Someone is finally putting the
numbers in proper perspective. A smoker
possibly pays a thousand dollars a year in cigarette taxes over the thirty
years that he indulges. He then dies a
decade sooner and fails to pay his fair share of taxes for that decade. That is
obviously worth a lot more on average that the thirty thousand he paid for
cigarette smoking.
What this makes even clearer is
that California
lost 3 billion in revenue in order to save 86 billion in medical charges and before
counting in the extra tax revenue earned from the many new survivors.
This should put paid to any
attempts by apologists for the smoking habit to claim that the habit pays its
way. It does not. To do that it would have to be charged out at
four times present cost and all smokers would have to be denied medical
care. Hmm. If they did that, smoking
could even become unpopular.
I am fortunate in that I have
never even tried a cigarette in my life and thus avoided the whole subject. That was inspired by my father been told that
if he wanted to see his sons grow up, he had to quit. He was fifty six. He threw his pack into the bushes as he left
the doctors office (This was 1957) and came home and threw my mother’s pack
also into the stove. My mother fought to
hang onto her pack. That was the
dramatic end of cigarettes in my home and it ended my curiosity and my brothers
also.
Just about everyone else decides
to actually try the damn things and inevitably gets hooked.
The economic benefits of tobacco control rapidly outweigh tobacco tax
revenues
By Bryan Clark
18:34 October 31, 2011
During the first 15 years of the Tobacco Control Program in California , which cost
in the region of US$1.5 billion, the savings made in direct health-care costs
amounted to US$86 billion
In the past decade a line has been drawn in the sand in most major
cities. Tax revenues from cigarettes are higher than ever, and most bars and
restaurants no longer allow smoking within their confines. The days of smoking
being the social norm are quickly turning into times when those lighting-up are
viewed as an outcast minority, and when it comes to quitting, the evidence is
clear that it's not just the smokers themselves who stand to benefit.
I gave up smoking three years ago - cold turkey. I don't say that to
gloat, only to assure you that it is possible. That being said, giving up
smoking is one of the hardest things I have ever had to do. Many people try,
and fail, every year and those who do succeed in kicking the habit only manage
to do so with much help and support. Don't worry, just because I am a quitter
does not mean that I will turn instantly into the anti-smoking freak that I so
opposed while I smoked. I would however like to touch on one or two more
serious issues.
One: "Smoking is the #1 cause of preventable death, with
more than 400,000 people in the U.S.
every year dying of illnesses directly related to tobacco use and even secondhand
smoke." (Source - CDC)
Two: "Tobacco-related illness saps the country of more than
US$193 billion in health-care costs and lost productivity each year." (Source - American Lung Association/health.com)
You know this already: smoking kills. You don't need to be told that
tobacco is responsible for about a sixth of the non-communicable diseases per
annum. "Yeah, yeah", I would have said in my days as a smoker,
"but it is my choice ... and just think of all the money I contribute in
additional taxes!" You have heard that smokers argument before, no doubt.
So here is where it starts to get real. Quitting smoking has immediate
benefits to your health, and the health of those around you. There is indeed a
huge amount of evidence to suggest that after just one year of being smoke free
your risk of heart attack is cut in half. In approximately five years you will
be on a par with non smokers.
But, as the title of this article suggests, this is not just about why
you should stop smoking. This is about why more should be done to help you do
so. The good news is that smoking rates are falling. State data shows Massachusetts has had
success in limiting tobacco use. The Statewide smoking rate dropped from
23.5-percent in 1992, the year before state anti-tobacco programs began, to
14.1-percent in 2010, according to the Department of Public Health. But is
enough being done?
Another survey, published by the American Lung Association in January
of 2011, suggests we could do more. While it gives the U.S. government good
scores for the treatment of people with tobacco-related illnesses, it suggest
that as many as 40 States are failing when it comes to anti-smoking programs
(40 States Get An F In Tobacco Prevention, 2011).
As is rightly being suggested in many articles on this subject, it is
time to put health before trade.
Consider this. During the first 15 years of the Tobacco Control
Program in California ,
which cost in the region of US$1.5 billion, the savings made in direct
health-care costs amounted to US$86 billion. Read that sentence again. The $1.5
billion spent on tobacco control in California
has resulted in savings in excess of 60 times that sum. If you wish to make the
argument that your smoking is doing good by way of taxes, then think again.
During those 15-years roughly 3.6 billion packets of cigarettes that would
otherwise have been smoked were not. The loss in tax revenue amounted to little
over US$3 billion, less than 3-percent of the total health-care savings.
In addition, just because I am no longer a smoker does not mean I do
not contribute to taxes. I just do it in other, more healthy, ways. As it
happens, the US$2,500+ that I have saved by not smoking has been put to very
good use.
I'm not trying to persuade you to give up smoking. Truth be told I
never met a smoker who truly did not want to stop smoking, so I really don't
need to. All I ask is that you consider both sides before you start up with the
inevitable arguments to justify the habit. The bottom line is that, while not
only is it fantastically good for your health, smoking cessation has a direct
impact on reducing the cost of health care. Your health care (that you no doubt
complain about the price of) is not cheaper thanks to all the smokers in your
State, it is more expensive.
1 comment:
Personally, I wouldn't believe a word of it! The health sector is famous for rubbish statistics, and this area is the epitomy of it. If the patient was a smoker, then smoking gets blamed for anything that happens. If the patient wasn't a smoker, then 2nd-hand smoke was the problem.
Just a convenient scapegoat..
Post a Comment