Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

Smoking is carcinogenic and it kills

tobacco addiction cancer cost asthema

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16 Davie P

Davie P

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 07:12 PM

 

After doing their body in they then expect the NHS. to fix things so whatever you do it does impact on other people.

Yes, well we have paid for it, handsomely, in advance.

 
The cost to the NHS is only one aspect of the wider 'cost to society'. Here's a fairly comprehensive paper on the wider picture:
 
Cough Up: Balancing tobacco income and costs in society
 

Smoking is the single, largest preventable cause of serious ill health and kills tens of thousands of people in England every year.  It is a popular myth that smoking is a net contributor to the economy – our research finds that every single cigarette smoked costs the country 6.5 pence. In order to balance income and costs, tobacco duty should be progressively increased until the full societal cost of smoking is met through taxation.

 

Taxation of tobacco contributes £10 billion to HM Treasury annually; however, we calculate that the costs to society from smoking are much greater at £13.74 billion. Every cigarette smoked is costing us money. These societal costs comprise not only the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (£2.7 billion) but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9 billion) and increased absenteeism (£2.5 billion); the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million); the cost of smoking related house fires (£507 million), and also the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers (£4.1 billion) and passive smokers (£713 million).



#17 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 07:36 PM

@ Davie P

I'm definitely not in support of an authoriatian government and yes, I do believe the post was passive aggressive.

 

I'm putting forward a counter argument, in that medical professionals themselves are biased.  Devil's advocate here:  how many consultant posts would be lost if it wasn't for smokers then?  The whole attitude towards death and dying, be it through smoking or other diseases, needs a re-think - we all DIE.  There have been those within the medical profession who have been criticised for pointing out that the cure for cancer, with damage to internal organs severely affecting people's quality of life; I personally know at least one person who has undergone 10 operations not for cancer but for the damage caused by the treatment.  Yes, some cancers are treatable with results improving compared to years ago but you try getting the figures of those who have had the cancer return years later; those figures aren't so easily obtainable.

Drug companies make money out of patients and doctors rely on patients for their livelihood.  So if you're saying that addicts, who are fully aware of what they are doing and what they are choosing to do, have diminished capacity?  Are you seriously suggesting that people who smoke have diminished mental capacity?  Are you suggesting that they are incapable of reading the literature available and deciding not to believe it?  I sure as hell don't need the nanny state to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing.  I might die in my sleep but there again, I might get run over by a bus or die of a heart attack or die of cancer.  In any event, I'm going to die.  It's none of the Government's business as to whether or not I choose to accelerate my death.  There are plenty of non-smokers who die of cancer.

So whilst George might well be happy on his sugar high, I note that nobody is touching the alcohol argument yet I, for one, lost a relative due to drink-driving.  She was killed outright by a drunk driver on his third offence.

 

Plus, your link, whilst interesting, is also biased - it's written by medical professionals who obviously have a vested interest.



#18 Davie P

Davie P

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 10:06 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your counter argument that you feel the drug companies and the medical establishment are biased because of they have too much of a vested interest in continuing with the status quo, and therefore shouldn't be trusted?

I'm not making any comment on that, I just want to be sure I understand.

 

 

So if you're saying that addicts, who are fully aware of what they are doing and what they are choosing to do, have diminished capacity?  Are you seriously suggesting that people who smoke have diminished mental capacity?  Are you suggesting that they are incapable of reading the literature available and deciding not to believe it?

 

What I said was...

 

The fact is that people who are addicted to substances have diminished capacity to exercise choice in whether or not they continue to use/consume a substance.

 

I agree that addicts do indeed have a choice - however, there are often physical, psychological and/or circumstantial factors linked to the addiction that affect their choices.

 

 

 

...I note that nobody is touching the alcohol argument yet .....

There's other threads on that.

With the greatest respect, many of your points (alcohol, nuclear plants, substations, petrol and diesel cars etc) seem to be 'whataboutery' - yes, we're all going to die but that doesn't mean addressing something that is generally accepted to be one of the main causes of preventable deaths is irrelevant.



#19 JGHR

JGHR

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 11:17 PM

I'm putting forward a counter argument, in that medical professionals themselves are biased.


To be perfectly honest I can't tell from your posts exactly what it is you're trying to counter. If however your counter argument against whatever it might be is that the dreadful health costs associated with smoking are somehow being misrepresented by medical professionals and drug companies in some sort of ongoing conspiracy to keep doctors in work and make more money for drug companies, then I can't take you seriously
 

So if you're saying that addicts, who are fully aware of what they are doing and what they are choosing to do, have diminished capacity?  Are you seriously suggesting that people who smoke have diminished mental capacity?  Are you suggesting that they are incapable of reading the literature available and deciding not to believe it? I sure as hell don't need the nanny state to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing.  I might die in my sleep but there again, I might get run over by a bus or die of a heart attack or die of cancer.  In any event, I'm going to die.  It's none of the Government's business as to whether or not I choose to accelerate my death.  There are plenty of non-smokers who die of cancer.


No one has said anything about diminished mental capacity. If someone is addicted to substance, they cannot simply choose to forego that substance even if they want to - their capacity to exercise free choice is thus diminished. If someone is ill informed about the health effects of smoking, they do not have the information they need to be properly informed about the choice they are making - their capacity to exercise free choice is thus diminished. If someone is irrational they are not, for whatever reason, able to sensibly act on the information they have available to them and thus their ability to exercise free choice is diminished.

I suggest that all smokers who are able to properly exercise free choice would choose to stop and most, if not all, correctly informed rational people will not start in the first place. Those who continue to smoke do so because they fall into one or more of the above categories. Addicted, ill informed or irrational.

Edited by JGHR, 05 October 2018 - 11:26 PM.


#20 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:03 AM

LOL, so you reckon smokers do not have all the information available about smoking?  You're right - we don't ... in that tobacco on its own isn't what we smoke but all the ingredients added to ensure the tar is reduced in order to meet EU Regulations in manufactured cigarettes, highly taxed by our caring governments.  Manufacturers bulk out the ciggies; smokers notice the difference with those bought outside of EU countries.  But the OP is very specific about asking why people continue to smoke tobacco.

By applying the logic that people are either "Addicted, ill informed or irrational", then by that same logic, one can assume that you are insinuating that people want a long life, despite the fact that each day we live we're getting more decrepid, with the risk of such 'delights' as dementia.  Would it not be logical to die before getting dementia?  Each day many people get up, work hard, struggle to earn a decent crust, only to do the same thing the next day.  It's not other people's business to interfere with other people's life choices.  If I'm ill informed about smoking, then that is the fault with the information that is available to the general public.

 

Many smokers don't succeed in jacking in smoking for the simple reason they never wanted to quit in the first place but were vilified and pressured into doing so.  Granted, there are those who have partners who smoke or socialise with other smokers, or simply couldn't manage to quit within the time period set by the NHS and weren't permitted to re-join a smoking cessation scheme for at least another 6 months.  Incidentally, the idea re vaping - only the other week some medical professional announced that people still get throat cancer and other cancers caused by vaping.

To me, it's wrong to lump all smokers into the categories outlined above because there are those who have quit (like, when being skint for weeks at a time, so long that they are no longer physically addicted) but return to smoking because they like smoking.  Some people started smoking tobacco instead of smoking crack cocaine, is that irrational swapping one 'evil' for another?  Or the person who stopped drinking whisky but instead drank more lager?  Both one could argue are harmful (in excess).  Or the person who only smokes the very occasional cigar at Christmas or smokes 5 cigarettes in a week; such people do exist.  But by the logic demonstrated within this thread, all smoking is bad.  Well, cannabis isn't legal yet in the UK ...

There's another article in the press today about nature prescriptions, and how getting out in the fresh air into the open countryside is good for one's health.  Perhaps that's because by doing so, a person is getting away from other interfering people who seem to think they have the right to dictate what others do with their lives.  If you pardon the pun, such interfering do-gooders need to get a life and butt out!


Edited by Suffererof1crankymofo, 06 October 2018 - 12:04 AM.

  • Lerwick antiques likes this

#21 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9298 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:05 AM

14355797_264706203927993_211794286058038


  • Nigel Bridgman-Elliot likes this

#22 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:24 AM

"About 430 hospital admissions in the isles each year are estimated by the health board to be smoking-related. One in eight deaths in Shetland are smoking-related, NHS Shetland says."

Estimated. Define "smoking-related".  Despite a lack of research in all medical conditions, smoking is not necessarily the cause of death.  If you're a smoker and die of heart disease, you can bet your bottom dollar that your death would be down as smoking-related despite being say severely overweight and an alcoholic.  Guilty by association.

 

A leading cancer charity states that smoking accounts for 15% of cancers.  A quick google gave the results - non-smokers accounted for 80% of lung cancer deaths in the USA in 2008.
 

So smoking is the bogeyman for cancer.  80% non-smoking-related deaths for lung cancer.  Why aren't you all screaming from the rooftops about that statistic and demanding more research is done?


Edited by Suffererof1crankymofo, 06 October 2018 - 12:28 AM.

  • Nigel Bridgman-Elliot likes this

#23 Davie P

Davie P

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:46 AM

A quick google gave the results - non-smokers accounted for 80% of lung cancer deaths in the USA in 2008.......

 

.....80% non-smoking-related deaths for lung cancer.  Why aren't you all screaming from the rooftops about that statistic and demanding more research is done?

 

I'd be interested to read the research that this figure comes from since most studies usually find the opposite. Can you provide the link, please?


Edited by Davie P, 06 October 2018 - 12:49 AM.

  • mikeyboy likes this

#24 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 05:51 AM

"interfering do-gooders need to get a life and butt out!"

 

I like that... :thmbsup

 

The biggest problem with this PC generation is that there are far to many people who 'think' they have been empoowered enough to dictate what anyone else says/does. 

 

Sure, smoking is 'bad' (in a 'relative way) but, it is also incredibly addictive, and for many, kicking the habit is almost impossible.

 

The government knows this and, in order to boost revenues, imposes massive taxes on tobacco using the heinous excuse of "it's for your own good".

 

Why do  governments use taxation as a 'blunt instrument' to achieve(?) their aims when all they really achieve is to alienate the 'victims' ? 

Why not, as I (and others) have said for years, put tobacco 'on prescription'. ? 

That should almost eliminate smoking within a generation..

 

If the whole country stopped smoking/drinking tomorrow, then the countries finances would be in deep "doo-doo".  How much extra tax would non-smokers/drinkers be willing to pay in order to 'balance the books' ?


  • Suffererof1crankymofo likes this

#25 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 06:14 AM

"About 430 hospital admissions in the isles each year are estimated by the health board to be smoking-related. One in eight deaths in Shetland are smoking-related, NHS Shetland says."

Estimated. Define "smoking-related". 

 

Estimated means that they don't know.  It's just a guess.

 

Smoking related means that "he/she was in the road, lighting a fag, when the bus hit him/her" or, he/she had a heart attack when he/she saw the latest price increase on a packet. 

 

Not 'proven' facts, just opinions.  Go figure

 

A person might smoke 10,000 ciggies in a lifetime.  Which one is it that kills him..  I would assume that it is the last one, but that's just an 'assumption'.


  • Suffererof1crankymofo likes this

#26 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 08:51 AM

A good number of people around here have told us that tobacco is not the problem that it is claimed to be. They haven't given one single iota of proof to back that up. Perhap it's because they can't be bothered to make the effort to give up smoking themselves, or they want to back up their other half. They haven't shown any proof to justify one single statement that they have come up with. I wonder why?

 

Perhaps they can provide some proof to justify their claims and statements? Perhaps they can't cope with their own addiction. After all, it's not only lung cancer that smoking tobacco inflicts upon people. What about the damage it does to a persons skin, their mouth and throat and they don't seem to consider the fact that it can cause impotence. Oh, and there's what it does with asthma.

 

Wonder why you can no longer smoke in the pub or in the bus shelter, or an awful lot more places now?

 

Effects of smoking on the body


Edited by George., 06 October 2018 - 08:51 AM.


#27 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:04 PM

@ Davie P - will do later, busy with work right now.  In fairness, it did state that amongst the 80% of non-smoking related deaths, it did include those who had previously smoked.

@ George - Ah skin.  Would you like to ban all make-up too?

I'd be interested in seeing statistics for cancer-related deaths of smokers and non-smokers with a breakdown of the genetic links; smokers/non-smokers in a family who carry the genes making them more susceptible to cancer.


Edited by Suffererof1crankymofo, 06 October 2018 - 12:05 PM.


#28 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 12:43 PM

I'd be interested in seeing statistics for cancer-related deaths of smokers and non-smokers with a breakdown of the genetic links; smokers/non-smokers in a family who carry the genes making them more susceptible to cancer.

Cancer Research UK provide some interesting information regarding tobacco statistics


Edited by George., 06 October 2018 - 12:49 PM.


#29 Nigel Bridgman-Elliot

Nigel Bridgman-Elliot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 18 October 2018 - 04:33 PM

<-- Doesn't smoke, never has, but still thinks research is important on these subjects.



#30 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 18 October 2018 - 06:03 PM

I had two aunts who both died of throat cancer.  They didn't smoke.

My uncles, their husbands, died of lung cancer etc..  They didn't smoke either.

Their daughters, my cousins, all four of them are still "live and kickin" although, only 1 is a smoker.

 

Doesn't "prove" anything except that, possibly (?), some people's genetics/environment leave them more liable to cancers than others.

 

As GR posted earlier, if you're going to get it, you're going to get it. 

 

I have little doubt that smoking doesn't contribute to some cancers in some people but, I just hate the "hype" that is being bandied about and is believed by so many who (normally) disbelieve everything the government tells them.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: tobacco, addiction, cancer, cost, asthema