All entirely true and won’t they get stick for it

Smoking is worth almost £15 billion to the public purse because of the tax revenue and the savings from smokers’ early deaths, according to a think tank’s analysis.

The free market Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) calculated the cost of smoking at £4.6 billion, including treating diseases, tidying up dropped cigarette butts and putting out house fires.

But tobacco duties brought in £9.5 billion a year and the Government saves £9.8 billion in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments because of the premature deaths of smokers.

11 thoughts on “All entirely true and won’t they get stick for it”

  1. Well, Johannes, one would like to think that the smoker has done an appropriate cost benefit analysis and determined that, for them, the pleasures of smoking are worth the financial cost and the risk of a premature death.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    Nothing new in the data or the expected outrage. I was working for Arthur D Little when this report was published and I knew a couple of the researchers.

    It was seen as a PR disaster for the company because it was paid for by a tobacco company and the Prague office got a right bollocking and, IIRC, one of the Partners was fired or eased out. Letting the data speak only works when it confirms the left’s biases.

  3. This will be ‘countered’ with a figure which includes intangible costs to society, e.g. lost work days to business from fag breaks, people not liking the smell, etc but won’t include intangible benefits. Made up, in other words.

  4. I’ve always said the best thing the State could do in its current increased longevity induced financial straits was encourage the public to smoke and drink themselves into oblivion. And legalise drugs while they’re at it. A win win for everyone involved. The smokers, drinkers and druggies get to enjoy themselves, and have official approval for so doing, and the rest of the population get to pay less taxes as we won’t collectively be living so long.

    Eventually someone will realise that the modern welfare state can survive long term, but only if life expectancy falls. And the fairest way to do that is allow people who want to to drink, smoke and snort their way to an early grave.

  5. Jim,

    And import more RoPpers to blow themselves up, maybe, taking only OAPs, benefits claimants and the disabled, so as to reduce the cost to the state, and provide work for tax-paying window glass repairers at the same time?

  6. “And import more RoPers to blow themselves up, maybe, taking only OAPs, benefits claimants and the disabled, so as to reduce the cost to the state”

    On the basis if your neighbour dies of lung cancer cos he’s smoked for 40 years that doesn’t affect you, but if he’s a suicide bomber and blows you up it rather does, no. Don’t be so fucking stupid.

    Smoking drinking and taking drugs are personal choices. And if people wish to fuck up their health with them, so be it, its their bodies. Stop trying to live people’s lives for them.

    And seriously, have you actually been in an old people’s home recently? Yes life expectancy is rising, but what sort of life? They are just living morgues. Corpses that we don’t allow to die, because we are for some reason scared shitless about death these days (probably because we’ve lost religion, but thats another argument). Yes you can look forward to living to 80+ but the extra years will be sat in your own piss and shit waiting for someone to come and deal with it.

    The time needs to come where society realises that this relentless drive to keep people alive as long as possible at all costs is bad for everyone, the individuals and society at large. Until such time that medical science can regenerate bodies rather than patch them up, then demanding people live longer is just adding to the sum of human suffering, not reducing it.

  7. “we are for some reason scared shitless about death these days (probably because we’ve lost religion,…”: but Americans are even scareder, and they often claim to be Christians.

  8. Playing devil’s advocate, you could slash the police budget and boost the economy by removing all speed limits. The cost in dead lives wouldn’t show up in the IEA’s report.

    Or you could promote & fund abortion programmes for the poor, leading to lower crime in future years (arguably). Again the cost in lost lives doesn’t register.

  9. Or you could promote & fund abortion programmes for the poor, leading to lower crime in future years

    Which was precisely the motivation to argue in favour of it for Progressives.

  10. Just fund a good war.
    Maybe with some nuclears. The population of today will be easily persuaded to hate something.
    Bound to be some humans left at the end and they can start over.Best burn all books so they don’t get ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *