Sorry to bring this up again

[gozza]

Re. SMoking Laws.

I remember seeing quite a few people comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc.

FOr your information the taxes smokers pay when buying smokes contributes 4 times the amount of funds thats actually used on smoking related problems..\

This probly isn't an exact figure but if you look it up im sure its somthing like that. Was listening to a report on the radio about it.

This leads me to beleive that people should be thanking smokers.
If less people smoked your health insurance may actually go up
or other areas at least

just a thought

[EA2BA]

The radio like the internet or any today tonight / ACA report should be taken with a very large dash of salt. The reports never qoute the source, so you can confirm what you hear.

I would be interested if this could be verified.

[gozza]

Spoonman was talking about it

Some dude called up with the figures and spoonman supported his statements...

Im not syaing spoon man is the knowlegable genius he thinks he is....but he seems to be up on figures and stats etc etc

[EA2BA]

I am not saying you are wrong, or what has been said is wrong, I am just asking if we can get a verifiable reference on the figures

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gozza

Re. SMoking Laws.

I remember seeing quite a few people comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc.

FOr your information the taxes smokers pay when buying smokes contributes 4 times the amount of funds thats actually used on smoking related problems..\

This probly isn't an exact figure but if you look it up im sure its somthing like that. Was listening to a report on the radio about it.

This leads me to beleive that people should be thanking smokers.
If less people smoked your health insurance may actually go up
or other areas at least

just a thought

Hey good thinking.....

We should also thank Osama Bin laden too. He and all his nutcase mates don't drink so that means there is more beer for the rest of us.....

We should thank all the stuff that contributes to global warming too. It reduces the distance we will need to travel too the beach for a swim.....

Now that you see how logical you are, did you ever think how much extra money would be redistributed in the economy if you didn't buy cigarettes?
How long would it take you to pay off a new car with that money?

But then smoking does some good for the human race, very few INTELLIGENT people die of smoking related illnesses do they?

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by flappist

But then smoking does some good for the human race, very few INTELLIGENT people die of smoking related illnesses do they?

smoking has nothing at all to do with intelligence, but hey if it makes you feel superior go right ahead, anything to belittle someone hey??

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

smoking has nothing at all to do with intelligence

Ain't that the truth!

[big_waity]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

smoking has nothing at all to do with intelligence??

I disagree with that. I know some intelligent people smoke, I don't think that makes it a good. I don't want to enter into a massive argument about this because I don't think it will achieve anything. I do beleive that smaking is harmful but I am not going to disrespect someone just because they smoke.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

smoking has nothing at all to do with intelligence, but hey if it makes you feel superior go right ahead, anything to belittle someone hey??

If a harsh comment makes just ONE person concider not smoking then it is worth it. Do you disagree?

[fiery]

Originally Posted by flappist

If a harsh comment makes just ONE person concider not smoking then it is worth it. Do you disagree?

: I hope all you that carry on about smoking realise how hard it is for us that have quit....... especially when we have only quit because of the cost..

Ya making me want a ciggie bugga it all..... stop........ :evilsasmo

J/K :

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by fiery

: I hope all you that carry on about smoking realise how hard it is for us that have quit....... especially when we have only quit because of the cost..

Ya making me want a ciggie bugga it all..... stop........ :evilsasmo

J/K :

I used to smoke a pack of winfield red (16's) a day from when i was 16 to about 22. It was an expensive ridiculous habbit. Upon one visit to the doctor he told me it was severely screwing with my lung capacity, which shocked me a little and i quit there on the spot. From the point of view of someone who has quit, it is an extremely difficult, trying time for the first 3 or 4 weeks, but after that things just keep getting better. In my experience 'cutting down' or reducing nicotine levels doesn't work. I don't class smokers as unintelligent, it's a lifestyle choice, but one that will genereally put you in an early grave and or cost you a ИИИИload. (and make you smell) ;p

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by fiery

: I hope all you that carry on about smoking realise how hard it is for us that have quit....... especially when we have only quit because of the cost..

Ya making me want a ciggie bugga it all..... stop........ :evilsasmo

J/K :

giving up smoking couldnt be as hard as becoming a priest and giving up W#####G !!!! NOW A priest that smoked would be a funny sight.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fiery

: I hope all you that carry on about smoking realise how hard it is for us that have quit....... especially when we have only quit because of the cost..

Ya making me want a ciggie bugga it all..... stop........ :evilsasmo

J/K :

Yes I do realise that it is an addictive blight and many who smoke began without any knowlege of the long term effects or due to peer pressure.

My position is very solid in that I have lost family members and have others incapacitated due to smoking. I make no apologies for it. To clarifiy my earlier post.
A person who smokes because they are addicted and began smoking without any idea of the effects (including the smokers who have burred up here) should be helped and hopefully will stop.
Those who with the full knowlege of what it will do to them START smoking are just plain dumb.
The girls with the "I only smoke so I don't but on weight" excuse are the dumbest and the peer pressure for them all to look like stick insects is mostly to blame but everyone has different views and agenda.
To me a life time of health issues is more important than going up a clothes size........

[AU1FORME]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

smoking has nothing at all to do with intelligence, but hey if it makes you feel superior go right ahead, anything to belittle someone hey??

If I walked out in front of a Bus on purpose would you say I was Intelligent?? - No

If I jumped off a cliff would you say I was Intelligent???- No

We all know that smoking kills, albeit slower than jumping off a cliff, but in the end the result is the same - DED tag on the toe!!

so NO, I believe that you would not be considered intelligent to continue to or take up smoking.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by flappist

But then smoking does some good for the human race, very few INTELLIGENT people die of smoking related illnesses do they?

Albert Einstein smoked... but I guess he was a dunbass. Not in your intelligence league there hey Flappist?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Casper

Albert Einstein smoked... but I guess he was a dunbass. Not in your intelligence league there hey Flappist?

Do you think that Albert Einstien was aware of the research into the medical conditions caused by smoking? Probably not as it was done after he died.
Do you really think that he would still smoke now if he was? (and was still alive of course)
My father is confined to a wheelchair because he smoked all his life and it caused a stroke. This is one of the major reasons that I do not smoke.

Now if you believe that based on the abundence of data showing the effects smoking is crap then go for your life.
But to me an INTELLIGENT person, once aware on this would NOT smoke.

And no you are right Albert Einstein wasn't is the same intellegence league as me nor anyone else on this forum but rvrn as one of the most clever men in history he did make the odd mistake didn't he..........

[Van D]

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you think that Albert Einstien was aware of the research into the medical conditions caused by smoking? Probably not as it was done after he died.
Do you really think that he would still smoke now if he was? (and was still alive of course)
My father is confined to a wheelchair because he smoked all his life and it caused a stroke. This is one of the major reasons that I do not smoke.

Now if you believe that based on the abundence of data showing the effects smoking is crap then go for your life.
But to me an INTELLIGENT person, once aware on this would NOT smoke.

And no you are right Albert Einstein wasn't is the same intellegence league as me nor anyone else on this forum but rvrn as one of the most clever men in history he did make the odd mistake didn't he..........

There's also being studies that show occasional pipe smokers live longer than non smokers.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

There's also being studies that show occasional pipe smokers live longer than non smokers.

There have been studies that showed the earth was flat...........

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by Casper

Albert Einstein smoked... but I guess he was a dunbass.

is that some kind of fish? :

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by gozza

Re. SMoking Laws.

I remember seeing quite a few people comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc.

FOr your information the taxes smokers pay when buying smokes contributes 4 times the amount of funds thats actually used on smoking related problems..\

This probly isn't an exact figure but if you look it up im sure its somthing like that. Was listening to a report on the radio about it.

This leads me to beleive that people should be thanking smokers.
If less people smoked your health insurance may actually go up
or other areas at least

just a thought

The fuel excise motorists pay pays for the roads budget over and over again, yet we still have crappy roads beause of under-funding. The government does with it what they do with most tobacco excise, spend it elsewhere, then whinge the budget can't afford to spend more on roads/healthcare.

It sucks, but all we can do is wait a little longer before we can voice our dispproval and vote the buggers out

[fiery]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

The fuel excise motorists pay pays for the roads budget over and over again, yet we still have crappy roads beause of under-funding. The government does with it what they do with most tobacco excise, spend it elsewhere, then whinge the budget can't afford to spend more on roads/healthcare.

It sucks, but all we can do is wait a little longer before we can voice our dispproval and vote the buggers out

Yes the government seem to spend on themselves... Fantastic pay packet (way above average income), new cars (with drivers), great holidays (regularly - that they say is business - yeah right, like thats true)...
How can any of you expect our poor governing bodies to pay for simple silly things like fixing our roads, or making our health system workable... sshheeeshhhh.......... you expect far to much :voldar02:

Oh and the sad part about being able to vote them out...... WHO do we vote IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are all as bad as each other :

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by fiery

How can any of you expect our poor governing bodies to pay for simple silly things like fixing our roads, or making our health system workable...

yeah they all get priority health care and dont have to drive on any country roads, i bet their drivers earn more than me..... (yes im employed)

[RAREV8]

There might well be intelligent people who smoke but it is the stupidest ИИИИing thing they do.


I smoked for years and fairly heavily too- I quit using hypnotherapy which simply allows the unconcious mind to be a little more open to change.

I am not going to preach at all but I am very glad I quit and when you quit, don't think that you are giving up something that you love, because you will hold it against yourself and will fall back in to the habit much more easily.

Convincing yourself that you have got rid of something appauling, expensive and to no personal gain will make you quit with a relieved smile on your face.

I was the bloke who was convinced that he loved smoking and would never quit.......... :togo:

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by gozza

Re. SMoking Laws.

I remember seeing quite a few people comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc.

FOr your information the taxes smokers pay when buying smokes contributes 4 times the amount of funds thats actually used on smoking related problems..\

This probly isn't an exact figure but if you look it up im sure its somthing like that. Was listening to a report on the radio about it.

This leads me to beleive that people should be thanking smokers.
If less people smoked your health insurance may actually go up
or other areas at least

just a thought

I'll try and get in before this thread is locked :nutsycuck

I was one of the people that "comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc."

The government collects about $4.5 billion a year in revenue from smokers.
The social costs and costs to the health system are estimated to be 12.7 billion per year.

It took me a few seconds on google to get some facts gozza.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...r10462_fm.html

http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/Lv4pub...king_costs.htm

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/td...&submit=Search

I don't want to bash smokers over the head, hey I used to be one!

The FACT is everyone would be better off if less people smoked. There are so many good reason why reducing the number of people is a positive thing. The only arguments against seem to be; people like to smoke, people want to smoke, people have a right to smoke!

gozza it may be worth doing a little more research before posting next time.

Just a thought :voldar02:

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I'll try and get in before this thread is locked :nutsycuck

I was one of the people that "comment on how smokers are using all the resouces in the health department etc etc...costing the goverment so much..etc etc."

The government collects about $4.5 billion a year in revenue from smokers.
The social costs and costs to the health system are estimated to be 12.7 billion per year.

It took me a few seconds on google to get some facts gozza.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...r10462_fm.html

http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/Lv4pub...king_costs.htm

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/td...&submit=Search

I don't want to bash smokers over the head, hey I used to be one!

The FACT is everyone would be better off if less people smoked. There are so many good reason why reducing the number of people is a positive thing. The only arguments against seem to be; people like to smoke, people want to smoke, people have a right to smoke!

gozza it may be worth doing a little more research before posting next time.

Just a thought :voldar02:

Research... indeed.

Stuff like "social costs" are intangible. They are estimates and look at stuff like lost wages, productivity and attempt to put a dollar value on the loss of life - a cost which, does not actually cost our society anything... it is a loss of value - not a direct cost coming from a citizen's pocket.

Heck, these estiamtes even include an opportunity cost to express the tangible costs as an estimate of the cost of the money that could have been spent elsewhere.

Look at the tangible costs.

The direct cost of healthcare is approximately $1billion. $26 million cost in fires (probably represented in insurance premiums?) and $1.5billion spent on actually manufacturing the things.

It would pay to read your research material Wok Horse... maybe spend more than a "few minutes" on google....

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Research... indeed.

Stuff like "social costs" are intangible. They are estimates and look at stuff like lost wages, productivity and attempt to put a dollar value on the loss of life - a cost which, does not actually cost our society anything... it is a loss of value - not a direct cost coming from a citizen's pocket.

Heck, these estiamtes even include an opportunity cost to express the tangible costs as an estimate of the cost of the money that could have been spent elsewhere.

Look at the tangible costs.

The direct cost of healthcare is approximately $1billion. $26 million cost in fires (probably represented in insurance premiums?) and $1.5billion spent on actually manufacturing the things.

It would pay to read your research material Wok Horse... maybe spend more than a "few minutes" on google....

Thanks for the tip 4.9 EF Futura, but please don't question my research without providing a source for your claims.

The information I quoted is referenced to legitimate studies (many government funded), I have no problem with it.

May I ask where you get the figures you are quoting? Or were you listerning to the same radio station where gozza got his information. I'm a little suprised you question my research and not his given the context of the thread.

So which are you 4.9 EF Futura; a smoker having a bad day, an employee of a tobacco company or someone who just can't stand posts they consider poorly researched?

Nice bean counter mentality you have. An exact dollar value cannot be put on human life, suffering or lost potential so it is worth including in a calculation of the costs of smoking.

I'm positive tobacco companies would agree with you. Fortunately our government does not and can see the "tangible" value in getting people to kick the habit.
More power to them.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Nice bean counter mentality you have. An exact dollar value cannot be put on human life, suffering or lost potential so it is worth including in a calculation of the costs of smoking.

Workhorse, you have described my point perfectly. An exact value cannot be placed on any of the intangibles quoted in your $12.7billion (my figures had $21billion - but more on that later) therefore i question the validity of the argument.

What if they are $8 billion overstated? Heck, what if they are $8 billion UNDERstated? Not only are the figures questionable, but they are concepts... they represent "opportunity costs". This is not a direct cost to the community.

If we were to accept such figures, then we would need to include the "opportunity benefit" from the smoking community. How do you put a dollar figure on the pleasure derived by a smoker and the economic impact this has? You cant - so it should be excluded. Just like the opportunity costs and intangible social costs. I apologise if my explanation is murky but what im saying is that the *$12.7billion vs $4.5billion* scenario is not comparing apples with apples.

I do apologise for not including my source - this was a gross oversight on my behalf.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-...rticle3p92.htm

It is an article from the NSW public health bulletin although it is looking at the issue in a national context. Might I add, the document is well referenced. For those short on time, Table 1 is an interesting summary.

Lol - and for the record, i am a smoker having a fantastic day. I probably should have disclosed that.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Workhorse, you have described my point perfectly....
Edit
...Lol - and for the record, i am a smoker having a fantastic day. I probably should have disclosed that.

A smoker I see, so convincing you what you are doing effects others negatively is a moot point.

But it seems our elected representitives don't see things your way. And will continue to help you try and do the right thing.

No one is saying you have to stop smoking, but there may come a day when paying an ever increasing pecentage of your income to a multinational and the government gets too much.
Or finding a designated smoking area just becomes too much bother.
Or a tiny bit of the mountian of evidence that smoking is harming you and those around you gets through.
Or you may just start to wheeze during sex, that was the killer fo me.

Fifteen years a smoker I never really believed I would die from it, as if, and hey I was right(so far).
And yes I loved it and enjoyed it, that's why I kept doing it!

I have not smoked for ten years now and I miss nothing about it. I now realise the enjoyment I got from it was just a simple nicotine addiction.

I wouldn't try and lecture anyone now, no one could me when I smoked. Smokers need to want to stop for their own reasons and I support any measures to help them find that reason.

I honestly hope all you smoker find it soon, for all our sakes.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-...rticle3p92.htm

I don't see how this article supports your argument:
"increased tax revenues by $3,647 million"
"Total tangible costs $7,487 million"

Leaving aside the intangible costs (loss of life) of $13.5bn...

[BJ]

Originally Posted by gozza

Re. Smoking Laws.

I remember seeing quite a few people comment on how smokers are using all the resources in the health department etc etc...costing the government so much..etc etc.

For your information the taxes smokers pay when buying smokes contributes 4 times the amount of funds that's actually used on smoking related problems..\

This probably isn't an exact figure but if you look it up I'm sure its something like that. Was listening to a report on the radio about it.

This leads me to believe that people should be thanking smokers.
If less people smoked your health insurance may actually go up
or other areas at least

just a thought

Okay gozza, let look at it this way them. If the cancer foundation where series about the fight on cancer then why after nearly 40 years why haven't they found some sort of cure?? And to make matters worse who do you think helps to finance most of there research, yes the non-smoking tax payer. Now can you honestly say that this is fair? I have never once in all of the debates about smoking on here said don't smoke. If you feel that is right for you go ahead but i don't see why my tax money should go towards finding a cure for cancer when i don't contribute to it in the first place. AS for thanking the smoker for lower health insurance i don't think so.