Proposed UK tobacco ban

[plugugly]

This is a bit more aples to apples Bootleg.

For the 2017–2018 fiscal year, the direct health care costs in Canada attributable to smoking-related illnesses were estimated at $6.1 billion

For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the Canadian federal government collected approximately $3.249 billion in excise duties on tobacco, and total federal and provincial/territorial tobacco tax revenues for Canada were approximately $8.3 billion

 

[fireground_piper]

This is a bit more aples to apples Bootleg.

For the 2017–2018 fiscal year, the direct health care costs in Canada attributable to smoking-related illnesses were estimated at $6.1 billion

For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the Canadian federal government collected approximately $3.249 billion in excise duties on tobacco, and total federal and provincial/territorial tobacco tax revenues for Canada were approximately $8.3 billion

There’s a lot of nuance to that though. The statement on its face makes it appear that the smoking related costs are an exclusive cost to the individuals that otherwise wouldn’t exist when there are research reports that suggest a sick smoker is more expensive up front, but cheaper over the long term because they die younger compared to a non smoker who lives long with eventual age related health issues and elder support.

Sick smokers over term are cheaper on the health system, though front loaded.

 

[Olkofri]

compared to a non smoker who lives long with eventual age related health issues and elder support.

And since those old folks are now being put on the conveyor belt to euthanasia, the bemoaning of Canadian health deathcare about costs make them look all the more hypocritical and ridiculous.

And not all smokers die younger. If the propaganda on tobacco-related harm were true most of my uncles, who smoked since their teens and are now in their 70-80's, would be dead. None of them have cancer or COPD, or what have you.

 

[fireground_piper]

And since those old folks are now being put on the conveyor belt to euthanasia, the bemoaning of Canadian health deathcare about costs make them look all the more hypocritical and ridiculous.

And not all smokers die younger. If the propaganda on tobacco-related harm were true most of my uncles, who smoked since their teens and are now in their 70-80's, would be dead. None of them have cancer or COPD, or what have you.

Here is a Finnish report on the topic reflecting the lowered costs of healthcare and pension payout.

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study | BMJ Open

There are others. The one I link to above gets itself in the weeds when they seemingly attempt to attribute a cost to a human life per year that’s outside hard number data which I interpreted as a means to make a case that smoking is bad but the plain balance sheet numbers of their report indicate smokers that get sick save the country money both in costs and pension because they die sooner. It is a net positive on the balance sheet.

It becomes a net negative once they start saying a “lost quality adjusted life year is equivalent to 22,200”.

The report actually admits there would be a notable deficit in the balance sheet if everyone stopped smoking.

 

[brian64]

@Olkofri and @fireground_piper : One of the usual suspects will be along shortly to scold you two for questioning conventional wisdom and official narratives...as well as The Science.

Please standby.

 

[Scottmi]

...while smoking may not immediately evidence itself as a human right, having the ability to do so is freedom incarnate.

 

[Scottmi]

Absolutetly, where does it end?

current theories favor the heat death of the universe.

 

[woodsroad]

Here is a Finnish report on the topic reflecting the lowered costs of healthcare and pension payout.

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study | BMJ Open

There are others. The one I link to above gets itself in the weeds when they seemingly attempt to attribute a cost to a human life per year that’s outside hard number data which I interpreted as a means to make a case that smoking is bad but the plain balance sheet numbers of their report indicate smokers that get sick save the country money both in costs and pension because they die sooner. It is a net positive on the balance sheet.

It becomes a net negative once they start saying a “lost quality adjusted life year is equivalent to 22,200”.

The report actually admits there would be a notable deficit in the balance sheet if everyone stopped smoking.

The most cost effective route is to ban childbirth. This would cause some difficulty when the vacant cohort reaches wage-earning years, as they wouldn't be paying into The Roosevelt Ponzi Scheme Social Security, but that's 16-23 years down the road and frankly not the problem of current politicians.

 

[fireground_piper]

The most cost effective route is to ban childbirth. This would cause some difficulty when the vacant cohort reaches wage-earning years, as they wouldn't be paying into The Roosevelt Ponzi Scheme Social Security, but that's 16-23 years down the road and frankly not the problem of current politicians.

A nice off ramp for future generations. All disease will be gone too! Win-win.

 

[Sig]

There’s a lot of nuance to that though. The statement on its face makes it appear that the smoking related costs are an exclusive cost to the individuals that otherwise wouldn’t exist when there are research reports that suggest a sick smoker is more expensive up front, but cheaper over the long term because they die younger compared to a non smoker who lives long with eventual age related health issues and elder support.

Sick smokers over term are cheaper on the health system, though front loaded.

Then you need to take into account that not ALL of the claimed "smoking related costs" are accurate. We certainly learned a lot about this during the pandemic.
Lots of people smoke for decades and dont get lung cancer. And lots of people get lung cancer who have never smoked. And yet others who smoked, but quit years before they got lung cancer. I'll bet the former smoker gets lumped into the smoking related cost category, even though there is no way to say they wouldn't have got lung cancer if they never smoked.
Same goes for heart disease, COPD, throat cancer.....
Don't get me wrong, smokers get cancer, heart disease, and COPD more often than non-smokers generally, but the case by case nuance isn't exactly governments highest priority....or even something they are good at.

 

[Olkofri]

or even something they are good at.

Are they actually good at anything good?

 

[rokerdepipe]

Speak softly and have a deep, secret cellar of delectable delights…..

 

[brian64]

Are they actually good at anything good?

Just a courtesy post to let you know your question is not being ignored...research is ongoing.

In the event this thread ages out before any answer can be found, you will be notified by PM (assuming the site still exists when the time comes).

 

[Sig]

Are they actually good at anything good?

Collecting money, and making rules.

 

[georged]

Collecting money, and making rules.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

Collecting money, and making rules.

And don't forget enforcing the constitution. You can't have a constitution without government. As a wise man once said, 'covenants without the sword are but words'.

 

[brian64]

Collecting money, and making rules.

Sorry, the question was, "Are they actually good at anything good?"

Research continues.

 

[brian64]

And don't forget enforcing the constitution. You can't have a constitution without government. As a wise man once said, 'covenants without the sword are but words'.

Sorry, the question was, "Are they actually good at anything good?"

Research continues.

 

[Simmerdown☕️]

You've been listening to too much Joe Rogan.

Can there be too much Joe Rogan? ️

 

[Olkofri]

Collecting money, and making rules.

That's not good!