Hive General Discourse

	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links
	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links

	1 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	General Discourse

All 11 posts Subject: The Price of Smoking Please login to post Down

Stonium
(BEE-OTCH)
10-23-04 14:30
No 537296
User Picture       The Price of Smoking

Per-Pack Cost of Smoking Calculated

10/20/2004

Researchers estimate that the actual lifetime costs of smoking are nearly $40 a pack, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Oct. 18.

"The private and social costs are huge," said Duke University economist Frank Sloan and four colleagues who prepared "The Price of Smoking" report. "Perhaps further publicity of these costs will help to stimulate the interest among smokers, potential smokers, and the public at large in smoking issues."

According to the study, smoking costs society about $33 a pack, including the costs of early deaths, smoking-related disabilities, and other factors. An additional $5.44 a pack represents the cost of the effects of secondhand smoke on a smoker's spouse, while another $1.44 is the cost of secondhand smoke on society.

The grand total amounts to about $40 a pack, or nearly $171,000 over a smoker's lifetime.

The study's results will be included in a 320-page book published by MIT Press.

http://www.jointogether.org/y/0%2C2521%2C574941%2C00.html

_{Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
-Howard Zinn}

dumbjanitor
10-23-04 16:46
      cost of beer
(Rated as: off-topic)

Jade
(soccer mom)
10-23-04 20:08
No 537325
User Picture       What then?

If everyone quit smoking then something would need to make up for all the lost revenue. The outragous taxes that are charged for tobacco products would be a great loss in funds that are supposedly going towards things such as education, healthcare, and such. Would that mean that non-smokers would have to cover these losses?

Perhaps, this too, will be rated as off topic but wonder what the price to society is everytime someone eats out at a fast food resturant? I have a feeling that a "meal" will cost more than a pack of cigarettes does. Especially those super-sized ones. crazy

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

LaBTop
(Daddy)
10-23-04 23:26
No 537354
User Picture       Huh?

Lost revenues?
There are only revenues when all governments would decide to ban smoking.
I'm a heavy smoker, but I would embrace any politician who would be brave enough to ban that goddamn pack of cigs.

I know that it is very dangerous to my health, but even after many failed (sometimes years) attempts to stop smoking, I do believe strongly, that those fuckers add so many additional trace additives to their packs, that it is becoming nearly impossible to stop the habit, thus I would gladly strangle every tobacco producer with my bare hands.

Yes, I know you all will jump on the possibility and declare me a hopeless junk.
But think for a moment, how can you defend yourself against a multi-billion industry, on the lookout for every new additive to keep the clients hooked, by whatever means possible?
Just imagine all this research would go into propagating OUR drugs of choice. LT/

WISDOMwillWIN

Love_N_it
(Beeman)
10-24-04 00:12
No 537368
User Picture       maybe somebody could work a deal

with the tobacco industry as far as getting narcotics added to the cigs instead of other more undesireable addictive additives?

I met a girl the other day who's a 'lobbyist' for the tobacco industry laugh
she was so fine my knee popped when I was walking up to talk to her because my lower leg flung out too far!

as long as this government is controlled by the same 'influence' that it has been for many years, even a proven consumer killer like tobacco will never be taken off the shelf.
sad but true

i did manage to get a hello out while walking by prending she didn't make me skip.

Jade
(soccer mom)
10-24-04 00:36
No 537374
User Picture       Revenue

Lost revenues?
There are only revenues when all governments would decide to ban smoking.

Taxes provide most of the government's revenue, don't they? Around here, cigarette tax is added on to tobacco products that already have been sales taxed. I just figured it was that way everywhere. Is it not?

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
10-24-04 03:55
No 537425
User Picture       Pretty much everywhere, yes.

Pretty much everywhere, yes.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

epistemologicide
(Hive Addict)
10-24-04 04:09
No 537426
User Picture       smokes and taxes

the cost is more lives too especially in the hospitality industry, australia has impossed a ban on pubs and clubs in the next 3 or 4 yers or so for smoking..by then they estimate that 200 workers in the industry will be DEAD from passive smoking etc...IN THE MEAN TIME

more than a user-pay model.

If we look at drugs in perspective:

Tobacco causes 72% of drug related deaths
Alcohol causes 25% of drug related deaths
Illicit drugs cause 3% of drug related deaths

In terms of individual health, alcohol and tobacco are more toxic to the body than pure heroin. Heroin’s major health risk relate to people having UN known doses, contaminates being used to cut the drug for profit or individuals using dirty needles or sharing needles.

39% of Australians over 14 have tried illegal drugs and in the 25-39 year age group, 62% have tried illegal drugs. Are we going to call the majority of the population criminal? Young people who use illicit drugs feel people who use more damaging illegal drugs are hypocrites, as in the pot calling the kettle black’.

Access Economics ’96-97’ estimate.

Illegal drugs turnover/year $7billion (1.4% of total spending) of which the government revenue/year is nil.

Tobacco is $6.2 billion and 4.3 billion of government revenue/year

Alcohol is $13.2 billion turnover/year and 1.8 billion of government revenue/year

Medical drugs $4.2 billion turnover/year and nil pg government revenue/year

The Victorian premier’s drug advisory council estimated the annual tangible and intangible costs of illegal drugs is $1.8 billion, while crime to support the habit is $1.5 billion for that state.

To legalize and regulate drugs would remove dealer excess profits, decrease the costs and decrease the crime. To tax these drugs could then fund the education and rehabilitation.

If the government used the taxes from alcohol to prevent and to repair the damage the substances generate, it would be more efficient. The danger is that governments have become more dependent on the profits of drugs. This appeared to be a factor in Australia rejecting the heroin trials when America threatened Tasmania’s opium production if Australia proceeded with the trials. Tasmania is one of the world’s largest legal opium producers for medicines.

The Swiss heroin trials showed positive out comes such as less health problems, less unemployment, less reliance on social security and less prostitution. The Swiss prison needle exchange trial showed no increase in drug use, I fact a slight decrease and less health problems. When individuals are treated as valuable and have a choice you can expect their health and behavior to improve.

Many Australian taxpayers resisted the notion of people given free heroin, just like most people would resist free cigarettes or free alcohol. The trial may have gained greater acceptance if users paid true costs price rather than tax payers paying. There has been a great focus on treatments as solutions to the problem.

Substituting a legal narcotic for an illegal one really only serves to break a dependency on crime because the desired narcotic is illegal. It seems to make those in power feel morally relieved that addicts aren’t using bad narcotics. Most people on methadone prefer heroin and the main difference are that methadone is long acting and doesn’t produce the same euphoria. Who said euphoria is morally bad?

Naltrexone has gained favor amongst those who don’t want to support ‘any mind altering substance dependency’ but many people stop their naltexone to be able to use heroin or switch heroin to amphetamines or alcohol. It can reduce your narcotic tolerance which can increase the likelihood of overdose if individuals go back to their original heroin dose.

No current treatment is very successful and each treatment is only ‘an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. It would be better to have a” fence at the top of the cliff or ropes to help climbers stay safe in their risk taking”.

Some suggest the we should make it a medical problem... to move the bad to the sick model. Neither label neither makes the individual feel valuable nor is the only real appeal of the sick model that it is a slightly reduced stigma. I believe relief is more likely from seeing individuals as valuable and letting them own the choice.

If doctors were to dispense narcotics legally it would not solve the problems of the illegal market, the unknown doses causing overdoses, the stigma or the problem that people can only get help once addicted.

Treating people as valuable and giving them a choice is to decrease the likely hood of addiction and dependency. This is the best’ fence at the top of the cliff’

Some are afraid that making drugs illegal will increase drug use. This is unlikely as the population of those who choose not to use drugs will properly stay the same. Those who don’t use, value their health and already have more natural and fulfilling ways to feel good and get their needs met.

Post 419272 (epistemologicide: "paper the police asked me to wright", Law and Order)

http://217.159.169.126/~creator/public/ZPE/files/consolidated_knowledge.pdf
no more sacred laws

Jade
(soccer mom)
10-24-04 05:24
No 537435
User Picture       Nicely written article.....

JJ, nice article, especially the part where you learn to spell and use punctuation marks all the sudden. Go to http://www.ffdlr.org.au/commentary/Drugs%20in%20perspective.htm and see where some guy named Dr. Wendell Rosevear wrote a rather long and interesting article that included these exact words.

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

squeamish
(Hive Bee)
10-24-04 08:42
No 537450
User Picture       The government is lucky its anti-smoking ...

The government is lucky its anti-smoking campaign doesn't work very well or it'd be going (even more) broke.

Strip away their armor...
...wash the halls in blood!

epistemologicide
(Hive Addict)
10-25-04 05:09
No 537620
User Picture       jade

thats the doctor i see..personally

if you read the start i say the majority of this comes from the doctor i see hon...

i knew you would like it wink

http://217.159.169.126/~creator/public/ZPE/files/consolidated_knowledge.pdf
no more sacred laws

	https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org	the-hive@erowid.org



Powered by Permanent Withdrawal v.7.02, Copyright 2015-2020, Psychopharmacopea Technology Ltd. Asia. Protected by US patent No. 6.219.758.
Links Erowid Rhodium

	All 11 posts		Subject: The Price of Smoking		Please login to post		Down


		Stonium (BEE-OTCH) 10-23-04 14:30 No 537296				The Price of Smoking
						Per-Pack Cost of Smoking Calculated 10/20/2004 Researchers estimate that the actual lifetime costs of smoking are nearly $40 a pack, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Oct. 18. "The private and social costs are huge," said Duke University economist Frank Sloan and four colleagues who prepared "The Price of Smoking" report. "Perhaps further publicity of these costs will help to stimulate the interest among smokers, potential smokers, and the public at large in smoking issues." According to the study, smoking costs society about $33 a pack, including the costs of early deaths, smoking-related disabilities, and other factors. An additional $5.44 a pack represents the cost of the effects of secondhand smoke on a smoker's spouse, while another $1.44 is the cost of secondhand smoke on society. The grand total amounts to about $40 a pack, or nearly $171,000 over a smoker's lifetime. The study's results will be included in a 320-page book published by MIT Press. http://www.jointogether.org/y/0%2C2521%2C574941%2C00.html _{Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn}



		dumbjanitor 10-23-04 16:46				cost of beer (Rated as: off-topic)



		Jade (soccer mom) 10-23-04 20:08 No 537325				What then?
						If everyone quit smoking then something would need to make up for all the lost revenue. The outragous taxes that are charged for tobacco products would be a great loss in funds that are supposedly going towards things such as education, healthcare, and such. Would that mean that non-smokers would have to cover these losses? Perhaps, this too, will be rated as off topic but wonder what the price to society is everytime someone eats out at a fast food resturant? I have a feeling that a "meal" will cost more than a pack of cigarettes does. Especially those super-sized ones. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.



		LaBTop (Daddy) 10-23-04 23:26 No 537354				Huh?
						Lost revenues? There are only revenues when all governments would decide to ban smoking. I'm a heavy smoker, but I would embrace any politician who would be brave enough to ban that goddamn pack of cigs. I know that it is very dangerous to my health, but even after many failed (sometimes years) attempts to stop smoking, I do believe strongly, that those fuckers add so many additional trace additives to their packs, that it is becoming nearly impossible to stop the habit, thus I would gladly strangle every tobacco producer with my bare hands. Yes, I know you all will jump on the possibility and declare me a hopeless junk. But think for a moment, how can you defend yourself against a multi-billion industry, on the lookout for every new additive to keep the clients hooked, by whatever means possible? Just imagine all this research would go into propagating OUR drugs of choice. LT/ WISDOMwillWIN



		Love_N_it (Beeman) 10-24-04 00:12 No 537368				maybe somebody could work a deal
						with the tobacco industry as far as getting narcotics added to the cigs instead of other more undesireable addictive additives? I met a girl the other day who's a 'lobbyist' for the tobacco industry she was so fine my knee popped when I was walking up to talk to her because my lower leg flung out too far! as long as this government is controlled by the same 'influence' that it has been for many years, even a proven consumer killer like tobacco will never be taken off the shelf. sad but true i did manage to get a hello out while walking by prending she didn't make me skip.



		Jade (soccer mom) 10-24-04 00:36 No 537374				Revenue
						Lost revenues? There are only revenues when all governments would decide to ban smoking. Taxes provide most of the government's revenue, don't they? Around here, cigarette tax is added on to tobacco products that already have been sales taxed. I just figured it was that way everywhere. Is it not? There's a terrorist behind every Bush.



		Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 10-24-04 03:55 No 537425				Pretty much everywhere, yes.
						Pretty much everywhere, yes. BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country! www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm



		epistemologicide (Hive Addict) 10-24-04 04:09 No 537426				smokes and taxes
						the cost is more lives too especially in the hospitality industry, australia has impossed a ban on pubs and clubs in the next 3 or 4 yers or so for smoking..by then they estimate that 200 workers in the industry will be DEAD from passive smoking etc...IN THE MEAN TIME more than a user-pay model. If we look at drugs in perspective: Tobacco causes 72% of drug related deaths Alcohol causes 25% of drug related deaths Illicit drugs cause 3% of drug related deaths In terms of individual health, alcohol and tobacco are more toxic to the body than pure heroin. Heroin’s major health risk relate to people having UN known doses, contaminates being used to cut the drug for profit or individuals using dirty needles or sharing needles. 39% of Australians over 14 have tried illegal drugs and in the 25-39 year age group, 62% have tried illegal drugs. Are we going to call the majority of the population criminal? Young people who use illicit drugs feel people who use more damaging illegal drugs are hypocrites, as in the pot calling the kettle black’. Access Economics ’96-97’ estimate. Illegal drugs turnover/year $7billion (1.4% of total spending) of which the government revenue/year is nil. Tobacco is $6.2 billion and 4.3 billion of government revenue/year Alcohol is $13.2 billion turnover/year and 1.8 billion of government revenue/year Medical drugs $4.2 billion turnover/year and nil pg government revenue/year The Victorian premier’s drug advisory council estimated the annual tangible and intangible costs of illegal drugs is $1.8 billion, while crime to support the habit is $1.5 billion for that state. To legalize and regulate drugs would remove dealer excess profits, decrease the costs and decrease the crime. To tax these drugs could then fund the education and rehabilitation. If the government used the taxes from alcohol to prevent and to repair the damage the substances generate, it would be more efficient. The danger is that governments have become more dependent on the profits of drugs. This appeared to be a factor in Australia rejecting the heroin trials when America threatened Tasmania’s opium production if Australia proceeded with the trials. Tasmania is one of the world’s largest legal opium producers for medicines. The Swiss heroin trials showed positive out comes such as less health problems, less unemployment, less reliance on social security and less prostitution. The Swiss prison needle exchange trial showed no increase in drug use, I fact a slight decrease and less health problems. When individuals are treated as valuable and have a choice you can expect their health and behavior to improve. Many Australian taxpayers resisted the notion of people given free heroin, just like most people would resist free cigarettes or free alcohol. The trial may have gained greater acceptance if users paid true costs price rather than tax payers paying. There has been a great focus on treatments as solutions to the problem. Substituting a legal narcotic for an illegal one really only serves to break a dependency on crime because the desired narcotic is illegal. It seems to make those in power feel morally relieved that addicts aren’t using bad narcotics. Most people on methadone prefer heroin and the main difference are that methadone is long acting and doesn’t produce the same euphoria. Who said euphoria is morally bad? Naltrexone has gained favor amongst those who don’t want to support ‘any mind altering substance dependency’ but many people stop their naltexone to be able to use heroin or switch heroin to amphetamines or alcohol. It can reduce your narcotic tolerance which can increase the likelihood of overdose if individuals go back to their original heroin dose. No current treatment is very successful and each treatment is only ‘an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. It would be better to have a” fence at the top of the cliff or ropes to help climbers stay safe in their risk taking”. Some suggest the we should make it a medical problem... to move the bad to the sick model. Neither label neither makes the individual feel valuable nor is the only real appeal of the sick model that it is a slightly reduced stigma. I believe relief is more likely from seeing individuals as valuable and letting them own the choice. If doctors were to dispense narcotics legally it would not solve the problems of the illegal market, the unknown doses causing overdoses, the stigma or the problem that people can only get help once addicted. Treating people as valuable and giving them a choice is to decrease the likely hood of addiction and dependency. This is the best’ fence at the top of the cliff’ Some are afraid that making drugs illegal will increase drug use. This is unlikely as the population of those who choose not to use drugs will properly stay the same. Those who don’t use, value their health and already have more natural and fulfilling ways to feel good and get their needs met. Post 419272 (epistemologicide: "paper the police asked me to wright", Law and Order) http://217.159.169.126/~creator/public/ZPE/files/consolidated_knowledge.pdf no more sacred laws



		Jade (soccer mom) 10-24-04 05:24 No 537435				Nicely written article.....
						JJ, nice article, especially the part where you learn to spell and use punctuation marks all the sudden. Go to http://www.ffdlr.org.au/commentary/Drugs%20in%20perspective.htm and see where some guy named Dr. Wendell Rosevear wrote a rather long and interesting article that included these exact words. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.



		squeamish (Hive Bee) 10-24-04 08:42 No 537450				The government is lucky its anti-smoking ...
						The government is lucky its anti-smoking campaign doesn't work very well or it'd be going (even more) broke. Strip away their armor... ...wash the halls in blood!



		epistemologicide (Hive Addict) 10-25-04 05:09 No 537620				jade
						thats the doctor i see..personally if you read the start i say the majority of this comes from the doctor i see hon... i knew you would like it http://217.159.169.126/~creator/public/ZPE/files/consolidated_knowledge.pdf no more sacred laws

All 11 posts	End of thread	Top