[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!!!!!!!!

[metesky]

The whole point of the life of a free person is to live it and too that point a short anecdote:

There is no doubt that Aaron Burr was a tragic figure whose long life had many twists and turns and it was no doubt good for the Republic that neither he nor Hamilton were ever elected president.

Burr, a copious cigar smoker, died at age 80 and his last landlady had a few tales to tell about him, one of which follows.

The landlady was given to fits of melancholy and sometimes wished she were dead. Burr always rebuked her and urged her to enjoy herself. During one paricular patch of trouble, she cried, "Oh Colonel, how shall I get through this?"

"Live through it, my dear," Burr said.

The landlady refused to be solaced: "This will kill me, Colonel, I know I can not survive this."

"Well die then, Madame," Colonel Burr said. "But bless me, die game.

[wayoverontheright]

The costs of the drug war are absolutely staggering when you think about it. Interdiction requires boats, manpower, radar, cars trucks, dogs and more. Druggies commit most of the crimes committed in our country today. How do you calculate the cost of additional law enforcement just to deal with drug-related crime?

All this before you begin treating the individuals themselves and the havoc wreaked on their families.

I am not a smoker, the conclusions of this study just defy logic to me.

[Just another Joe]

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

You got it.
Remember, if you smomke and you die of ANYTHING they count it as a smoking related death.

[maxwell]

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

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

[Eastbound]

Lucky Strike Bump!

[realpatriot71]

The incidence(s) of cancer(s) associated with smoking are easy to figure. Find out how many people have a certain cancer. Then figure how many of those people with the cancer smoked or did not smoke. If the incidence of cancer(s) is statistically significantly higher in the smoking population, then you have a link.