Cigarette Ban

Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18929
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Silverstarqueen »

neilsimon wrote:Can you give numbers to show that the extra taxes paid by smokers do not cover the lifetime difference in healthcare and pension costs and then some?
The fact that the government earmarks smoking taxes for purposes which do not include all damage done by smoking, is not really the fault of the smokers.


So all the damage, heartache,trauma, health consequences of smoking is not the fault of smokers because it's our fault (and our government's fault) for allowing it all to happen.
Which is exactly why, we need to ban it , and stop all these harms.
Paying a tax does not pay for the harm done.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Silverstarqueen wrote:Paying a tax does not pay for the harm done.
I do agree with this but I'm not exactly in favour of a total ban - just restrictions.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by gman313 »

Silverstarqueen wrote:
neilsimon wrote:Can you give numbers to show that the extra taxes paid by smokers do not cover the lifetime difference in healthcare and pension costs and then some?
The fact that the government earmarks smoking taxes for purposes which do not include all damage done by smoking, is not really the fault of the smokers.


So all the damage, heartache,trauma, health consequences of smoking is not the fault of smokers because it's our fault (and our government's fault) for allowing it all to happen.
Which is exactly why, we need to ban it , and stop all these harms.
Paying a tax does not pay for the harm done.


arguably paying a tax DOES pay for the harm done

Smokers contributed X in taxes every year
Smokers cause Y in costs due to poor health, forest fires etc.

X-Y=Z

If Z is a positive number smokers not only pay for their harm done but they contribute extra
If Z is a negative number jack the tax
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18929
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Silverstarqueen »

neilsimon wrote:What is ironic is that people are arguing for a ban on something because of the costs/harm associated with it, despite the fact that it almost certainly contributes more in taxes than it causes in lifetime costs/harm done when reasonable monetary values are assigned.


Do you have any evidence for that assertion, that the taxes are covering the lifetime costs/harm done?
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Jack the tax but still would never recover the health and lives.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18929
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Silverstarqueen »

Of course it wouldn't. but one thing I have learned is that smokers can justify their habit in their own mind in many different ways. Truth has nothing to do with it. My own sister was adamant that her little girl's asthma had nothing to do with her smoking around her everyday. and I was crazy for suggesting it. Research shows differently, but that doesn't count.
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

Silverstarqueen wrote:
neilsimon wrote:What is ironic is that people are arguing for a ban on something because of the costs/harm associated with it, despite the fact that it almost certainly contributes more in taxes than it causes in lifetime costs/harm done when reasonable monetary values are assigned.


Do you have any evidence for that assertion, that the taxes are covering the lifetime costs/harm done?

Assuming 40 years of smoking and dying at 72 instead of 82:
$1,000/year in taxes = $40,000
$643.92/month saving in pension for 10 years = $77,270
$6299/year saving in healthcare for 10 years = $62,990 (https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-spending assuming average costs makes this artificially low, but lets start there)
$550/year cost in smoking related healthcare costs = $22,000 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.3190141)
So, taking healthcare into account, a smoker essentially contributes and saves $158,260 in a lifetime for the public economy by just smoking and dying early.
That's about $4,000/year, which with about 600,000 smokers in BC is about $2,400,000,000/year in total. I doubt that the other damage they do, such as fires and associated harm comes close to $2,400,000,000/year (after reasonable monetary values are assigned).

If I have left something out, please let me know what it is and I'll adjust the figures appropriately.
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18929
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Silverstarqueen »

Yes, we are all saving so much in health care while our smokers are dying of respiratory disease, influenza, lung cancer.
Amazing how you justify that. Just because they die ten years sooner, does not mean they are hail and hearty for that last ten years of life, before they drop dead.
Sparki55
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4016
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Sparki55 »

neilsimon wrote:Do you have any evidence for that assertion, that the taxes are covering the lifetime costs/harm done?
Assuming 40 years of smoking and dying at 72 instead of 82:
$1,000/year in taxes = $40,000
$643.92/month saving in pension for 10 years = $77,270
$6299/year saving in healthcare for 10 years = $62,990 (https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-spending assuming average costs makes this artificially low, but lets start there)
$550/year cost in smoking related healthcare costs = $22,000 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.3190141)
So, taking healthcare into account, a smoker essentially contributes and saves $158,260 in a lifetime for the public economy by just smoking and dying early.
That's about $4,000/year, which with about 600,000 smokers in BC is about $2,400,000,000/year in total. I doubt that the other damage they do, such as fires and associated harm comes close to $2,400,000,000/year (after reasonable monetary values are assigned).

If I have left something out, please let me know what it is and I'll adjust the figures appropriately.


:up:

No one here is going to inform you of what might be miscalculated. All they will say is that without smoking there will be significantly less fires and that there is no need or reason to smoke except excuses. I've heard all I need to hear from them. Ban it, move onto the next thing causing harm.
Drinking and driving causes more accidents than not drinking and driving and there is no reason to drink except excuses. Drinking directly leads to driving just as smoking directly leads to a fire. Same as cigarettes and smoking cause more fires than not smoking. Heavy drinkers also have more health issues than non drinkers and this is unfair to the rest of us footing their bill. Booze needs to be banned, think I found the next topic.
mjc0483
Posts: 75
Joined: Jan 29th, 2017, 7:27 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by mjc0483 »

Knowing all the risks associated with smoking now, you have to be brain dead and absolutely stupid without a thought of your own to decide to start. Those who cave to "peer pressure" have no spine. Which explains why they blame their smoking on "their friends pressuring them" or "stress" ...
Sparki55
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4016
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Sparki55 »

mjc0483 wrote:Knowing all the risks associated with smoking now, you have to be brain dead and absolutely stupid without a thought of your own to decide to start. Those who cave to "peer pressure" have no spine. Which explains why they blame their smoking on "their friends pressuring them" or "stress" ...

Not everyone who smokes, smokes a pack a day. Some people choose to have a smoke here are there, are they brain dead? When my old man gets together with his buddies for poker, beer or whatever they enjoy having a cigar. Smoking twice a week doesn't mean he is brain dead just as much as never exercising doesn't mean someone is brain dead. Both are unhealthy.
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by gman313 »

moderation with anything - we can agree on that

now

:topic:
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

Silverstarqueen wrote:Yes, we are all saving so much in health care while our smokers are dying of respiratory disease, influenza, lung cancer.
Amazing how you justify that. Just because they die ten years sooner, does not mean they are hail and hearty for that last ten years of life, before they drop dead.

That's why I included the estimated extra $550/year in healthcare costs, which covers smoking related illness. Thanks for bringing it to my attention as that number was lower than it should have been. I've adjusted the numbers accordingly.
Last edited by neilsimon on Aug 4th, 2017, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 31452
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by GordonH »

I could really care less if anyone smokes, if you do smoke f :cuss: ing dispose of your butt's properly.
Flicking them still smoldering on the ground is a really dumd :cuss: thing to do, smarten the f :cuss: up okay.
"You've Gotta' Ask Yourself A Question. 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well Do Ya...PUNK?" Harry Callahan
I don't care whether people like me or dislike me. I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

Sorry guys, I made a significant mistake, and the cost of smoking related illness is a bit higher than I initially calculated. Revised figures.
Assuming 40 years of smoking and dying at 72 instead of 82:
$1,000/year in taxes = $40,000
$643.92/month saving in pension for 10 years = $77,270
$6299/year saving in healthcare for 10 years = $62,990 (https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-spending assuming average costs makes this artificially low, but lets start there)
$3071/year cost in smoking related healthcare costs for 40 years= $122,840 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.3190141)
Adding the taxes and savings and subtracting the costs gives us:
40000+77270+62990-122840=57420
So, taking healthcare into account, a smoker essentially contributes and saves $57,420 in a lifetime for the public economy by just smoking and dying early.
That's about $1,436/year, which with about 600,000 smokers in BC is about $861,300,000/year in total. So, can someone gather the costs associated with smoking caused fires, etc, as my last calculations put that at around $125,000,000/year, leaving over $700,000,000/year in net contribution to the BC economy by smoking.

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”