with that wiped out and points 1 - 3 they come to the B.S. conclusion

The Commonwealth 's tobacco-attributable outlays exceeded its tobacco revenue by $219m."

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[mrfixit514]

Let me guess, You are a smoker? I recongize the words of denial. My in-laws are slowly trying to kill themselves also.

[qam1]

Yes I am.

I don't deny anything. Smoking is bad for me, (Though I am pretty confident that smoking won't give me penile or anal cancer).

The point of this post wasn't whether smoking "May" harm me or not but to expose one of the anti-smoking Nazi's lies about how the smokers cost society money.

[Kerberos]

"Right of the bat even with all the above they are forced to admit that due to taxes smokers more than make up for these so called cost to society"

So then would that mean that if the current illegal drugs that we have we made legal, and taxed, that the tax would offset the negative qualities of illegal drugs?

[Great Dane]

The methods used in this report, the third of its kind, differed so much from the previous reports as to preclude comparisons.

Yeah, they lied even more than usual, I can hardly believe this stuff, but as you said...... the media will, if necessary they will hold their nose while reporting.

[Great Dane]

Let me guess, You are a smoker? I recongize the words of denial. My in-laws are slowly trying to kill themselves also.

And your point is ...... ?????

You might want to try and fix something else.

[tubebender]

 Of course they left out that smokers die early thus saving money in retirement programs. 

One of the biggest cost for taxpayers is when people live too long.

[Max McGarrity]

Doesn't matter if one is a smoker or not--junk science remains junk and lies remain lies.

[qam1]

Of course, smokers are so delusional and blinded by their murderous addiction that they will discount this report for flawed science (that's an automatic, I know) and because it was done by, well, foreign people. Damn foreigners can't get nothing right!

Well I provided all the links so I challange you to please tell me where I am wrong.

[hoot2]

"Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs
Christopher Zinn Sydney "

if you think smoking is bad...
try breathing the air in l.a.
it is so bad; that many days, school kids aren't allowed outside to play....
n unlike smokers....kids breath 24 hours a day....gosh, who would have guessed?

[Max McGarrity]

Nope, doesn't have anything to do with "foreigners." There are enough idiots right here in the good ol' US of A. You're living proof.

[JimVT]

I quit some time ago.

I never heard of anyone committing a robbery or murder to get more cigarettes.

I put the no-smoking at any cost folks right up there with the GreenPeace-Global Warming crowd.

Chacun a son gout.

[SheLion]

My in-laws are slowly trying to kill themselves also.

It IS a legal commodity. At least they don't have to buy cigarettes out of the back of a TRUCK!

[SheLion]

The point of this post wasn't whether smoking "May" harm me or not but to expose one of the anti-smoking Nazi's lies about how the smokers cost society money.

Exactly! We HAVE our own health insurance, thank you! No one has to pay for any health care for me or my family.

The Congressional Research Service, in the 1998 revision of their study found: Smokers cost the federal government $9 billion in medical care and $10 billion in lost contributions to social security, etc. But they also found they save $40 billion in retirement costs (mostly social security), about $8 billion in nursing home costs (mostly from Medicaid), and they collect $5.6 billion in cigarette taxes. When added up, smokers saved the federal government $34.6 billion dollars yearly.

State governments saved money too. After subtracting net medical costs of $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion from lost contributions from a savings of $4.8 billion in nursing home costs financed through Medicaid and $.6 billion in retirement savings, and $7.6 billion in cigarette taxes, smokers saved the states almost $9.7 billion.

That's a total saving of $44.3 billion.

Since this 1998 report, taxes have skyrocketed on cigarettes in many states and the tobacco settlement was signed. The settlement was for reimbursement of past and future medical expenses, so states have not only been reimbursed, but smokers are paid up to infinity on future medical costs.

Leaving out new taxes and the settlement, smokers have been overpaying the state and federal governments for an average $950 each year I figure. But to be fair, there are about the same number as former smokers as smokers so if there is ever a rebate given, it should be split up between the two groups and average about $475 each, each year.

Now, the state insurance program may feel the effects of smoker’s costs, but either it should be taken out of the excise tax or figured into the tobacco settlement, which supposedly covers it.

[rolling_stone]

So then would that mean that if the current illegal drugs that we have we made legal, and taxed, that the tax would offset the negative qualities of illegal drugs?

Well most of the negative effects..what is the cost to children of smokers or drug users? I imagine if you throw out the amount of money being wasted in the WOSD's then legalizing drugs & taxing them could be a money maker for the government, not to mention a return of civil rights and liberty...

[Gabz]

At least they didn't go as far as the State of Delaware which blames Zits and nightmares on smoking.

I will concede the nightmares is probably correct - because every time I have a dream that involved the lies of the antis - it is a nightmare.

I'll have to dig out the list from Delaware and post it - talk about a laugh!!!!!!!!!

[Gabz]

I truly think you would benefit from having a cigarette or a cigar - it might make you realize your repetitious ad hominem comments are ludicrous.

[Gabz]

Don't expect a response - Tacis is a hit and run anti......

Makes the required anti play book comment and never returns.