That's no good, Kazza. Hope it clears up for you soon. In the meantime there's always the MotoGP. :thumbup:
-
Welcome to the Yamaha FZ6 Forums. Member registration disables ads and allows you to post and share. Register Here.
The Rant Thread
- Thread starter ozzieboy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,793
- Reaction score
- 121
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Chittering Valley, West Aust.
Sure is a bitch. Unfortunately have had to take Prednisilone this week - bad tablets with bad side effects.
Can't even drink with them
Worked at home this week though, so at least that was relaxing.
Roll on next weekend
Can't even drink with them
Worked at home this week though, so at least that was relaxing.
Roll on next weekend
Sure is a bitch. Unfortunately have had to take Prednisilone this week - bad tablets with bad side effects.
Indeed. Been on 'em nearly every day for 6 years now
Hope you get some good weather next week end then
FZ6 Tas
Junior Member
Prednisilone certainly is evil stuff, I spent most of my chilhood on it and I blame it for being 5ft 3 and for my tiny appendage. Which both made it difficult to get laid in my teens. EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Kriswithak
Senior Member
From a non smokers perspective about the price going up, you need to remember that there is a large section of the population who will need serious medical support for a long time to come.
Even if they banned smoking 100%, they would then be asking everyone to fork out for the smokers who irresponsibly damaged themselves.
Personally I don't mind if they tax alchohol and cigarettes through the roof, as long as that money is going into the areas that are being effected by the problems.
For smoking its the health system.
For alchohol, its the health and hospital system, and the emergency services.
Its always a sore note for people who actually smoke, but seriously QQ more, as far as I am concerned your doing something that you and everyone else knows will certainly lead to health issues, if your really that concerned with the price, stop smoking.
(Look at all the health issues young children face when parents smoke afterall)
My grandpa was complaining about the price rise and how it won't help reduce smoking numbers, and I had to point out that he receives a large amount of government support because he has 11% lung capacity left, who pays for that?
This being said I think if you are admitted to hospital drunk then you should have to pay for your full medical support, particularly if its related to injuries or behaviour linked to your drunken state. No one wants to take any responsibility anymore, and if they want to get drunk and hurt themselves then there should be a blood test at the door and if you don't want to pay you can find just go to a doctor or private centre where you will pay.
Also if it was 100$ a box or whatever I can tell you one thing, alot LESS children would be taking up the habit.
Sucks on the asthma thing though hope your feeling better soon so you can go for a ride! Nothing worse than being stuck at home because medicine makes it a bad idea to ride.
Even if they banned smoking 100%, they would then be asking everyone to fork out for the smokers who irresponsibly damaged themselves.
Personally I don't mind if they tax alchohol and cigarettes through the roof, as long as that money is going into the areas that are being effected by the problems.
For smoking its the health system.
For alchohol, its the health and hospital system, and the emergency services.
Its always a sore note for people who actually smoke, but seriously QQ more, as far as I am concerned your doing something that you and everyone else knows will certainly lead to health issues, if your really that concerned with the price, stop smoking.
(Look at all the health issues young children face when parents smoke afterall)
My grandpa was complaining about the price rise and how it won't help reduce smoking numbers, and I had to point out that he receives a large amount of government support because he has 11% lung capacity left, who pays for that?
This being said I think if you are admitted to hospital drunk then you should have to pay for your full medical support, particularly if its related to injuries or behaviour linked to your drunken state. No one wants to take any responsibility anymore, and if they want to get drunk and hurt themselves then there should be a blood test at the door and if you don't want to pay you can find just go to a doctor or private centre where you will pay.
Also if it was 100$ a box or whatever I can tell you one thing, alot LESS children would be taking up the habit.
Sucks on the asthma thing though
hope your feeling better soon so you can go for a ride! Nothing worse than being stuck at home because medicine makes it a bad idea to ride.
From a non smokers perspective about the price going up, you need to remember that there is a large section of the population who will need serious medical support for a long time to come.
Even if they banned smoking 100%, they would then be asking everyone to fork out for the smokers who irresponsibly damaged themselves.
Personally I don't mind if they tax alchohol and cigarettes through the roof, as long as that money is going into the areas that are being effected by the problems.
For smoking its the health system.
For alchohol, its the health and hospital system, and the emergency services.
Its always a sore note for people who actually smoke, but seriously QQ more, as far as I am concerned your doing something that you and everyone else knows will certainly lead to health issues, if your really that concerned with the price, stop smoking.
(Look at all the health issues young children face when parents smoke afterall)
My grandpa was complaining about the price rise and how it won't help reduce smoking numbers, and I had to point out that he receives a large amount of government support because he has 11% lung capacity left, who pays for that?
This being said I think if you are admitted to hospital drunk then you should have to pay for your full medical support, particularly if its related to injuries or behaviour linked to your drunken state. No one wants to take any responsibility anymore, and if they want to get drunk and hurt themselves then there should be a blood test at the door and if you don't want to pay you can find just go to a doctor or private centre where you will pay.
Also if it was 100$ a box or whatever I can tell you one thing, alot LESS children would be taking up the habit.
Sucks on the asthma thing though
I'm a non-smoker too, and I already stated that smoking causes illness that causes medical expenses. Smokers already pay a huge amount of tax on cigarettes for that very reason. I'm not saying they should stop the current tax. I'm saying they should refrain from upping the tax to pay for better health care facilities for everyone. (Let's tax the drug addicts some more, it's like shooting ducks in a pond:spank
.If they did make smokes $100 dollars a packet, the result would be the same as banning it pretty much, and then you are left with a whole lot of damaged people, that require medical attention without an incoming stream of revenue to pay for it. Let the current crop of smokers buy their smokes, and pay the taxes to cover medical costs, and stop the sale of smokes to younguns. (no future smokers):thumbup:
The tax on smokes is at 62 percent....well 87 percent now.
87% of the price of a packet of smokes is tax.....oops....excise (which means it's also GST-able...add 10 more %)
And people will still buy them. That is the nature of addiction
.Young kids make a bad decision, and become addicted
. It's that simple really. Not too many people take up smoking at 30.Take away all access to smokes for anyone who decides they might like to try it, and keep the revenue coming in to pay for the current crop, until they all die from smoking related illness
. The amount of revenue coming in will taper off as the number of smokers do. I fail to see a problem with this.The comment re. not liking the price, so stop smoking, is unrealistic. You are obviously lucky, and will never be able to understand the true nature of addiction. People will look in their pockets, and see just enough money for a pack of nails, or a feed. A lot of people will buy the smokes
. Sad....yes, but true.Kriswithak
Senior Member
In a world full of various medical resources that help people quit smoking its really pathetic to hide behind the "Oh I'm addicted mantra". That being said there are lots of overweight people and the fix for that is relatively simple, if somewhat exhausting (zomg exercise + good food) and they still don't take the steps, so its alot about human nature.
It is much easier to say this when you haven't had to worry about it, but I'm also not lucky, its called gathering a bit of intelligence and not giving in to the group/mob mentality, obviously I've always worked for my money where alot of friends who where just given it never had to worry, and this means not only did I value my money but also my health.
Its the same thing that hopefully keeps you out of trouble on the roads when others are being idiots, and stops you taking drugs.
Obviously this is pretty harsh but thats what it comes down too, no one tied you down and forced you to smoke until you became addicted, although for the older generations it was harder since smoking was more popular and the side effects slightly less advertised.
I'm also not familiar with what the cost of smoking is though I've heard anything from $40-$100 a week from various people, assuming its 100 a week and your paying 85% tax on that and you smoke for 20 years before falling to illness, that is what basically comes to $90,000, now between the many different costs of medicine, treatment, support, operations you could probably get a pretty hefty bill assuming you don't die pretty quickly.
Sure you may not reach the 90k mark, but you know what? All the research and money that has to go into medicine/hospitals/organisations to help you isn't being counted by this, and the government does generally put money into these.
Its also hard to put a price on your treatment when your taking up valuable beds/treatment that someone through no fault of their own may be lacking for that same reason.
It would probably be quite interesting to hear exactly what the annual medical expense is for the country thanks to smoking related sickness, and compare that to what cigarette sales bring in for the government.
You've probably also heard about how some huge % of emergency patients are admitted due to drugs or alchohol, its certainly not a free system despite our 'public' health system, and adding on taxes to help that certainly couldn't hurt if its going to the right place.
In the end no one wants to take any responsibility for their actions, and while society allows this viewpoint to be held up as valid, whether its via the mask of addiction, or "I only do it on special occasions (got drunk)", or "he did it first (speeding and caused an accident)" the issues will continue to be perpetuated.
(BTW if its 100 a week for 40 years your looking at about $160,000 before interest, with interest and good investment choices thats probably your house, or half your super, thats also a motorcycle and very good protective gear, and alot of grog that can be consumed in a responsible manner)
It is much easier to say this when you haven't had to worry about it, but I'm also not lucky, its called gathering a bit of intelligence and not giving in to the group/mob mentality, obviously I've always worked for my money where alot of friends who where just given it never had to worry, and this means not only did I value my money but also my health.
Its the same thing that hopefully keeps you out of trouble on the roads when others are being idiots, and stops you taking drugs.
Obviously this is pretty harsh but thats what it comes down too, no one tied you down and forced you to smoke until you became addicted, although for the older generations it was harder since smoking was more popular and the side effects slightly less advertised.
I'm also not familiar with what the cost of smoking is though I've heard anything from $40-$100 a week from various people, assuming its 100 a week and your paying 85% tax on that and you smoke for 20 years before falling to illness, that is what basically comes to $90,000, now between the many different costs of medicine, treatment, support, operations you could probably get a pretty hefty bill assuming you don't die pretty quickly.
Sure you may not reach the 90k mark, but you know what? All the research and money that has to go into medicine/hospitals/organisations to help you isn't being counted by this, and the government does generally put money into these.
Its also hard to put a price on your treatment when your taking up valuable beds/treatment that someone through no fault of their own may be lacking for that same reason.
It would probably be quite interesting to hear exactly what the annual medical expense is for the country thanks to smoking related sickness, and compare that to what cigarette sales bring in for the government.
You've probably also heard about how some huge % of emergency patients are admitted due to drugs or alchohol, its certainly not a free system despite our 'public' health system, and adding on taxes to help that certainly couldn't hurt if its going to the right place.
In the end no one wants to take any responsibility for their actions, and while society allows this viewpoint to be held up as valid, whether its via the mask of addiction, or "I only do it on special occasions (got drunk)", or "he did it first (speeding and caused an accident)" the issues will continue to be perpetuated.
(BTW if its 100 a week for 40 years your looking at about $160,000 before interest, with interest and good investment choices thats probably your house, or half your super, thats also a motorcycle and very good protective gear, and alot of grog that can be consumed in a responsible manner)
You left out the part about how people with the same ailments that have never smoked, benefit from the research gone into these areas with the aid of smoke taxes.:thumbup:
Shouldn't they pay too. Why should they get a free ride. Sounds to me like they are owing 90k or so:spank:. Or should they get a free ride because they made a good decision as a kid.
I grew up in an area where not only did nearly everyone smoke, but nearly everyone smoked weed as well. I do not exagerate. Nearly everyone. One of the first things offered when visiting most homes was a choof. Smoking was an unknown quantity back then. Of course someone knew it was harmful, but stopping cigarette ads, and sporting sponsership was about all that happened. I never knew it was addictive, or bad for you. You probably had advertising telling you the horrible truth when you were at "that age", so I say again. You are lucky. There's a good chance if you grew up in my home town in my time that you'd have smoked too. Weed as well.
I've heard "Ban cigarettes", and I truly wish they could (smoking's not too smart I agree), but without the tax on smokes those people who are already going to get sick will be a burden on the system.
I've heard "up the tax to make it unaffordable" which would have the same result as banning it.
The Gov't upping the tax is a good thing, seems to be what you're getting at, but without stopping new people taking it up, it is a complete waste of time.
It really needs to be phased out or the load of sick and to be sick people from smoking related illness will be relying on a system that no longer has that income or we can have people smoking for ever.
If the "answer" is ban it and let the people with illnesses caused by smoking fend for themselves (even though they may have already paid 90k into the kitty), how do we decide that it was smoking related? People do get these illnesses without ever having touched a cigarette.
And as for the chemical aids for quitting, have you ever tried any? I took Zyban (effing useless) and was given the all clear to use it by my GP who specifically looked up to see what effects pressure might have on it (as he is a scuba diver too, and he knows I was working as a diver). Two weeks later, I find out from the radio that it can cause seizures under pressure. I'd be reluctant to take any more of their stinking quick fix pills, I can tell you. A seizure at 30m could cost not only my life but that of my buddy.
As for the overweight thing. I'm overweight. I was on an extremely healthy diet, with more exercise than most people could handle when I became overweight. Explain to me how that is my fault.
I watch skinny people stuff their face full of the most rank garbage all the time, and they are constantly eating and don't do a 50th of the exercise I used to. Metabolism maybe? I've noticed a lot of those same skinny folk having their own assorted ailments. Stuff them too?
Final question. Have you ever been addicted to a drug? If not, probably not a great idea to mention, "its really pathetic to hide behind the "Oh I'm addicted mantra".".
Oh. And 10% of lung cancer patients will live up to five years after diagnosis (which sadly usually takes place at stage 4), but most will be dead in 8 months. I doub't that most would go too far over the 90k mark.
The estimated cost of treatment for hospitalised smokers in 2005 was around 67* million (around 44 thousand for every one that died although the deaths don't account for the whole cost). Chicken feed.
Smoking statistics - Better Health Channel.
With around 3.4 million smokers in OZ at the time, smoking an estimated average of 15 smokes a day (a pack of 30's every 2 days) at 14 bucks a pack of 30's. That's 5.3 billion dollars a year at 62% tax.
Tax just went up to 87%. Can you say "Revenue"?:BLAA: No wonder they won't stop people taking it up.
Shouldn't they pay too. Why should they get a free ride
. Sounds to me like they are owing 90k or so:spank:. Or should they get a free ride because they made a good decision as a kid. I grew up in an area where not only did nearly everyone smoke, but nearly everyone smoked weed as well. I do not exagerate. Nearly everyone. One of the first things offered when visiting most homes was a choof. Smoking was an unknown quantity back then. Of course someone knew it was harmful, but stopping cigarette ads, and sporting sponsership was about all that happened. I never knew it was addictive, or bad for you. You probably had advertising telling you the horrible truth when you were at "that age", so I say again. You are lucky. There's a good chance if you grew up in my home town in my time that you'd have smoked too. Weed as well.
I've heard "Ban cigarettes", and I truly wish they could (smoking's not too smart I agree), but without the tax on smokes those people who are already going to get sick will be a burden on the system.
I've heard "up the tax to make it unaffordable" which would have the same result as banning it.
The Gov't upping the tax is a good thing, seems to be what you're getting at, but without stopping new people taking it up, it is a complete waste of time.
It really needs to be phased out or the load of sick and to be sick people from smoking related illness will be relying on a system that no longer has that income or we can have people smoking for ever.
If the "answer" is ban it and let the people with illnesses caused by smoking fend for themselves (even though they may have already paid 90k into the kitty), how do we decide that it was smoking related? People do get these illnesses without ever having touched a cigarette.
And as for the chemical aids for quitting, have you ever tried any? I took Zyban (effing useless) and was given the all clear to use it by my GP who specifically looked up to see what effects pressure might have on it (as he is a scuba diver too, and he knows I was working as a diver). Two weeks later, I find out from the radio that it can cause seizures under pressure. I'd be reluctant to take any more of their stinking quick fix pills, I can tell you. A seizure at 30m could cost not only my life but that of my buddy.
As for the overweight thing. I'm overweight. I was on an extremely healthy diet, with more exercise than most people could handle when I became overweight. Explain to me how that is my fault.
I watch skinny people stuff their face full of the most rank garbage all the time, and they are constantly eating and don't do a 50th of the exercise I used to. Metabolism maybe? I've noticed a lot of those same skinny folk having their own assorted ailments. Stuff them too?Final question. Have you ever been addicted to a drug? If not, probably not a great idea to mention, "its really pathetic to hide behind the "Oh I'm addicted mantra".".
Oh. And 10% of lung cancer patients will live up to five years after diagnosis (which sadly usually takes place at stage 4), but most will be dead in 8 months. I doub't that most would go too far over the 90k mark.
The estimated cost of treatment for hospitalised smokers in 2005 was around 67* million (around 44 thousand for every one that died although the deaths don't account for the whole cost). Chicken feed.
Smoking statistics - Better Health Channel.
With around 3.4 million smokers in OZ at the time, smoking an estimated average of 15 smokes a day (a pack of 30's every 2 days) at 14 bucks a pack of 30's. That's 5.3 billion dollars a year at 62% tax
.Tax just went up to 87%. Can you say "Revenue"?:BLAA: No wonder they won't stop people taking it up.
Kriswithak
Senior Member
Very one sided opinion of the picture there..... hope your not expecting me to bow down to being politically correct because unfortunately the brain washing never really caught hold, and I really don't react well to people using it in arguements (ie I don't just give up, or go silent at its mention)
When the government slapped the tax on green slips to help children injured on the road no one screamed about how realistically all the money paid for greenslips should do this anyway, I mean the only way a child would be hurt not involving a vehicle on the road is on or by a bicycle so why exactly did they need to add a tax to cover this?(This is what I read in one of the papers anyway, so not 100% sure if its accurate since most stuff in the papers is badly misrepresented these days)
Oh wait thats right taxing road users because parents and schools are too lazy or stupid to teach their children the most basic pedestrian rules is fine because 'children' was in the statement and its not PC to say anything against helping sick children. The Chasers made this mistake and even they had trouble recovering, despite the fact they had touched on a pretty good point, even if they did do it in a rather shocking way.
Also on the addicted question, unless someones addicted due to medical useage then I'm sorry but you'll have to find someone who gives a crap about being PC if you expect me to have any sympathy for people who get addicted, in the end: personal responsibility, I know its a scary concept but the worlds going to hell in a hand basket because no one wants to take any, and because apparently being PC is more important than doing anything right (amongst other reasons).
When I left school of my group of friends, everyone smoked (except me), as my group of friends expanded after school I think there was 3 of us who didn't, out of maybe 25. Luckily due to some rather shocking examples of what smoking weed does to you at school (fried brains ftl), no one really got into that.
There is also support, which luckily I don't know good it is, that is provided by the government and other organisations for getting out of this kind of situation.
Also everyone pays taxes, and money of that goes into health, and research, the difference between someone who is unlucky, and someone who smokes and gets ill because of it is that one of those people made a choice.
Yes they should pay more.
Also lung cancer patients may have been smoking for a rather long time to reach diagnosis, and medical costs over 5 years can be pretty hefty. Even a years costs can be hefty, depending on whats needed.
Also the figures you give on the cost is somewhat misleading, is that the cost of all smokers, or just those who die, thats 1522 people getting 44,000 of support a year, seems kind of low for a country with 22 million people with a large aging population who smoked alot. (If that * is actually meant to be a number this does change, but then its 15000 people aprox which is still pretty low) It also doesn't take into account the many people effected by passive smoking, like children who have asthma thanks to it, and have to have treatment for normal illness that is even worse due to their asthma.
Lets look at green slips, motorcycles realistically would probably be the smallest group that benefits from greenslips in most ways, firstly figures say your something like 10x more likely to die in an accident, most accidents its your fault and figures say its generally just you in the accident, and green slips don't cover your own injuries, only the other persons, green slips now almost always offer additional cover to yourself, this NEVER applies to motorcycles.
My greenslip was pretty similar to the cars, how exactly is this worked out please?
If you listen to the government figures how the majority of motorcyclists injure/kill themselves, or die when someone else does something stupid we probably should be exempt and automatically covered by what everyone else pays, but we aren't and we pay a considerable amount for it (I mean who isn't already paying for a car anyway?).
The only part of the greenslip that really covers us fully is the MCIS levy, and thats only recent too.
Yes this is somewhat simplified but you do have to ask why we pay so much for greenslips.
We are paying for all the bad drivers, all the idiots and all the hoons out there.
Lifes not fair.
I also get comments on being skinny, people like to tell me how lucky I am that I never put on any weight.
I have a coffee in the morning, and sometimes lunch, I have dinner, I am pretty active, but I don't exercise. Whats my secret? Not eating. Survive on what basically equates to 1.5 meals a day (and not huge ones either) and then tell me how lucky I am. Everyone always thinks they are the most hard off, or their situation is the worst and the most unfixable, its human nature.
In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow. But since its one of the few cash cows where we are targetting people doing something stupid I really think its pretty justified compared to the way they crucify everyone else for NO reason whatso-ever on so many issues.
Also if two packs a week is normal thats 4$ a week extra (2$ more a pack), or 100$ for most people who smoke per year. That also means over their lifetime using these same figures they are paying more like 35 grand over 20 years for smoking.
Its also worth noting that the government actually subsidises alot of medication for serious illness as it would otherwise be totally inaccessible for patients, so its even harder to really discover what the treatment figures would be at when we have a public health system.
I know a few american's who didn't smoke, but did have quite serious illnesses, and they had to struggle just to pay the medical costs each year, with little or no government support, and it was literally a case of getting the treatment or not making it through the year. Australian's really have no concept of what the costs of health are thanks to our government, and its fine to take it for granted until something goes wrong and it disappears.
This is all even before you consider the fact that smokers with serious illness are less likely to be able to get(or afford) private health cover once they are sick, which means they are even more reliant on the Government.
And finally we haven't even looked at the cost of the infrastructure that is required for the additional medical needs, because it can't really be valued.
When the government slapped the tax on green slips to help children injured on the road no one screamed about how realistically all the money paid for greenslips should do this anyway, I mean the only way a child would be hurt not involving a vehicle on the road is on or by a bicycle so why exactly did they need to add a tax to cover this?(This is what I read in one of the papers anyway, so not 100% sure if its accurate since most stuff in the papers is badly misrepresented these days)
Oh wait thats right taxing road users because parents and schools are too lazy or stupid to teach their children the most basic pedestrian rules is fine because 'children' was in the statement and its not PC to say anything against helping sick children. The Chasers made this mistake and even they had trouble recovering, despite the fact they had touched on a pretty good point, even if they did do it in a rather shocking way.
Also on the addicted question, unless someones addicted due to medical useage then I'm sorry but you'll have to find someone who gives a crap about being PC if you expect me to have any sympathy for people who get addicted, in the end: personal responsibility, I know its a scary concept but the worlds going to hell in a hand basket because no one wants to take any, and because apparently being PC is more important than doing anything right (amongst other reasons).
When I left school of my group of friends, everyone smoked (except me), as my group of friends expanded after school I think there was 3 of us who didn't, out of maybe 25. Luckily due to some rather shocking examples of what smoking weed does to you at school (fried brains ftl), no one really got into that.
There is also support, which luckily I don't know good it is, that is provided by the government and other organisations for getting out of this kind of situation.
Also everyone pays taxes, and money of that goes into health, and research, the difference between someone who is unlucky, and someone who smokes and gets ill because of it is that one of those people made a choice.
Yes they should pay more.
Also lung cancer patients may have been smoking for a rather long time to reach diagnosis, and medical costs over 5 years can be pretty hefty. Even a years costs can be hefty, depending on whats needed.
Also the figures you give on the cost is somewhat misleading, is that the cost of all smokers, or just those who die, thats 1522 people getting 44,000 of support a year, seems kind of low for a country with 22 million people with a large aging population who smoked alot. (If that * is actually meant to be a number this does change, but then its 15000 people aprox which is still pretty low) It also doesn't take into account the many people effected by passive smoking, like children who have asthma thanks to it, and have to have treatment for normal illness that is even worse due to their asthma.
Lets look at green slips, motorcycles realistically would probably be the smallest group that benefits from greenslips in most ways, firstly figures say your something like 10x more likely to die in an accident, most accidents its your fault and figures say its generally just you in the accident, and green slips don't cover your own injuries, only the other persons, green slips now almost always offer additional cover to yourself, this NEVER applies to motorcycles.
My greenslip was pretty similar to the cars, how exactly is this worked out please?
If you listen to the government figures how the majority of motorcyclists injure/kill themselves, or die when someone else does something stupid we probably should be exempt and automatically covered by what everyone else pays, but we aren't and we pay a considerable amount for it (I mean who isn't already paying for a car anyway?).
The only part of the greenslip that really covers us fully is the MCIS levy, and thats only recent too.
Yes this is somewhat simplified but you do have to ask why we pay so much for greenslips.
We are paying for all the bad drivers, all the idiots and all the hoons out there.
Lifes not fair.
I also get comments on being skinny, people like to tell me how lucky I am that I never put on any weight.
I have a coffee in the morning, and sometimes lunch, I have dinner, I am pretty active, but I don't exercise. Whats my secret? Not eating. Survive on what basically equates to 1.5 meals a day (and not huge ones either) and then tell me how lucky I am. Everyone always thinks they are the most hard off, or their situation is the worst and the most unfixable, its human nature.
In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow. But since its one of the few cash cows where we are targetting people doing something stupid I really think its pretty justified compared to the way they crucify everyone else for NO reason whatso-ever on so many issues.
Also if two packs a week is normal thats 4$ a week extra (2$ more a pack), or 100$ for most people who smoke per year. That also means over their lifetime using these same figures they are paying more like 35 grand over 20 years for smoking.
Now assuming this is right.... including the 15% price rise a year then currently treatment of lung cancer would be costing 120 grand, so while I doubt this interest figure is correct, it does paint a startling picture over what one of the illnesses that may be caused by cancer costs.
Its also worth noting that the government actually subsidises alot of medication for serious illness as it would otherwise be totally inaccessible for patients, so its even harder to really discover what the treatment figures would be at when we have a public health system.
I know a few american's who didn't smoke, but did have quite serious illnesses, and they had to struggle just to pay the medical costs each year, with little or no government support, and it was literally a case of getting the treatment or not making it through the year. Australian's really have no concept of what the costs of health are thanks to our government, and its fine to take it for granted until something goes wrong and it disappears.
This is all even before you consider the fact that smokers with serious illness are less likely to be able to get(or afford) private health cover once they are sick, which means they are even more reliant on the Government.
And finally we haven't even looked at the cost of the infrastructure that is required for the additional medical needs, because it can't really be valued.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,793
- Reaction score
- 121
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Chittering Valley, West Aust.
Just so you know, smoking doesn't cause asthma. It is an irritant not a cause. So are dairy products, fried foods, state run "burn offs", gas from gas heaters/stoves etc.
As for the rest of it, I ain't getting into it I'll leave that to you and Ozzieboy
As for the rest of it, I ain't getting into it
I'll leave that to you and Ozzieboy
First point....Very one sided opinion of the picture there.
My opinion is mine, so it sort of is one sided (as is yours), however, I have actually stated that smoking isn't smart and I would love to see it banned. But the FACT is if smoking stops now, so does the money. But people will still be dying for a decade or two, from the effects. Yes, I think they should pay extra for treatment (they already do and they should continue to) but I don't think they should be bent over and R33m3d 'til their nose bleeds using "the cost of treatment" as a lame excuse. 5.3 billion. So it seems I'm less one sided about it than you. Pot calling kettle?
Next point...When the government slapped the tax on green slips to help children injured on the road.....
Must be a local thing I reckon. Don't think I've heard anything about it here. But I won't be having any kids, so I don't see it as being my problem to pay for other people's kids either. If you want the kids...pay for them, would be my opinion on that one.
I suppose that answers the question about how PC I am...lol.
Next one....Also on the addicted question, unless someone's addicted due to medical useage then I'm sorry but you'll have to find someone who gives a crap about being PC if you expect me to have any sympathy for people who get addicted...
That's fine. Not asking you to be sympathetic, just understand that addiction is REAL. If you make a bad decision at 10 years old (pretty easy to do) you can be hooked. Some people will do ANYTHING for a fix of their personal addiction, be it Heroin or Cigarettes. Some people will turn to crime, to get enough money to buy smokes. It's pretty common with heroin addicts who find they can't support their habit (probably half the folk at cash converters..lol). I'm not saying it will escalate into a zombie, drug addict, them against us war to the death, but it will increase, the more they are squeezed. This is not PC. This is a fact.
Next.....Also the figures you give on the cost is somewhat misleading, is that the cost of all smokers, or just those who die, thats 1522 people getting 44,000.
It Read to me like that was for the whole lot of hospitalized cases, not just the dying (but I already stated that). Bottom line is, you go into hospital, and get diagnosed. Tell you the bad news, you go home. Total time spent in hospital is probably pretty low really, judging by a mate of mine (non smoker he was) who went out with lung cancer. He went in for chemo regularly, shrunk 'em, cut out what they could, and sent him on his way. Went back in just before he passed on.
Next one...It also doesn't take into account the many people effected by passive smoking
Children, OK, if their parents smoke then I can see passive smoking as a problem for them (they have no choice). Others....It's a decision. "Do I stay here snorting smoke or do I get out of the smoke". To stay there and risk death because you are stubborn is nearly as dumb as smoking. Now most work places, have been smoke free in Adelaide for quite some time, so most places where you have exposure you have a choice.
This one....Lets look at green slips.
Sorry. Can't help you there. It sounds like the third party component of rego that we pay (actually the bulk of the cost I think), and after my foot got munched by that 4WD last year, my hospital visit and xrays were covered.
If you are pointing out that you are not covered because you are involved in a high risk activity, then yes, that is true. Riding a bike is dangerous. You are far more vunerable than in a car, and are harder to spot in certain situations. Whether this is because of useless fools driving cars or not is beside the point. The fact remains riding a bike puts you at risk. An accident that would dent a car can easily thow you onto the road in traffic to be killed if you're not already dead. It's a choice. You should pay. You feel like you're being robbed, like the smokers do perhaps? With the amount they pay, I reckon they've got more of a gripe than you.
Next one...Survive on what basically equates to 1.5 meals a day
Probably not healthy, but if it works for you who am I to say? Up until I went on this diet I HAD to have breakfast to take my meds, so I'd have a bowl of cornies or suchlike at ,around 10AM. Lunch at work, around 6PM would consist of a bowl of fruit salad, or a sandwich. Get home and have a piece of cheese on toast, and that's about it. I'd eat better on the weekends, and maybe throw in a counter meal here and there, but nothing insane. This started after I had already stacked on loads of weight eating healthy, and didn't appreciably change things.
This one.....In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow.
Exactly my point, from the start. I thought I made it pretty clear:thumbup:. Need to stop people taking it up. I can't prove it, but I'd say one of the reasons for upping the tax is the large number of folks that have given up in recent times, biting into this huge revenue stream.
This one...Also if two packs a week is normal.
I'll try to track down figures if you like, but I'm pretty certain that the average is closer to a pack of 30's per 2 days. 3.5 packs per week.
2nd last....including the 15% price rise a year then currently treatment of lung cancer would be costing 120 grand, so while I doubt this interest figure is correct, it does paint a startling picture over what one of the illnesses that may be caused by cancer costs.
It all goes up. Smokes also. This was the most recent "tax" jump, but smokes go up all the time like everything else. Remember, those figures I was talking about, didn't include GST. 10 more percent because you can GST a product with duty, or excise.
Last...hope your not expecting me to bow down to being politically correct because unfortunately the brain washing never really caught hold, and I really don't react well to people using it in arguements (ie I don't just give up, or go silent at its mention)
Brainwashing? Don't react well to people using it arguments? Don't think I mentioned anything politically correct. If you think I am championing smoking, you need to go back and have another look. I'm saying we need a structured, well thought out path to making smoking a thing of the past. Somehow, you disagree with that. You think our health system can take the hit of the banning of smokes, out right (cold turkey, so to speak)? Good luck with that. As far as giving up or going silent.....I don't tell people what to do. I couldn't give a rats what you do.:thumbup: This is not the first time you have drastically misunderstood what folks are saying, I've noticed.
My opinion is mine, so it sort of is one sided (as is yours), however, I have actually stated that smoking isn't smart and I would love to see it banned. But the FACT is if smoking stops now, so does the money. But people will still be dying for a decade or two, from the effects. Yes, I think they should pay extra for treatment (they already do and they should continue to) but I don't think they should be bent over and R33m3d 'til their nose bleeds using "the cost of treatment" as a lame excuse. 5.3 billion
. So it seems I'm less one sided about it than you. Pot calling kettle?Next point...When the government slapped the tax on green slips to help children injured on the road.....
Must be a local thing I reckon. Don't think I've heard anything about it here. But I won't be having any kids, so I don't see it as being my problem to pay for other people's kids either. If you want the kids...pay for them, would be my opinion on that one.
I suppose that answers the question about how PC I am...lol.
Next one....Also on the addicted question, unless someone's addicted due to medical useage then I'm sorry but you'll have to find someone who gives a crap about being PC if you expect me to have any sympathy for people who get addicted...
That's fine. Not asking you to be sympathetic, just understand that addiction is REAL. If you make a bad decision at 10 years old (pretty easy to do) you can be hooked. Some people will do ANYTHING for a fix of their personal addiction, be it Heroin or Cigarettes. Some people will turn to crime, to get enough money to buy smokes. It's pretty common with heroin addicts who find they can't support their habit (probably half the folk at cash converters..lol). I'm not saying it will escalate into a zombie, drug addict, them against us war to the death, but it will increase, the more they are squeezed. This is not PC. This is a fact.
Next.....Also the figures you give on the cost is somewhat misleading, is that the cost of all smokers, or just those who die, thats 1522 people getting 44,000.
It Read to me like that was for the whole lot of hospitalized cases, not just the dying (but I already stated that). Bottom line is, you go into hospital, and get diagnosed. Tell you the bad news, you go home. Total time spent in hospital is probably pretty low really, judging by a mate of mine (non smoker he was) who went out with lung cancer. He went in for chemo regularly, shrunk 'em, cut out what they could, and sent him on his way. Went back in just before he passed on.
Next one...It also doesn't take into account the many people effected by passive smoking
Children, OK, if their parents smoke then I can see passive smoking as a problem for them (they have no choice). Others....It's a decision. "Do I stay here snorting smoke or do I get out of the smoke". To stay there and risk death because you are stubborn is nearly as dumb as smoking. Now most work places, have been smoke free in Adelaide for quite some time, so most places where you have exposure you have a choice.
This one....Lets look at green slips.
Sorry. Can't help you there. It sounds like the third party component of rego that we pay (actually the bulk of the cost I think), and after my foot got munched by that 4WD last year, my hospital visit and xrays were covered.
If you are pointing out that you are not covered because you are involved in a high risk activity, then yes, that is true. Riding a bike is dangerous. You are far more vunerable than in a car, and are harder to spot in certain situations. Whether this is because of useless fools driving cars or not is beside the point. The fact remains riding a bike puts you at risk. An accident that would dent a car can easily thow you onto the road in traffic to be killed if you're not already dead. It's a choice. You should pay. You feel like you're being robbed, like the smokers do perhaps? With the amount they pay, I reckon they've got more of a gripe than you.
Next one...Survive on what basically equates to 1.5 meals a day
Probably not healthy, but if it works for you who am I to say? Up until I went on this diet I HAD to have breakfast to take my meds, so I'd have a bowl of cornies or suchlike at ,around 10AM. Lunch at work, around 6PM would consist of a bowl of fruit salad, or a sandwich. Get home and have a piece of cheese on toast, and that's about it. I'd eat better on the weekends, and maybe throw in a counter meal here and there, but nothing insane. This started after I had already stacked on loads of weight eating healthy, and didn't appreciably change things.
This one.....In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow.
Exactly my point, from the start. I thought I made it pretty clear:thumbup:. Need to stop people taking it up. I can't prove it, but I'd say one of the reasons for upping the tax is the large number of folks that have given up in recent times, biting into this huge revenue stream.
This one...Also if two packs a week is normal.
I'll try to track down figures if you like, but I'm pretty certain that the average is closer to a pack of 30's per 2 days. 3.5 packs per week.
2nd last....including the 15% price rise a year then currently treatment of lung cancer would be costing 120 grand, so while I doubt this interest figure is correct, it does paint a startling picture over what one of the illnesses that may be caused by cancer costs.
It all goes up. Smokes also. This was the most recent "tax" jump, but smokes go up all the time like everything else. Remember, those figures I was talking about, didn't include GST. 10 more percent because you can GST a product with duty, or excise.
Last...hope your not expecting me to bow down to being politically correct because unfortunately the brain washing never really caught hold, and I really don't react well to people using it in arguements (ie I don't just give up, or go silent at its mention)
Brainwashing? Don't react well to people using it arguments? Don't think I mentioned anything politically correct. If you think I am championing smoking, you need to go back and have another look. I'm saying we need a structured, well thought out path to making smoking a thing of the past. Somehow, you disagree with that
. You think our health system can take the hit of the banning of smokes, out right (cold turkey, so to speak)? Good luck with that. As far as giving up or going silent.....I don't tell people what to do. I couldn't give a rats what you do.:thumbup: This is not the first time you have drastically misunderstood what folks are saying, I've noticed.Kriswithak
Senior Member
I never said addiction wasn't real, nor that it wasn't a problem, I'm definately not the one misunderstanding someones comments.
I said it wasn't an excuse and it isn't, thats why we have so many organisations that seek to help people, not to mention government run programs.
My point was however that being addicted isn't an excuse for just continuing to do something, it sure makes it alot harder to quit, but in the end you need to take responsibility for your actions.
I think my issue with your statements is that you seem to be argueing from the perspective of someone who has quit, and seems to think never starting is just so easy. I'm sorry but being a non smoker or not taking stuff when your in a group of people who does may not be as hard as quitting but it takes self control and a strong will not to just give in to the group mentality. Its something that is normally offered every time you see the group, and some people always feel the need to try and convert non smokers or non takers.
Like I said its human nature that everyone thinks they have it the hardest, they might but generally its not the whole picture, everyone has issues and struggles.
Also like I said the pure -hospital cost- isn't the whole picture. If your just going to ignore this point fine, but don't point the finger for misunderstanding someones post, doing it willfully still counts.
On greenslips my point is that motorcyclists are only covered by them generally when its someone elses fault, in other words the OTHER persons insurance is paying the costs.
We pay a disproportionately high price, which you could argue is because we are at high risk, but what we pay generally doesn't actually cover our own injuries except in the case of the MCIS lifetime care support, which is a seperate amount on the greenslip.
Also most motorcyclists have a car so your basically being double whammed.
I may have read your post about packets a week wrong as I only get to post between jobs so its always rushed, so it probably is more like the original figure I posted (again I'm not really familiar with the cost). However.
11% of deaths are caused by smoking, and 89% of drug related deaths are smoking.
Lung cancer being largely smoking related account for the most common cancer found in men and woman who smoke at about 75%.
See my post about lung surgery costs according to some medical sites.
I never said it should be banned, I just said I don't really care if it was, I don't think it would fix the problem, but alot COULD be done that would prevent people from starting the habit.
I think we both agree its a total ripoff by the government, and they aren't really trying to 'fix' the problem for various reasons.
I just think its fine for them to slug smokers, because everyone in society is getting ripped off anyway, and at least its a group that we know needs a much larger amount of support because of their choices, instead of most cases where EVERYONE pays for the small minority who do their own thing and incur large costs and destroy our freedoms.
Obviously people who have smoked, or still smoke probably won't share this viewpoint for the obvious reasons.
When it comes down to it look at interest rates, inflation goes up because things get more expensive because petrol is more expensive (thanks to global influence) and because thanks to the government spending construction is going crazy, as did home sales.
This is alot larger amount than the smoking increase and everyone is paying for it thanks to some rather dubious choices, and a terrible system that seems to be incapable of truly measuring inflation.
This effects everyone and will have a drastic effect on society in soooo many ways, but people are whining about 4-10$ extra a week on smokes.
In the last year people with a 300k loan are paying something like $300 more a month.
Of all the problems and ways we are getting ripped off, smoking is pretty insignificant, and like I said its targetted at the group who are actually a problem.
Oh and in the old days work places had smoking and alot of people have been effected by that (passively), and this was before smoke free work places etc.
I just don't agree that smokers have it hard or don't 'deserve' the price increases, it may because I am a mean bastard, but thats just me.
Nice low blow on the 'misunderstanding' thing. Seriously.
I said it wasn't an excuse and it isn't, thats why we have so many organisations that seek to help people, not to mention government run programs.
My point was however that being addicted isn't an excuse for just continuing to do something, it sure makes it alot harder to quit, but in the end you need to take responsibility for your actions.
I think my issue with your statements is that you seem to be argueing from the perspective of someone who has quit, and seems to think never starting is just so easy. I'm sorry but being a non smoker or not taking stuff when your in a group of people who does may not be as hard as quitting but it takes self control and a strong will not to just give in to the group mentality. Its something that is normally offered every time you see the group, and some people always feel the need to try and convert non smokers or non takers.
Like I said its human nature that everyone thinks they have it the hardest, they might but generally its not the whole picture, everyone has issues and struggles.
Also like I said the pure -hospital cost- isn't the whole picture. If your just going to ignore this point fine, but don't point the finger for misunderstanding someones post, doing it willfully still counts.
On greenslips my point is that motorcyclists are only covered by them generally when its someone elses fault, in other words the OTHER persons insurance is paying the costs.
We pay a disproportionately high price, which you could argue is because we are at high risk, but what we pay generally doesn't actually cover our own injuries except in the case of the MCIS lifetime care support, which is a seperate amount on the greenslip.
Also most motorcyclists have a car so your basically being double whammed.
I may have read your post about packets a week wrong as I only get to post between jobs so its always rushed, so it probably is more like the original figure I posted (again I'm not really familiar with the cost). However.
11% of deaths are caused by smoking, and 89% of drug related deaths are smoking.
Lung cancer being largely smoking related account for the most common cancer found in men and woman who smoke at about 75%.
See my post about lung surgery costs according to some medical sites.
I never said it should be banned, I just said I don't really care if it was, I don't think it would fix the problem, but alot COULD be done that would prevent people from starting the habit.
I think we both agree its a total ripoff by the government, and they aren't really trying to 'fix' the problem for various reasons.
I just think its fine for them to slug smokers, because everyone in society is getting ripped off anyway, and at least its a group that we know needs a much larger amount of support because of their choices, instead of most cases where EVERYONE pays for the small minority who do their own thing and incur large costs and destroy our freedoms.
Obviously people who have smoked, or still smoke probably won't share this viewpoint for the obvious reasons.
When it comes down to it look at interest rates, inflation goes up because things get more expensive because petrol is more expensive (thanks to global influence) and because thanks to the government spending construction is going crazy, as did home sales.
This is alot larger amount than the smoking increase and everyone is paying for it thanks to some rather dubious choices, and a terrible system that seems to be incapable of truly measuring inflation.
This effects everyone and will have a drastic effect on society in soooo many ways, but people are whining about 4-10$ extra a week on smokes.
In the last year people with a 300k loan are paying something like $300 more a month.
Of all the problems and ways we are getting ripped off, smoking is pretty insignificant, and like I said its targetted at the group who are actually a problem.
Oh and in the old days work places had smoking and alot of people have been effected by that (passively), and this was before smoke free work places etc.
I just don't agree that smokers have it hard or don't 'deserve' the price increases, it may because I am a mean bastard, but thats just me.
Nice low blow on the 'misunderstanding' thing. Seriously.
******Original post*****
When I was in the Navy, I bought duty free smokerettes from the canteen. Cost me a buck, then a buck twenty when they went up. If I ran out and had to buy from the servo, they were around 6.80 at the time. 6.80-1.20=5.60. Duty on durries is already petty steep.
People are addicted to smokes, and putting up the price (for the most part) will just make them struggle more to afford them, but it won't stop most folk smoking. If this was a serious effort to save people from a particularly nasty drug, they would ban the sale of smokes to people who aren't already smoking.
Sure it would go 'underground' but this hasn't made them legalize dope due to the same fear now has it? Cause it's too easy to grow dope and the Gov't woud make no money from it, whereas they can get some income from on the spot fines if they keep it illegal, but decriminalized. This IMHO is not about helping people quit. Can anyone say "REVENUE". Man I'm getting sick of this crud.
They argue that smoking related illness costs money......yes it does....ban the sale of smokes to anyone who doesn't already smoke.
Of course people who already smoke should be allowed to see their quack and get some sort of "smoker's I.D." card so they can still purchase smokes, almost like on pescription. (I have to see my quack every time I get my meds, and then visit the chemist, so a once off visit for an I.D. card is still better off than my situation, although selling them at the chemists would probably be a more reliable way to screen folk). If someone gets caught abusing their card, take it away from them. That would keep most people in line I think.
This will stop anyone new taking it up, unless they do so under the counter, and then that is their problem. In 50-60 years we could have a relatively nicotine addict free country, and they won't need all those extra tax dollars.
Far more useful than stinging people for more money. When does it go up again?
And, no that's not a reformed smoker speaking (ask Wolfman if I ever give anyone grief about their smoking). It's someone who genuinely doesn't want to see young people taking it up and is sick of the Gov't taking money off of folks under the guise of a helping hand.
Rant complete
*******The point? The Government is gougeing smokers, with no intent of getting people to give up, by putting up the price a little to keep the revenue rolling in because people will continue to feed their addiction unless they misjudge it and put it up too far. They don't care. Smokers should and do pay for medical expense already. It would be in everyone's best interest to promote a planned, structured way of keeping anyone new from taking it up as much as is possible. Was it really so unclear?*******
In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow.
*******Maybe I don't understand what this means:thumbup:******
The Greenslips, the Children crossing the road and the passive smoking and PC stuff....that is all just extra stuff thrown in To make a point.
*********From what I can see now, the point is that you agree with me that smokers are being gouged. They need to pay for medical costs. It would be better for everyone if we could get rid of the smoking. You also possibly agree that it needs to be well thought out or it's gonna bite the Health system hard?
It seems to me this is a clear case of misunderstanding the original post. Or am I missing something?*******
So you agree on all points (except possibly the gradual phasing out) but don't think it's wrong, but in fact reckon it's a great idea for the Gov't to target a minority group, to pay 87% + GST for an admittedly addictive, and dangerous substance that is hurting other non smoking people as well in order to get enough money together to upgrade the medical system?
You don't think that putting it up to $100 a pack would have the same result as banning it?
I hope I didn't come off too PC for you?:thumbup: I could be seeing it wrong though, 'cause apparently I can only see out of one eye:thumbup: Low blow?.....Pot calling kettle.
When I was in the Navy, I bought duty free smokerettes from the canteen. Cost me a buck, then a buck twenty when they went up. If I ran out and had to buy from the servo, they were around 6.80 at the time. 6.80-1.20=5.60. Duty on durries is already petty steep.
People are addicted to smokes, and putting up the price (for the most part) will just make them struggle more to afford them, but it won't stop most folk smoking. If this was a serious effort to save people from a particularly nasty drug, they would ban the sale of smokes to people who aren't already smoking.
Sure it would go 'underground' but this hasn't made them legalize dope due to the same fear now has it? Cause it's too easy to grow dope and the Gov't woud make no money from it, whereas they can get some income from on the spot fines if they keep it illegal, but decriminalized. This IMHO is not about helping people quit. Can anyone say "REVENUE". Man I'm getting sick of this crud.
They argue that smoking related illness costs money......yes it does....ban the sale of smokes to anyone who doesn't already smoke.
Of course people who already smoke should be allowed to see their quack and get some sort of "smoker's I.D." card so they can still purchase smokes, almost like on pescription. (I have to see my quack every time I get my meds, and then visit the chemist, so a once off visit for an I.D. card is still better off than my situation, although selling them at the chemists would probably be a more reliable way to screen folk). If someone gets caught abusing their card, take it away from them. That would keep most people in line I think.
This will stop anyone new taking it up, unless they do so under the counter, and then that is their problem. In 50-60 years we could have a relatively nicotine addict free country, and they won't need all those extra tax dollars.
Far more useful than stinging people for more money. When does it go up again?
And, no that's not a reformed smoker speaking (ask Wolfman if I ever give anyone grief about their smoking). It's someone who genuinely doesn't want to see young people taking it up and is sick of the Gov't taking money off of folks under the guise of a helping hand.
Rant complete
*******The point? The Government is gougeing smokers, with no intent of getting people to give up, by putting up the price a little to keep the revenue rolling in because people will continue to feed their addiction unless they misjudge it and put it up too far. They don't care. Smokers should and do pay for medical expense already. It would be in everyone's best interest to promote a planned, structured way of keeping anyone new from taking it up as much as is possible. Was it really so unclear?*******
In the end the government doesn't really care about smoking, if they did it would be illegal for young people to smoke in this state instead of being illegal for them to BUY smokes. Its a cash cow.
*******Maybe I don't understand what this means:thumbup:******
The Greenslips, the Children crossing the road and the passive smoking and PC stuff....that is all just extra stuff thrown in To make a point.
*********From what I can see now, the point is that you agree with me that smokers are being gouged. They need to pay for medical costs. It would be better for everyone if we could get rid of the smoking. You also possibly agree that it needs to be well thought out or it's gonna bite the Health system hard?
It seems to me this is a clear case of misunderstanding the original post. Or am I missing something?*******
So you agree on all points (except possibly the gradual phasing out) but don't think it's wrong, but in fact reckon it's a great idea for the Gov't to target a minority group, to pay 87% + GST for an admittedly addictive, and dangerous substance that is hurting other non smoking people as well in order to get enough money together to upgrade the medical system?
You don't think that putting it up to $100 a pack would have the same result as banning it?
I hope I didn't come off too PC for you?:thumbup: I could be seeing it wrong though, 'cause apparently I can only see out of one eye:thumbup: Low blow?.....Pot calling kettle.
Kriswithak
Senior Member
Still not seeing my point at all..... hence the one sided comment to start with.
I'm not argueing with you, I agree with everything you have said (almost), making it 100$ a pack would be the same as banning it and would stop it or at least send it underground, and cause issues with the cost of medical support in the future. (Although your saying it only costs a few hundred million a year, whereas I'm saying the real cost is much higher, and probably not even covered by the tax)
A gradual plan to phase them out would definately work (via price increases), but the issues with trying to institute a plan that stops new people from smoking would never work, it would cost too much, and would require all the sellers to come on board, which will never happen, plus like most things that work this way its so open to corruption and organisations or doctors taking advantage.
All this stuff costs massive amounts of money as well, planning, implementing, employing people to manage it, it adds up fast, you'd definately see even more increases, since lets be realistic the current money is already disappearing into the Government black hole of spending, with no sign of anything being fixed.
I agree smokers are being hit hard, the thing is ideally to really take a hard stance on smoking they need to force smokes to be in smaller packets, have much more limited amounts of nicotine, and further increase the price. The problem is that the companies obviously won't co operate.
Increased taxes are simple and easy, if slowly over time they get too expensive to use not only will they be able to ideally stockpile or invest the taxed money into the necessary areas (if they were not such a fail Govt) but they would also be able to get to a point where they could phase out the sales totally with the money already there to support the associated health issues. (Altho again this assumes the costs are pretty low)
The fact that so many smokers are complaining about this tax increase really just proves that it is having some effect even if people would rather give the Govt the 'up yours' sign than take a nudge in the right direction.
Its working if people are complaining, thats the true message we are getting, not "oh they increased it too much", they need to keep increasing it till its no longer viable to start, and people are forced to cut down. When it gets to the point where people have to chose between food and smokes we'll either see a rapid drop in the population, or a rapid drop in smoking.
I think the only real comparison would be to look at the cost of cigarettes over the last 10 years and see how they have changed compared to other products.
Why you might ask? Because in the last 10 years ALOT of the every day products that you could purchase have doubled or more in price.
Unless the price of cigarettes is greatly outdistancing the general inflation of all costs we are seeing then realistically your looking at a % of inflation per year and a very tiny actual increase in cost.
In the US the following is true:
For something closer to home:
The other 62% are the effect it has that is indirect, which like I said is all the costs you never see that go into helping treat the many effects of smoking.
Of course the Govt is getting that 6.7b, but thats just the way it is. Personally I'd rather them than the many useless greedy corporations who are causing the inflation because they need to make billion dollar profits.
Its also worth noting that since 99 till 05 the actual amount of tax received by the state governments as a % of total dropped sharply (by about 75%). It has increased to 3% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Govt, as a combined % of total revenue it dropped from 3% down to 2.6% in the same period.
From the popular viewpoint that no one should have to be responsible for their actions or in any way pay for the consequences, yes I agree you are right, you are being gouged because its unfair! From the perspective that smokers should be being hit for the costs they are incurring however I think its pretty fair.
If you honestly can't see the actual costs easily matching the amount being taxed then I'm not going to continue argueing, you obviously are more interested in being able to smoke than anything else.
Its your choice (for now), and while I certainly don't make a fuss for people I know who smoke (I respect their choice) I certainly do have a pretty clear opinion on the habit and its effects and if they want to discuss it they know what to expect. If you really feel its a problem you can really screw the Govt over and quit, lots of people do it, its not easy but lots of things aren't.
My main hope is the price increase helps reduce the amount of people under 18 starting, and shocks others into quitting. If this works for just a handful of people its worth it imo.
The government could certainly do a lot more however.
I'm not argueing with you, I agree with everything you have said (almost), making it 100$ a pack would be the same as banning it and would stop it or at least send it underground, and cause issues with the cost of medical support in the future. (Although your saying it only costs a few hundred million a year, whereas I'm saying the real cost is much higher, and probably not even covered by the tax)
A gradual plan to phase them out would definately work (via price increases), but the issues with trying to institute a plan that stops new people from smoking would never work, it would cost too much, and would require all the sellers to come on board, which will never happen, plus like most things that work this way its so open to corruption and organisations or doctors taking advantage.
All this stuff costs massive amounts of money as well, planning, implementing, employing people to manage it, it adds up fast, you'd definately see even more increases, since lets be realistic the current money is already disappearing into the Government black hole of spending, with no sign of anything being fixed.
I agree smokers are being hit hard, the thing is ideally to really take a hard stance on smoking they need to force smokes to be in smaller packets, have much more limited amounts of nicotine, and further increase the price. The problem is that the companies obviously won't co operate.
Increased taxes are simple and easy, if slowly over time they get too expensive to use not only will they be able to ideally stockpile or invest the taxed money into the necessary areas (if they were not such a fail Govt) but they would also be able to get to a point where they could phase out the sales totally with the money already there to support the associated health issues. (Altho again this assumes the costs are pretty low)
The fact that so many smokers are complaining about this tax increase really just proves that it is having some effect even if people would rather give the Govt the 'up yours' sign than take a nudge in the right direction.
Its working if people are complaining, thats the true message we are getting, not "oh they increased it too much", they need to keep increasing it till its no longer viable to start, and people are forced to cut down. When it gets to the point where people have to chose between food and smokes we'll either see a rapid drop in the population, or a rapid drop in smoking.
I think the only real comparison would be to look at the cost of cigarettes over the last 10 years and see how they have changed compared to other products.
Why you might ask? Because in the last 10 years ALOT of the every day products that you could purchase have doubled or more in price.
Unless the price of cigarettes is greatly outdistancing the general inflation of all costs we are seeing then realistically your looking at a % of inflation per year and a very tiny actual increase in cost.
In the US the following is true:
For something closer to home:
Thats well over 6.7 billion. Even just counting tangible costs your looking at 12 billion a year, this does of course include the amount of labour both at work and at home lost.
The other 62% are the effect it has that is indirect, which like I said is all the costs you never see that go into helping treat the many effects of smoking.
Of course the Govt is getting that 6.7b, but thats just the way it is. Personally I'd rather them than the many useless greedy corporations who are causing the inflation because they need to make billion dollar profits.
Its also worth noting that since 99 till 05 the actual amount of tax received by the state governments as a % of total dropped sharply (by about 75%). It has increased to 3% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Govt, as a combined % of total revenue it dropped from 3% down to 2.6% in the same period.
From the popular viewpoint that no one should have to be responsible for their actions or in any way pay for the consequences, yes I agree you are right, you are being gouged because its unfair! From the perspective that smokers should be being hit for the costs they are incurring however I think its pretty fair.
If you honestly can't see the actual costs easily matching the amount being taxed then I'm not going to continue argueing, you obviously are more interested in being able to smoke than anything else.
Its your choice (for now), and while I certainly don't make a fuss for people I know who smoke (I respect their choice) I certainly do have a pretty clear opinion on the habit and its effects and if they want to discuss it they know what to expect. If you really feel its a problem you can really screw the Govt over and quit, lots of people do it, its not easy but lots of things aren't.
My main hope is the price increase helps reduce the amount of people under 18 starting, and shocks others into quitting. If this works for just a handful of people its worth it imo.
The government could certainly do a lot more however.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 5,442
- Reaction score
- 99
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Adelaide,South Australia
I,m glad you guys are not in the same room
opcorn:
opcorn:
stink989
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Wellington NSW Australia
should we rename it the debate thread?opcorn:
opcorn:
Hmmmm.....I have not done this much reading since I was at Uni!
Ah yes. The tangible, intangible costs.
The cost of being dead too soon is 9 billion according to one study. This is included in the tangible, as is the actual amount that smokers are spending on cigarettes...lol. The bulk of the Tangible, was the stuff that didn't get made, or the services to the community lost....well, after the cost of being dead too soon.
The value of $53,267 was assigned as the average of 1 years loss of life. This is an intangible. The same study says, that 19.4597 billion clams falls into this category. This is an average of nearly 25 years per person who died. Cool. So who did they pay this money to?
Wonder how much the study cost, and if that was included.
Also the Gov't was only hit for 7.6% of the total tangible costs. (1.49 billion.)
Intangible costs are borne by the individual.
Quote.....The other major cost to government is net health care costs, which are estimated at $249.3 million in 2004–05.1 This comprises those hospital, medical, nursing home and pharmaceutical costs incurred attributable to smoking....
Theses figures are from a mob the Gov't hired (David Collins and Helen Lapsley) to find out the cost of smoking in OZ. They look suspiciously like the figures you were quoting in your last post, so I'm going to assume they come from the same root source.
Advertising the ills of smoking?...I'll bet that's not cheap. I'll bet that's included.
Instead of spending dosh on discouraging people from taking it up and getting folk to quit.....make it so no-one can take it up. I can't get away from that, can I?
I see some not too insurmountable difficulties in changing the way doobs are sold, but I see it as being worth the effort to rid us of this horrible problem once and for all. Tobacco doesn't grow as well as weed, so it won't have the same cottage industry, and it won't be able to supply the quantity that large numbers of addicted people need.
It looks like we are never going to agree on this. It's not that I don't see your point....I do....I disagree.
But I'm sure it's been marvelously entertaining for folk:BLAA:, and I must say, my poking around the internet has on this topic has given me more info than I'll probably ever need to know. I had first bite of the cherry, so if you want to make closing remarks go ahead...lol...I'll not be saying anymore on the subject (even if you tell me tobacco was introduced here by aliens to wipe out our population so they could take over).
The cost of being dead too soon is 9 billion according to one study. This is included in the tangible, as is the actual amount that smokers are spending on cigarettes...lol. The bulk of the Tangible, was the stuff that didn't get made, or the services to the community lost....well, after the cost of being dead too soon.
The value of $53,267 was assigned as the average of 1 years loss of life. This is an intangible. The same study says, that 19.4597 billion clams falls into this category. This is an average of nearly 25 years per person who died
. Cool. So who did they pay this money to?Wonder how much the study cost, and if that was included.
Also the Gov't was only hit for 7.6% of the total tangible costs. (1.49 billion.)
Intangible costs are borne by the individual.
Quote.....The other major cost to government is net health care costs, which are estimated at $249.3 million in 2004–05.1 This comprises those hospital, medical, nursing home and pharmaceutical costs incurred attributable to smoking....
Theses figures are from a mob the Gov't hired (David Collins and Helen Lapsley) to find out the cost of smoking in OZ. They look suspiciously like the figures you were quoting in your last post, so I'm going to assume they come from the same root source.
Advertising the ills of smoking?...I'll bet that's not cheap. I'll bet that's included.
Instead of spending dosh on discouraging people from taking it up and getting folk to quit.....make it so no-one can take it up. I can't get away from that, can I?
I see some not too insurmountable difficulties in changing the way doobs are sold, but I see it as being worth the effort to rid us of this horrible problem once and for all. Tobacco doesn't grow as well as weed, so it won't have the same cottage industry, and it won't be able to supply the quantity that large numbers of addicted people need.
It looks like we are never going to agree on this. It's not that I don't see your point....I do....I disagree.
But I'm sure it's been marvelously entertaining for folk:BLAA:, and I must say, my poking around the internet has on this topic has given me more info than I'll probably ever need to know. I had first bite of the cherry, so if you want to make closing remarks go ahead...lol...I'll not be saying anymore on the subject (even if you tell me tobacco was introduced here by aliens to wipe out our population so they could take over
).
not be saying anymore on the subject (even if you tell me tobacco was introduced here by aliens to wipe out our population so they could take over
Now that's a bit of a reach to believe, that Rossi, Lorenzo, Stoner, & Pedrosa are behind the shebang!
Kriswithak
Senior Member
Actually sadly the amount they spend on advertising anti smoking stuff is pathetically low, most of the sites commenting on it only mentioned it because it was such a pathetically low % of the total, like less than a %, I think it was closer to about 0.1%.
The figures are a nationwide costing, so they include productivity lost for companies who employ smokers (like from smoke breaks, not just illness, and loss of workers). Obviously its an extremely large cost, and alot of it doesn't translate into government spending, but its still a drain on society.
I have to admit if I did smoke I probably wouldn't be happy with the changes, I know no one I know who smokes is, but the large majority of me is just happy I'm not the one being screwed for once! This is pretty much what under 25's deal with all the time in soooo many ways thanks to negative media and the government trying to look like its doing something (note: thats just LOOKING like action, not actually doing anything worthwhile, pretty similar to this really).
When older people (75+ or something) where targetted for similar treatment in being more limited on the roads, and harsher testing to ensure they were still capable half the nation jumped up in arms, and your still hearing about all the horror accidents caused by old people incapable of driving anymore.
It is somewhat hard hearted of me, but at least the extra cost is something that people can avoid, and again I'm not saying its easy to quit, but its possible.
Next time they raise the tax on petrol (probably because it pollutes or some BS) and I'm complaining you'll be able to say "I told you so"
The figures are a nationwide costing, so they include productivity lost for companies who employ smokers (like from smoke breaks, not just illness, and loss of workers). Obviously its an extremely large cost, and alot of it doesn't translate into government spending, but its still a drain on society.
I have to admit if I did smoke I probably wouldn't be happy with the changes, I know no one I know who smokes is, but the large majority of me is just happy I'm not the one being screwed for once! This is pretty much what under 25's deal with all the time in soooo many ways thanks to negative media and the government trying to look like its doing something (note: thats just LOOKING like action, not actually doing anything worthwhile, pretty similar to this really).
When older people (75+ or something) where targetted for similar treatment in being more limited on the roads, and harsher testing to ensure they were still capable half the nation jumped up in arms, and your still hearing about all the horror accidents caused by old people incapable of driving anymore.
It is somewhat hard hearted of me, but at least the extra cost is something that people can avoid, and again I'm not saying its easy to quit, but its possible.
Next time they raise the tax on petrol (probably because it pollutes or some BS) and I'm complaining you'll be able to say "I told you so"
