pman
Banned
we are never going to agree on this....your a bloody anarcho-capitalist....i totally appose anarchy and UOW is a proper Uni, the only one that offers my course!
Should we move towards banning smoking (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jennyfromdabloc
- Start date
This sentence continues to read
"..while the community as a whole bears very high economic costs greatly exceeding revenue from tobacco taxes."
lol at you, fool.
Also, the statistics in this report are from '91-'99, making them almost TEN YEARS OLD.
I shall present you with a direct quote from my oral presentation.
"Some people argue that the revenue the Australian Government makes on tobacco taxes outweighs the healthcare costs associated with smoking. This is a view formed ignorant of factual evidence; as a study conducted by Collins and Lapsley on behalf of the Australian Department of Community Services and Health, revealed that in 2004/2005, the estimated costs associated with tobacco abuse was 31 billion dollars, nearly five times that of the revenue raised during 2004/2005 , which was a mere 6.6 billion. Anyone with half-a-brain could conclude that tobacco is costing us a lot more than it returns, and not only in a health-related sense."
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf
ANd like I have said, at the end of the day you're going to use guns to make your position "right"
You're a fucking moron.
Given that you can't even spell properly I quite frankly don't give a shit.
well its a shit course
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
yeah, read it, cost to the community, half of which is intangibles and the majority of the rest is "lost production", I have addressed this.
from your own link:
Total healthcare: 318.4 million, so smokers pay 20 times what they cost, is that what you're saying?
Edit: you're right though, you'd need to have half a brain to think that the government wasn't profiting from tobacco.
from your own link:
Total healthcare: 318.4 million, so smokers pay 20 times what they cost, is that what you're saying?
Edit: you're right though, you'd need to have half a brain to think that the government wasn't profiting from tobacco.
Last edited:
And why should intangible costs be disregarded? They are indirect costs burdened unfairly by all.
No, the $318 million is part of the costs associated with tobacco abuse.
That means treating illness as a result of tobacco abuse etc.
Everyone pays taxes, which means we ALL pay to treat irrational fools who choose to maintain such a destructive habit.
Also, just because revenue was "increased" more than outlay was, doesnt mean it is a larger figure. It may very well have increased by a shitload more, but tobacco-related costs would undoubtedly still prevail as larger.
EDIT: Do you even know what the word profit means? For something to profit, it must have higher turnover than associated costs; definitely NOT the case with tobacco use in Australia.
Read that fucking report properly.
No, the $318 million is part of the costs associated with tobacco abuse.
That means treating illness as a result of tobacco abuse etc.
Everyone pays taxes, which means we ALL pay to treat irrational fools who choose to maintain such a destructive habit.
Also, just because revenue was "increased" more than outlay was, doesnt mean it is a larger figure. It may very well have increased by a shitload more, but tobacco-related costs would undoubtedly still prevail as larger.
EDIT: Do you even know what the word profit means? For something to profit, it must have higher turnover than associated costs; definitely NOT the case with tobacco use in Australia.
Read that fucking report properly.
Last edited:
Let's fucking ban sugar too then because type 2 diabetes costs the healthcare system MILLIONS.
1.X = Cost to health care system from smokers.
2. Y = tax revenue of tobacco products
3. Y > X
4. ???
5. profit
pman
Banned
If you'd been here very long you'd know i strongly disapprove of guns too so i'm not likely to be using them!
So the fact that i leave out an "s" when i have a faulty keyboard on this compy means i'm shit...i love how your responses have just become insults...
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
because it is not the governments job to dictate people's lives. The result of smokers is a net benefit to the country, in terms of real tangible dollars. The intangible costs (which in this context is loss of life, yes they are putting a price on people, which is ridiculous in and of itself) is between the smokers and their family and friends. They are not burdened by anyone because they are intangible. You seem to have a shit understanding of taxes if you don't see that smokers are covering their own costs.
We also pay to treat those who are born with genetic illnesses, who work in coal mines, who drive dangerously, who eat unhealthily, who don't exercise, etc., but unlike them smokers do actually pay for the added cost to the system, many times over.
We also pay to treat those who are born with genetic illnesses, who work in coal mines, who drive dangerously, who eat unhealthily, who don't exercise, etc., but unlike them smokers do actually pay for the added cost to the system, many times over.
pman
Banned
I know that in a pure dollars sense, they more than pay for themselves...I support a fat tax as well though and dangerous driving does carry fines
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
Okay, so you agree that they are not a weight on the healthcare system (infact smoking tax prior to this would cover about 12.5% of the entire health budget, so like, yeh), it becomes a question of whether or not you think the government has a right to impinge on people's freedom to act in a self destructive manner.
pman
Banned
Its not that its self destructive...i'll let you base jump if it you want...its the passive smoking that gets to me
zombie omie jay
Banned
your vo2 max is like 44
shut up
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
Your mountain biking will no doubt one day but added strain on the healthcare system due to joint injuries and what not, than you benefit in terms of fitness compared to say swimming or road cycling, should we ban it too? Because cunts get to me, I mean.
pman
Banned
it prob is atm...used to be high 70's...need to get back into training...someone who has my FB can confirm that i race nationals etc
vanush
kdslkf
My dad quit smoking after 10 years after a heart bypass operation (and my asthma), and he recently started again.
I... hate smoking.
Banish the fucken' thing, the rotten stick.
Why do we choose to let this dreadful scourge burden our society? The fact is that millions of people are imprisoned by the addiction. How can you say people are free.. when they're not?
It's chemical tyranny of the mind by large and powerful corporations. If we are poorer by letting these industries die, then so be it.
I... hate smoking.
Banish the fucken' thing, the rotten stick.
Why do we choose to let this dreadful scourge burden our society? The fact is that millions of people are imprisoned by the addiction. How can you say people are free.. when they're not?
It's chemical tyranny of the mind by large and powerful corporations. If we are poorer by letting these industries die, then so be it.
You fail to understand that things other than money matter; how unreasonable are you?
Intangible costs also entail loss of productivity in workplaces, carer costs for ill people and yes DEATH. All these things not only burden people's lives, they actually have consequential DOLLAR costs attached to them as well.
It is the government's job to protect us as a society, providing the most reasonable environment for us all. This should include illegalising a damaging drug like tobacco.
We also pay to treat those who are born with genetic illnesses...
You are overlooking the fact that Genetic illness is not a lifestyle choice. It is misfortune. We can't help it in a way which is readily available to a wide community. It does not contribute significant cost to the population anyway.
...who work in coal mines, who drive dangerously...
Again, both of these things attribute very little to tax costs when compared with tobacco.
...who eat unhealthily, who don't exercise...
I agree. Obese people should have to pay more taxes because of their growing strain on our healthcare.
...smokers do actually pay for the added cost to the system, many times over.
No, they do not.
They pay for one fifth of the costs incurred by tobacco abuse. The other 25 billion is picked up by non-smokers, which is completely unfair.
Intangible costs also entail loss of productivity in workplaces, carer costs for ill people and yes DEATH. All these things not only burden people's lives, they actually have consequential DOLLAR costs attached to them as well.
It is the government's job to protect us as a society, providing the most reasonable environment for us all. This should include illegalising a damaging drug like tobacco.
We also pay to treat those who are born with genetic illnesses...
You are overlooking the fact that Genetic illness is not a lifestyle choice. It is misfortune. We can't help it in a way which is readily available to a wide community. It does not contribute significant cost to the population anyway.
...who work in coal mines, who drive dangerously...
Again, both of these things attribute very little to tax costs when compared with tobacco.
...who eat unhealthily, who don't exercise...
I agree. Obese people should have to pay more taxes because of their growing strain on our healthcare.
...smokers do actually pay for the added cost to the system, many times over.
No, they do not.
They pay for one fifth of the costs incurred by tobacco abuse. The other 25 billion is picked up by non-smokers, which is completely unfair.
scarybunny
Rocket Queen
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,820
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Meh, people should have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. Smoke, take drugs, get fat, get a silly haircut, I don't care. Just don't ask me to care when you get sick or ugly.