General Chat

[Brumerican]

I'll get you Neil

Eames, you can't comment, you added ME on Facebook!

Do you mean you or my wife ?

[theunderstudy]

Me. Although you also added me. As in myself. As well as probably ME. She needs to change her username, it's far too confusing in popular conversation.

[GarethRDR]

"Ahhhhhhhhhh, she's my wife now..."

[Brumerican]

"Ahhhhhhhhhh, she's my wife now..."

I **** adore that show.

[GarethRDR]

I have been expressly forbidden (with threat of immediate divorce) from saying that to my missus when we eventually get married.

I'm gonna **** say it anyway, but still.

[drat01]

Anyone know when the the Div1 fixtures for next season are due out?

[Milfner]

Probably the same time as the Prem ones...

[Brumerican]

I didn't really see the need to start another thread as I had already said what I needed to say, but I would like to clarify something in regards to the "smokers should be denied NHS issue."

After some searching I have found that the annual amount of money spent on all smoking related illnesses by the NHS is £5 billion . Source found here

That figure is considered to be an under estimate so lets say that it is 50% more and call it £7.5 bn

Now using my approximate figures of 13 million smokers all contributing £1,857 a year in cigarette tax alone (based on 20 a day @ £6 a pack)leaves us with a figure of £ 24, 141,000,000 which turns out to be £24 billion

You say not everyone buys legit fags or smokes 20 a day. Fair enough , so lets be overly liberal with that data and call it 6.5 million (Half of 13) smokers all smoking 20 a day and buying them from a respectable shop. That still equates to £12 billion , which is still £ 4.5 billion more than the burden on the NHS , even if I user an over inflated figure to establish their annual costs.

This is all using exaggerated figures remember.

Now I am aware that not all of my Vice tax goes directly to the NHS but if you count in my income tax , which is MUCH more than my Vice tax , as well as NI contributions , Council Tax and Road Tax , then the figures are even more in my favour.

The contributions of smokers , especially of those who pay all the other taxes far exceeds the burden that they create . To say that smokers don't deserve NHS treatment is a position of extreme ignorance and you haven't got a leg to stand on IMO.

[Brumerican]

I've also just done some rough work to see how the non smoking drinkers stand up to scrutiny.

The cost of alcohol to the NHS is roughly £3 billion (That is the most up to date figure I could find and doesn't take into account the cost of policing of pissheads)

There are approximately 40 million social drinkers in the UK so I decided to use both ends of the spectrum.

First off , lets imagine we have 40 million heavy drinkers.

Lets assume they drink 20 pints a week at £ 3 a pint , as well as one litre of cheap spirits a week at a cost of £ 10.

The annual "Vice Tax" for this amounts to £1,408 per person. Multiply that by 40 million and you have a treasury contribution of £56 billion pounds on alcohol tax alone. More than sufficient to cover the NHS burden.

Lets try it at the other end of the scale and say someone drinks 5 pints a week instead of 20 @ £3 a pint ,and drinks a bottle of spirits a month instead of a week @ £10 a pop. This gives an individual annual alcohol tax amount of £343 iper person instead of £1,408. Multiply this figure by 40 million and you get a contribution of £13 billion , which is still £ 10 billion more than the NHS burden .

If you throw in other costs such as policing (which isn't required for smokers who don't drink )then the National burden is between £17 bn and £25 bn. This is more than covered at the high end of the spectrum ( £ 56 bn in contributions )but is not at the low end .( £ 13 bn )

Thank **** for those of us who drink and smoke eh ?

And as I said earlier , smokers die earlier , usually at an age where we no longer contribute to society in a financial sense, so we are also not draining money via pensions and handouts etc .

If you think about it , people who don't smoke but get pissed regularly and cause police involvement are actually far more of a drain on society than the people sat at home enjoying a cigarette after dinner.

Even with all this supporting evidence I still don't need to justify that I deserve NHS treatment regardless of my own irrational desire to kill myself . (I put my life at risk for 8 years in service to my country which should count for something). We don't live in a country where you get out what you put in . Everyone chips in to the pot and those in need take it out again. Thats the way it has been for ages.

Can you at least get why I'm miffed at people who have the audacity to claim I don't deserve NHS treatment ?

Imagine a 15 year old kid climbs a tree and and accidentally falls down landing on his head and inducing a coma. Now this kid has never contributed a penny in his life, his parents are eternal dole frequenters and he isn't going to amount to much after leaving school.

The kid has to have a super expensive MRI scan and is hospitalized for 12 months in a Coma. He is basically just a vegetable who is draining money left right and centre. If he ever recovers he's going to need expensive , prolonged periods of therapy and rehab. Even after he gets through that he's probably going to end up on the dole or at best stacking shelves somewhere .

Would anyone here ever deny this kid treatment even though at 15 he is well aware of the risks involved with tree climbing ? I know I certainly wouldn't.

If you still want to be blinkered about smokers then fine, thats your perogative, but I am more than fine with smoking and drinking my way to a wealthier country and I'll feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever with regards to expecting the same levels of NHS treatment as everyone else, no matter how much or little they are contributing .

[mjmooney]

And as I said earlier , smokers die earlier , usually at an age where we no longer contribute to society in a financial sense, so we are also not draining money via pensions and handouts etc .

Thank you SO much.

[BOF]

On that Brumerican, the Czechs (I believe it was them anyway) did a study into how much smoking costs the state annually and it was found that, instead, smoking massively benefits the state, both through taxes on sales and through killing people off before they become a drain on the health services/pensions etc.

[legov]

On that Brumerican, the Czechs (I believe it was them anyway) did a study into how much smoking costs the state annually and it was found that, instead, smoking massively benefits the state, both through taxes on sales and through killing people off before they become a drain on the health services/pensions etc.

Which is one of the reasons there has never been a complete countrywide ban on smoking anywhere in the world (correct me).

[BOF]

Which is one of the reasons there has never been a complete countrywide ban on smoking anywhere in the world (correct me).

Absolutely. It's a catch 22. They need the money from sales but politically they also need to appear to want people to stop. So they increase the price under the premise of making it more difficult to keep smoking, but they rely on people's addiction to keep smoking, and they increase the tax take at the same time. If they wanted people to stop smoking, as you say, they'd actually ban it.

[Genie]

If they wanted people to stop smoking, as you say, they'd actually ban it.

Would that not impact on peoples human rights?

[BOF]

Would that not impact on peoples human rights?

No more than a current ban on any other drug would impact it. But yes it would, strictly speaking. But then you assume they really care about that. That's another one of those things where "We want you to think we care about your rights, even though your rights are making our ability to effectively police/control you really rather difficult".

Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

[mjmooney]

I think the US experience with alcohol prohibition shows the impossibility of enforcing such a ban on a substance previously legal and widely used.

[BOF]

I think the US experience with alcohol prohibition shows the impossibility of enforcing such a ban on a substance previously legal and widely used.

Actually now that you mention it, yes, that's probably the best example of an actual attempt to do something similar. They know perfectly well that people would continue to smoke. Factories would go underground (well the rent is cheaper), safety standards wouldn't need to be enforced, no tax would be generated and the health ramifications/costs of smoking dodgy cigs would go through the roof.

[legov]

If they wanted people to stop smoking, as you say, they'd actually ban it.

Would that not impact on peoples human rights?

Not if it harms people's health and more importantly, the health of others (second hand smoke)

[Brumerican]

And as I said earlier , smokers die earlier , usually at an age where we no longer contribute to society in a financial sense, so we are also not draining money via pensions and handouts etc .

Thank you SO much.

cough , cough, splutter...You're welcome

I wonder if dbsboots is still so adamant that we "sinners" should be denied treatment , especially when the sole smokers contribute far more than the sole drinkers (As mentioned I do both )

As I have said before , the only people who should be denied medical treatment are those who are openly critical of the science behind it such as anti -evolutionists, and even then I'm only making a point and personally am not heartless enough to begrudge another suffering human help.

[Brumerican]

On that Brumerican, the Czechs (I believe it was them anyway) did a study into how much smoking costs the state annually and it was found that, instead, smoking massively benefits the state, both through taxes on sales and through killing people off before they become a drain on the health services/pensions etc.

Exactly. The nation relies on people like us whether they like it or not.