Addictions cost economy $40B a year!

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I am 100% in favour of a fat tax, the problem is how does a government really implement such a law - I mean are there certain foods that the government should tax - just fast food - or should it be related to the calories per serving?

I just don't see there being an easy way to institute such a tax - that being said the government needs to set up some initiatives for healthier living - have gym memberships tax deductable or have rebates for purchasing a bicycle. Support a healthier population with small ideas such as this one and I have no doubt that you will see a healthier population, which in turn causes less strains on the health care system. Just taxing something isn't going to make people stop their bad habits - offering a solution might push them towards changing their behaviours.

That being said obesity is a huge/massive issue in our society and it is being treated like the elephant in the room where no one really wants to accept the health consiquences associated with these poor lifestyle choices - cancer, diabites, organ failure, heart disease, and joint issues among others. These problems all cost the health care system billions of dollars.

[JiriHrdina]

^^^Well I don't entirely disagree MMM the question is - would it do any good.

That is - people that exercise and look after themselves generally do so because they care about their personal health enough to do so.

If someone doesn't care enough about their health to look after it...is a bit of green in the jeans going to give them the motivation to change that? I doubt it.

It will reward the people that are doing it and nothing else.

Not that that would be a bad thing in itself.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Well at the very least the government would be rewarding positive decisions rather than merely punishing poor choices on the part of the citizen. While I am sure that many of the obese portion of the population - don't want to put the effort into changing (reason why surgery is such a popular option) or they don't want to admit that there is a problem - I am sure there are a large number who would be at least willing to give the programs a try, knowing that the cost is reduced.

I do worry about the cost that obesity is going to have on the health care system in the future and really what the options are going to be. I can only see the issues related to organ donation becoming more prominant in the future.

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

It would be way too difficult to regulate. Cigarettes are a relatively homogeneous product, a cigarette is a cigarette. Junk food comes in all forms, how do you classify which foods are junk food and which ones aren't?

Don't kid yourself. The do-gooders that aim to protect us from ourselves are already pushing for a fat tax. Junk food is the new tobacco in the eyes of some people. Test lawsuits have already been filed against fast food giants like McDonald's. The suits haven't had much success so far.

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
- Hunter S. Thompson

[Vulcan]

One of the biggest addictions which isn't mentioned in that article, is gambling. This is government sponsored as they love the taxes it brings in. I'd say it causes a lot of social problems, even suicides and can be a problem with healthcare as it's victims need counseling. This could come back and bite our govt.s in the arse.

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by Cheese

thats B as in Billion.

Addictions

Addictions to tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs cost the Canadian economy $39.8 billion a year, according to survey results released Wednesday.

The $39.8 billion figure breaks down this way:
- Tobacco addiction costs are estimated at $17 billion, or 42.7 per cent of the total amount.
- Alcohol dependency costs are pinned at $14.6 billion, or 36.6 per cent.
- The costs from addictions to illegal drugs are estimated at about $8.2 billion, or 20.7 per cent

Whats the answer?

Okay, How does smoking and drinking COST the economy anything? The last time I checked smokes and beer were not free. The last time I checked my bank statement cigarettes and beers actually cost me MONEY. That being said I believe money actually aids a capitalist society.
Money spent on Beer. 21.50 a case of big rock. Portion goes to Joes liquor store (helps Canadian economy), Portion goes to Brewers distribuors (helps...) portion goes to Big Rock Brewery (Helps...) The remainder goes to Federal tax and recycling charges (helps Canadian economy). Now what is the COST to the Canadian economy?

Is it that Beer and cigarettes may in fact Kill you??!!! Shock
Is the cost to the Canadian economy the fact the fat out of shape buggers that drank and smoked die? And we all have to pay for there health care?


I don't now about you but the last time I checked there are very few people who do not Die!

Why do we have taxes for people who voluntarily kill themselves with nicotine, Alcohol, High fat diets, but we don't find it neccesary to tax a good mormon for not drinking, smoking etc. Yet all things considered the "LDS - mormon" god bless them, contributes a heck of a lot less in taxes to support the health care system.??????
The Good hearted soul who does not drink, smoke gamble etc. Still dies and because he/she does not have a chronic disorder gets to live till 94.
That being said the 94 year old is probably in and out of the hospital for 10 years. Costing the health care system lots of dough.

I just don't get the arguemnet that Tobacco/alchohol costs the Candians anything.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Okay, How does smoking and drinking COST the economy anything? The last time I checked smokes and beer were not free. The last time I checked my bank statement cigarettes and beers actually cost me MONEY. That being said I believe money actually aids a capitalist society.
Money spent on Beer. 21.50 a case of big rock. Portion goes to Joes liquor store (helps Canadian economy), Portion goes to Brewers distribuors (helps...) portion goes to Big Rock Brewery (Helps...) The remainder goes to Federal tax and recycling charges (helps Canadian economy). Now what is the COST to the Canadian economy?

Is it that Beer and cigarettes may in fact Kill you??!!! Shock
Is the cost to the Canadian economy the fact the fat out of shape buggers that drank and smoked die? And we all have to pay for there health care?


I don't now about you but the last time I checked there are very few people who do not Die!

Why do we have taxes for people who voluntarily kill themselves with nicotine, Alcohol, High fat diets, but we don't find it neccesary to tax a good mormon for not drinking, smoking etc. Yet all things considered the "LDS - mormon" god bless them, contributes a heck of a lot less in taxes to support the health care system.??????
The Good hearted soul who does not drink, smoke gamble etc. Still dies and because he/she does not have a chronic disorder gets to live till 94.
That being said the 94 year old is probably in and out of the hospital for 10 years. Costing the health care system lots of dough.

I just don't get the arguemnet that Tobacco/alchohol costs the Candians anything.

Dude, that is the weakest arguement I've ever heard.

Mormon has X ammount of disposible income and he will likely spends it all
Fat drunk smoker has the same ammount of disposible income and he spends it all booze smokes and fast food.

So the difference in direct contributions to the economy = ZERO

now the cost.

Mormon guy lives a healthy life and dies peacefully in his sleep. (Net cost to society = 0)
Fat drunk smoker, gets cancer, diabetes, and needs his knees replaced because his real ones can't support a 500lb *******. So he is in the hospital all the time getting surgery, Chemo (sp?), and insulin. (Net cost to society = tens of thousands of dollars). And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the fat drunk smoker, has to retire early because he is too fat, and therefore makes less over his lifetime, and has less money to spend, which actually reduces his contributions to the economy.

Come on dude, you didn't actually beleive that "I spend money on booze and smokes, so I contribute more to society than the guy who buys a gym membership, soy milk, and a bicycle" did you?

[Circa89]

Name me the last person you knew who died peacefully in their sleep?

My grandparents/relatives/Friends with cancer all died in hospitals fighting lengthy battles. What is the difference to the healthcare system when someone dies of Lung Cancer due to smoking and my nextdoor neighbour friend who died from Colon Cancer (btw he never drank or smoked and ran daily).


I am not suggesting that fat drinking slob guy contributes more to the economy and therefore healthcare. I am suggesting that we all die and very rarely is one form of death any cheaper on the healthcare system. The healthcare costs associated with one lifestyle can't cost 39billion more than another. I would further argue that If the costs do in fact require that much more I'm sure a large portion of that is directly collected on tax on those products making the difference negligible.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Dude seriously. Do you honestly believe that people who smoke drink and eat too much don't cost the healthcare system more?

Can you actually deny that smoking, eating, and drinking too much signifigantly increase the instances of cronic and expensive to treat problems such as cancer, liver failure, and diabetes? You must, because that is what is costing the healthcare system $40 billion. It's simple math.
All other things being equal the increased rates of these diseases alone will require a lot more money/resources to treat. Do we all die? Sure we do. Do smokers/alcoholics/and rediculously fat people have much higher rates of chronic illnesses that cause a strain on the heathcare system and society in general? Of course they do.

Simple math

of 100 Non smokers/alcoholics/fatties
10 die of cancer
10 die of liver problems
10 die from diabetes
70 die of other natural causes

of 100 smokers/drinkers/fatties
15 die of cancer
15 die of liver problems
15 die from diabetes
55 die of other natural causes

Are these numbers accurate? No, I just made them up, but they do illustrate a point that all things being equal, the smokers, alcoholics, and fatties are gonna have more problems, and cost more to treat than non smoking, exercising, social drinkers.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

If someone dies of or gets cancer how do they attribute a cause? I have always thought that they can be never sure of what caused it. Lung cancer is probably pretty easy if the person is a two pack a day smoker.

What if someone smokes and is a carpet installer and gets lung cancer. Do they default that death to smoking? Or do they assume percentages of the costs to the most likely causes? i.e. 50% smoking, 50% carpet toxins?

I would imagine they use broader statistics than deciding if Guy A died from lung cancer caused by smoking.

I would think they would say.
of 1000 non smokers 50 died from lung cancer.
of 1000 smokers 150 died from lung cancer.
With a large enought sample size to average everyting else out to, it would be pretty safe to say that those extra 100 cases were due to smoking.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Circa89

I am suggesting that we all die and very rarely is one form of death any cheaper on the healthcare system. The healthcare costs associated with one lifestyle can't cost 39billion more than another.

First of all, read the article, it isn't toally about healthcare, it includes lost productivity (due to illness, hangovers, etc), court cases for prosecuting drug cases, and a bunch of other stuff, but my point about healthcare still stands.

But if you care to do a lengthy study to prove why it is you think that these healthcare cost inceases aren't real, and can prove your point I'd be glad to change my point of view. But untill then, your gut feeling isn't going to do much to convince me.

When will people learn that you can't refute facts and numbers simply by saying, "I can't believe", or "I don't feel"?

[Thunderball]

While Sin and Fat Taxes have their role, I question their usefulness to society aside from the obvious fundraising.

While $10 cigs and $20 12pks of beer might discourage you or I from going to excess, what about all those people out there with addictive personalities? They'll smoke whether its 10 cents or 10 dollars a pack, regardless of its personal financial consequences. The problem drinker will either slip into the red, or switch to a cheaper brand, or type of alcohol. The problem eater logically, the same. Addiction and rationality do not go hand in hand, and all the taxes do is punish the average person, and damage the addictive personalities. For that reason, I am opposed to sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The logic there being why should responsible people pay for those who aren't when it doesn't even discourage them?

That being said, the major problem with high-fat foods is that they also happen to be the cheapest. A filling meal at Subway is almost double what a filling meal at Macdonalds would cost. However, there is a real danger when dealing with foods that we don't drive up the cost of living in the process... again a fat tax is a dangerous road, but perhaps a necessary one. Would anyone notice another 25 cents on a bottle of soda? Doubtful, but the money it would divert to preventative healthcare, sport and healthy living would be most helpful.

Whats the solution for alcohol and tobacco? I have no idea. Prohibition doesn't work, punishes good citizens, and only encourages massive underground criminal activity. However, since money will not stop an addictive personality, new solutions must be found. Psychological exams before getting a license to purchase alcohol and tobacco perhaps? That brings in its own set of problems too though, and likely disgustingly expensive.

[Circa89]

The estimated "avoidable costs" amount to more than $1,260 for every person in Canada.
The study didn't take into account government revenue from alcohol and tobacco taxes, or the amount of money Canadians spend on buying cigarettes, liquor or illegal drugs.



Simple math tells me that a pack a day smoker will contribute in direct tax $1825 ($5 per pack) per year. The chances that a smoker also drinks is very highly corelated and I would argue they contribute $1000 per annum in liquor tax. (this is more than reasonable because outside of Alberta the governments own and operate the liquor stores, generating well over 50% of total revenue for alcohol).


That would be $2825 per user. Now divide that in 2 and the smoker not only covers his "avoidable costs" but just paid for the non-smokers "avoidable cost" of the system aswell. Mighty neighbourly of the town drunk don't you think.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Name me the last person you knew who died peacefully in their sleep?

I have known many, I see or hear about this on almost a weekly basis.

Originally Posted by Circa89

My grandparents/relatives/Friends with cancer all died in hospitals fighting lengthy battles. What is the difference to the healthcare system when someone dies of Lung Cancer due to smoking and my nextdoor neighbour friend who died from Colon Cancer (btw he never drank or smoked and ran daily). I am not suggesting that fat drinking slob guy contributes more to the economy and therefore healthcare. I am suggesting that we all die and very rarely is one form of death any cheaper on the healthcare system. The healthcare costs associated with one lifestyle can't cost 39billion more than another. I would further argue that If the costs do in fact require that much more I'm sure a large portion of that is directly collected on tax on those products making the difference negligible.[/

Cancer comparisons aside (of which smoking is a risk factor for both that you have listed), you are ignoring every other disease smoking is attributable to. Ever heard of Emphysema/COPD? Birth defects? High blood pressure? Atherosclerosis? Chronic cough? Laryngitis? Immunosupression? Peripheral vascular disease? Pulmonary emoblism/blood clots?...the list goes on and on and on, and many of these will not kill you right away, but cripple you for extended periods of time requiring multiple medical investigations/interventions that place a HUGE load upon health care ressources. Dont even get me started on the effects on second hand smokers. Even if the tax cannot pay for these costs, perhaps the increased cost is a deterrent?

Some thoughts to consider for all those still trying to tell the masses that you are doing society a service by smoking...
________
Herbal vaporizers

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Circa89

The estimated "avoidable costs" amount to more than $1,260 for every person in Canada.
The study didn't take into account government revenue from alcohol and tobacco taxes, or the amount of money Canadians spend on buying cigarettes, liquor or illegal drugs.



Simple math tells me that a pack a day smoker will contribute in direct tax $1825 ($5 per pack) per year. The chances that a smoker also drinks is very highly corelated and I would argue they contribute $1000 per annum in liquor tax. (this is more than reasonable because outside of Alberta the governments own and operate the liquor stores, generating well over 50% of total revenue for alcohol).


That would be $2825 per user. Now divide that in 2 and the smoker not only covers his "avoidable costs" but just paid for the non-smokers "avoidable cost" of the system aswell. Mighty neighbourly of the town drunk don't you think.

Dude, the "avoidable cost" is what we are tallying here.
How much a smoker spends on cigarettes and booze is irrelevant. Why?
Well, because the money spent on cigarettes and booze is presumably the smokers disposable income, which if it weren't for booze and cigarettes would have been spend anyway.

Simple math.

If a smoker makes $50 000 / year and his disposible income is say $10 00 and he spends $5000 on smokes and booze, and the rest on whatever else, then the ammount of disposalbe income he contributes to the economy is $10000
if a non smoker makes the same ammount and has $10 000 worth of disposible income, but spends none of that on smokes and beer, does that mean the ammount of disposible income he is contributing to the economy is less than the smoker? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.

Meanwhile the "Avoidalbe Cost" meanwhile the smoker gets cancer and incures an avoidable cost of $1260. And the non-smoker doesn't get cancer, so his cost is $0.

If you can't understand that then you really are blind.
It's not like cigarettes and booze are the only products that consumers buy to stimulate the economy.

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Some thoughts to consider for all those still trying to tell the masses that you are doing society a service by smoking...

I don't think anyone is arguing that smokers/drinkers help Canadian Society, I am merely pointing out that due to increased tax revenue from smokers/drinkers they help pay for their own care.

Maybe the answer is increasing medicare costs to smokers like they do with Life Insurance policies to absolutely ensure all costs are covered. That way the arguement can never hold water that smokers are bad people because they die and it cost everyone else money and resources.

Just for interest sake. I don't smoke but I do have to go see the doctor this week because I blew my knee out playing Lacrosse. Damn Sporty guys and their constant arthroscopic surgeries bringing down the health system!

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If a smoker makes $50 000 / year and his disposible income is say $10 00 and he spends $5000 on smokes and booze, and the rest on whatever else, then the ammount of disposalbe income he contributes to the economy is $10000
if a non smoker makes the same ammount and has $10 000 worth of disposible income, but spends none of that on smokes and beer, does that mean the ammount of disposible income he is contributing to the economy is less than the smoker? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.

The point is that if $10000 is spent on booze and cigarettes a very high percentage is taxable. Tax goes directly to the government of Canada to spend on things like military, giving money to ad agnecies in Quebec and health care. Now if someone spends $10000 on a large screen TV, very little goes to taxes. 7% GST and perhaps some hiddden fees somewhere. The rest of the money goes into the pocket of Best Buy/Future Shop and the corporate earnings are funneled out of the economy and into the USA. Now $10000. disposable income spent on the bad stuff generates a huge tax base for the government but the luxury items generate vey little.
The cost to the Canadain economy is very little, but the differnce being funneled to the Government is huge.

Meanwhile the "Avoidalbe Cost" meanwhile the smoker gets cancer and incures an avoidable cost of $1260. And the non-smoker doesn't get cancer, so his cost is $0.

So the non-smoker doesn't die. The silly smoker could have avoided the cost and act of death had they not smoked?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Wow, how will I ever be able to come up with an arguement for your assertation that not spending money on smokes and booze will mean that the money from those purchases gets funneled to the US? That is some iron clad logic there.

Whether or not the smoker is paying taxes is irrevant. The fact of the matter is that $1260 per canadian is being spent per canadian that otherwise would not have been spent. Even if enought cigarette taxes are being collected to conver those costs, that doesn't mean that it is a wash. That is like saying my new tv didn't cost me anything because I had the money to pay for it.

Does that mean that the feds would have an extra $1260 per canadian to spend? Well, assuming cigarette taxes exactly covered the increase healthcare cost, then no, but there would be the equivalent of $1260 more per canadian to stimulate the economy.

Just because someone breaks even doesn't mean they aren't wasting money.

And no, I didn't say that the non-smoker didn't die, but on average it costs more for the smoker to be hospitalized while he dies, to the tune of $1260 per canadian.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Ooops, forgot a little math.

A pack a day smoker (let's say that is average) by your own math will contribute $1825 per year to tobacco taxes.

The average canadian pays $1260 in avoidable costs to cover the healthcare for that smoker.

in 2004 20% of Canadians smoked. So let's say that there are $35 million people in canada.

Total Avoidable cost = $1260 * 35 million = 44.1 billion
Total taxes recieved = $1825 * 35 million * .2 = 12.775 Billion

Or another way to put is is

Cost per person = $1260/year
Taxes per person = $1825/pack/year * 0.2(smokers/person)

So the number of packs per day that the average smoker must smoke to cover his own healthcare cost is damn near 3.5 packs per day.

Do you think the average smoker smokes 3.5 packs per day?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Circa89

I don't think anyone is arguing that smokers/drinkers help Canadian Society, I am merely pointing out that due to increased tax revenue from smokers/drinkers they help pay for their own care.

Originally Posted by Circa89

the smoker not only covers his "avoidable costs" but just paid for the non-smokers "avoidable cost" of the system aswell. Mighty neighbourly of the town drunk don't you think.

________
Chevrolet Venture