Alberta suing the tobacco industry

[calculoso]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: QR77 Newsroom <AM770CHQR@listeneremail.net>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Subject: Alberta suing the tobacco industry

Premier Alison Redford says Alberta is launching a $10 billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry as it tries to recover health care costs related to smoking.

for more information visit http://qr77.com
------- End Forwarded message ----------

WOW!

[saskflames69]

If they legalized and taxed wacky tobaccy they could recover this money in no time.

[calculoso]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...o-lawsuit.html

"Alberta is the 5th Canadian province to launch legal action against tobacco companies."

[worth]

[Cowboy89]

Beating a dead horse. Ultimately it's just premier mom proving her left wing street cred. The tobacco industry isn't coughing up $10 Billion to the province of Alberta, especially since the Tories favorite passtime to attempt to balance budgets is raising tobacco taxes. How much has the province collected in tobacco taxes over the years?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How much has the province collected in tobacco taxes over the years?

Don't ask me why I know this but it's $4.21B over the past 5 years just in Alberta.

[GP_Matt]

It seems so odd for a government to sue a company for engaging in a business according to rules that the government sets out. Maybe if they are going to also legislate that tobacco is illegal in Alberta they might have a case, but how do you sue for something and condone it at the same time. Can they sue every year?

[goaliegirl]

If they really cared about it they would ban tobacco, this is nothing more than a money grab for something that has no basis in reality. There have been studies done, and on average smokers(and obese people) cost the health system less than non smokers. This is a US link based on a study done in the Netherlands, but I would imagine it would be the same world wide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...1.9748884.html

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Beating a dead horse. Ultimately it's just premier mom proving her left wing street cred. The tobacco industry isn't coughing up $10 Billion to the province of Alberta, especially since the Tories favorite passtime to attempt to balance budgets is raising tobacco taxes. How much has the province collected in tobacco taxes over the years?

This and every calculation I've seen seems to blame the entire cost of a smoker's death on smoking. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that person would have eventually died of something.

Not that this happens in every case, but taking my grandparents as an example. One grandfather was a heavy smoker. He contracted lung cancer sometime in his 80s. He was dead within months. I had another grandfather who lived to be 98. He lived a healthy lifestyle. However, during those last 5 years or so, his body became riddled with cancers and diseases. He was in and out of hospitals constantly for the last 10 years of his life. Both of them quit workign in their late 60s, and hence stopped paying income tax.

I really don't know how you can conclude that the smoker was some kind of drain on society. Especially as smoker litterally pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes by buying cigarettes.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by blankall

Especially as smoker litterally pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes by buying cigarettes.

On average a smoker in Alberta pays $1,015 a year in taxes for cigarettes.

IMHO before they go around chasing tabacco and alcohol to get more money they should look at taxing unhealthy foods. I'm sure that causes more problems for the health care system than those two things.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really don't know how you can conclude that the smoker was some kind of drain on society. Especially as smoker litterally pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes by buying cigarettes.

I was saying the same thing to a friend of mine just a few days ago. Really, if we wanted to improve the fiscal state of our provinces, what we really need to do is PROMOTE MORE SMOKING. Or something else that causes something like heart disease. Something where people die immediately of a heart attack or something. It's when people need 10 to 20 years of hospice care like my great uncle who was in a government nursing care unit from the age of 83 to 103. Not that I begrudge Bill his 20 years of nursing care, but extending peoples lives beyond the point that they can physically take care of themselves is going to be costly.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by fotze

I'm not sure how other jurisdictions have recovered money, but it certainly seems funny to sue when you profit from the sale of the product more than the tobacco company itself.

Its like Suncor suing the government for the emissions at the Suncor upgrader.

I thought this annoncement reeked of hypocracy and seems more like a progressive political message than anything else. It follows in the footsteps of other provinces since the supreme court case where BC took on the tobacco companies. Seems very Alison Redford to be poking around in stuff like this.

My predictions for the new laws in Alberta within the next couple of years:

1. Car impoundment for speeding in excess of 40km/hr
2. Mandatory ski helmets on all ski hills and back country areas
3. Basically identify any behavior that can lead to bad outcomes and watch for the Redford government to ban peoples freedom of choices that could hypothetically potentially lead to said bad outcomes.

[macker]

If you use the US as an example (stats easier to dig up) you have 46 million people doing something that deliberately shortens their lives but everyone is going to eventually have to pay for it. It costs the US healthcare system 76 billion per year (different system I know).....and you have Altria who controls 50% of the market selling 15 billion in cigarettes per year. They are the gorilla in this market. They have two objectives : sell to kids and sell overseas where sales are up 2% per year. They spend 12 billion per year on tobacco marketing. They can't advertise in the US like they used to so they are going after places like Indonesia where there is minimal regulation and they can appeal to kids by sponsoring concerts and selling packages with cartoon characters. If tobacco companies are not regulated they will do almost anything to reach the kids market. 1,300 Americans die every day and one every minute because of smoking and the US currently spends 17% of their GDP on healthcare and that costs everyone personally. Why not sue them!

[Azure]

$4.21 billion over 5 years doesn't cover the costs that smokers have on the health care system?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I thought this annoncement reeked of hypocracy and seems more like a progressive political message than anything else. It follows in the footsteps of other provinces since the supreme court case where BC took on the tobacco companies. Seems very Alison Redford to be poking around in stuff like this.

My predictions for the new laws in Alberta within the next couple of years:

1. Car impoundment for speeding in excess of 40km/hr
2. Mandatory ski helmets on all ski hills and back country areas
3. Basically identify any behavior that can lead to bad outcomes and watch for the Redford government to ban peoples freedom of choices that could hypothetically potentially lead to said bad outcomes.

Sounds like Nanny Redord to me

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I was saying the same thing to a friend of mine just a few days ago. Really, if we wanted to improve the fiscal state of our provinces, what we really need to do is PROMOTE MORE SMOKING. Or something else that causes something like heart disease. Something where people die immediately of a heart attack or something. It's when people need 10 to 20 years of hospice care like my great uncle who was in a government nursing care unit from the age of 83 to 103. Not that I begrudge Bill his 20 years of nursing care, but extending peoples lives beyond the point that they can physically take care of themselves is going to be costly.

If you want to look at things purely from an economic standpoint (however, gruesome that is), you're right. Although I would say, wait until people are within about 15 years of retirement before getting them addicted. That way you'd maximize their working productivity, while ensuring that they die soon after retirement.

[trumpethead]

What a joke. We should sue every fast food joint in Alberta while we are at it.

[Resolute 14]

At least Nanny Redford finally found a way to pay for all of her promises... she hopes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

$4.21 billion over 5 years doesn't cover the costs that smokers have on the health care system?

Are you sure. I have never seen full life cycle numbers for in broken down but I would think its close.

Per capita alberta spends somewhere around 5k on health care. People over 65 cost on average something like 12k, people over 80 cost something like 20k a year.

So a smoker paying 1k a year in taxes pays a 20% premium for health care. They also die sooner reducing the number of post income tax paying years they collect CPP, OAS etc. From a health care point of view they may just move their expensive years sooner or they may be more expesive.

Also the smoking rate is highest amoungst 20 - 30 year olds. Many of them will quit smoking before they are 40. The health risks of smoking disappear between 10 and 20 years after quitting and become comparable to those of a person who never smoked. If you quit by 30 you will have likely paid 10k extra in tax without putting additional strain on the system.

So i bet its really close to being break even.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you sure. I have never seen full life cycle numbers for in broken down but I would think its close.

Per capita alberta spends somewhere around 5k on health care. People over 65 cost on average something like 12k, people over 80 cost something like 20k a year.

So a smoker paying 1k a year in taxes pays a 20% premium for health care. They also die sooner reducing the number of post income tax paying years they collect CPP, OAS etc. From a health care point of view they may just move their expensive years sooner or they may be more expesive.

Also the smoking rate is highest amoungst 20 - 30 year olds who the quit. The risks of smoking disappear between 10 and 20 years after quitting so if you quit by 30 you will have likely paid 10k extra in tax without putting additional strain on the system.

So i bet its really close to being break even.

Please elaborate on this statement because I have no idea as to how you came to that conclusion.