One in five Americans smokes cigarettes. Percentage steady since 2005.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
part of why I hate smokers is second hand smoke.

I agree with laws that discourage smokers from smoking for this reason, as well as causing millions a year in medical bills.


Lastly, if/when obamacare comes, who is going to pay for these smoker's cancer treatments?
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
It is a good indication that tobacco is a good candidate for a tax increase and revenue :)

Fuel for passenger vehicles is another venue for tax increase.

I just solved America financial problem.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Is the tobacco tax revenue per year greater than the money spent by the government on tobacco-related illnesses?

Hard to calculate I'm sure. I did see some numbers on the UK - 4 billion pounds spent on treating illness, while 8 billion pounds collected in tax revenue.

For the US, I seen that state governments got about $13 billion in revenue and federal got about $8 billion. Did they spend more than that on treating illnesses due to smoking? Also that doesn't take into account that smokers usually die earlier so there would be less payout from the government on things like SS and medicare, right?
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,829
11,166
126
Is the tobacco tax revenue per year greater than the money spent by the government on tobacco-related illnesses?

Hard to calculate I'm sure. I did see some numbers on the UK - 4 billion pounds spent on treating illness, while 8 billion pounds collected in tax revenue.

For the US, I seen that state governments got about $13 billion in revenue and federal got about $8 billion. Did they spend more than that on treating illnesses due to smoking? Also that doesn't take into account that smokers usually die earlier so there would be less payout from the government on things like SS and medicare, right?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

Edit:
ABSTRACT
Background Although smoking cessation is de-
sirable from a public health perspective, its conse-
quences with respect to health care costs are still
debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmok-
ers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more
health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health
care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and esti-
mated the economic consequences of smoking ces-
sation.
Methods We used three life tables to examine the
effect of smoking on health care costs — one for a
mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one
for a population of smokers, and one for a popula-
tion of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic meth-
od to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on
health care costs over time.
Results Health care costs for smokers at a given
age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for
nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one
smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among
men and 4 percent higher among women than the
costs in the current mixed population of smokers
and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care
costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they
would become higher than at present. In the long
term, complete smoking cessation would produce a
net increase in health care costs, but it could still be
seen as economically favorable under reasonable
assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there
would be a savings in health care costs, but only in
the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would
lead to increased health care costs. (N Engl J Med
1997;337:1052-7.)
©1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Is the tobacco tax revenue per year greater than the money spent by the government on tobacco-related illnesses?

Hard to calculate I'm sure. I did see some numbers on the UK - 4 billion pounds spent on treating illness, while 8 billion pounds collected in tax revenue.

For the US, I seen that state governments got about $13 billion in revenue and federal got about $8 billion. Did they spend more than that on treating illnesses due to smoking? Also that doesn't take into account that smokers usually die earlier so there would be less payout from the government on things like SS and medicare, right?

Yes it is. I don't have a problem with that, as it can also be viewed as making up for the years they weren't being taxed properly. The problem is that the tax money is being used questionably (does it make sense to be spending money on a good you're trying to get people to stop using on say schools? what happens if you actually do stamp it out, schools will be left without money they used to depend on). Because they can say how they're using it for school or other things that people will want to get more funding, they can also abuse the taxation (hey look, we're supporting something good by punishing bad behavior!). They cover up shortfalls by pushing for higher tax.

You're right about the latter. Smokers are actually good for the state as they tend to not live as long so they don't hit some of the social programs that others do with their longer lives. That's not to say its absolutely true, but overall, it is.

In short cigarette taxation is more political than anything.

FWIW, I don't like smoke, think smoking is a stupid thing to do, and am for public smoking bans. I do however take issue with the political BS, the bans that are overlapping into private businesses, but most of all my biggest issue is the fanatic anti-smoking people (I've seen some ridiculous stuff from the latter).
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Your assumtion that I smoke is horribly misguided.

I'm talking about money as well. You are morally outraged that some of your insurance money goes to treat the illnesses of smokers. Well, what comes around goes around. Most everyone takes unnecessary risks in life. What's yours?

If I had to take a guess, MJinZ's major risk factor is unprotected sex with zoo animals
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Why is it so hard for people to leave others be? Who appointed you their nanny?

Victimless crime laws ARE pointless.

The Constitution has nothing to do with victimless crime laws. Burning it would actually increase this kind of nonsense.

Why should governments protect individuals from themselves? Maybe we should all be forced into padded rooms?

It's victimless if the person makes an informed decision. A lot of money/regulations deals with public education and age minimum.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
part of why I hate smokers is second hand smoke.

I agree with laws that discourage smokers from smoking for this reason, as well as causing millions a year in medical bills.


Lastly, if/when obamacare comes, who is going to pay for these smoker's cancer treatments?

Smokers pay for their own healthcare. Studies in the uk and canada concluded that smokers are a net profit to the government because they pay 10 dollars tax on every pack of cigarettes and they often die before they start collecting old age pension.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
How many points for being Black? How about Asian or Jewish? All those groups have much higher than "normal" genetic disease probabilities...

How about points on your health insurance and life insurance based on what car you drive?

Next up, alcohol use...drinking beyond moderation definitely can cause health problems...

What about mandating monthly drug testing? Increase the premiums 500 fold for anyone who tests even a tiny bit positive for any of the "controlled substances" or for prescription meds without a valid current prescription for that drug.

As already mentioned above, higher premiums for those who live in polluted areas, for those who live in cities, (higher crime rate) and for those who participate in any type of physical sport.

Yessiree...quite a slippery slope...

I'm sorry what? Whites have the most prevalent Genetic Diseases. Asians have the fewest. In fact, I can't think of any Asians who have any. Or any prevalent Asian ones.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I didn't choose to be male, but the insurance companies don't have a problem charging me more for car insurance....

You can go waaaah to your car insurance that driving is forced on you.
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
I think they should take the filters off of cigarettes and let them smoke them like that, make tobacco 10 times more addicting, and tax them even more. We could get even more tax dollars like that and they probably wouldn't live past 50 years old. Hell if they want to kill themselves let em.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Yes it is. I don't have a problem with that, as it can also be viewed as making up for the years they weren't being taxed properly. The problem is that the tax money is being used questionably (does it make sense to be spending money on a good you're trying to get people to stop using on say schools? what happens if you actually do stamp it out, schools will be left without money they used to depend on). Because they can say how they're using it for school or other things that people will want to get more funding, they can also abuse the taxation (hey look, we're supporting something good by punishing bad behavior!). They cover up shortfalls by pushing for higher tax.

You're right about the latter. Smokers are actually good for the state as they tend to not live as long so they don't hit some of the social programs that others do with their longer lives. That's not to say its absolutely true, but overall, it is.

In short cigarette taxation is more political than anything.

FWIW, I don't like smoke, think smoking is a stupid thing to do, and am for public smoking bans. I do however take issue with the political BS, the bans that are overlapping into private businesses, but most of all my biggest issue is the fanatic anti-smoking people (I've seen some ridiculous stuff from the latter).

The problem people here don't realize is that while vying for individual rights (rah rah rah), you forget that you're killing a portion of your own population.

OK, they are undesirables. I forgot. Smoke away.

A lot of laws out there deal with individual liberties like suicide and whatnot. They are there for the benefit of society, not for the individual. Individuals are nice, but everyone lives in a Society.

This is why the USA is pretty socialist at this point all in all. Which is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
I am happy to allow you to smoke, as long as you disclose this information to your insurance company and are forced to pay 10, nay, 100x the premium to cover your own lung cancer.

Thank you.

I'm with him.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I think they should take the filters off of cigarettes and let them smoke them like that, make tobacco 10 times more addicting, and tax them even more. We could get even more tax dollars like that and they probably wouldn't live past 50 years old. Hell if they want to kill themselves let em.

The goal is to kill people with stuff that they can stop at any time. It would be unfair to make it super super addictive, more than it already is.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
I wonder how the question was worded. There is a difference between a smoker and one who has a cigarette and/or cigar from time to time. (may have been covered, I didn't read the thread)
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
The goal is to kill people with stuff that they can stop at any time. It would be unfair to make it super super addictive, more than it already is.

I'm not really for that. Just f'ing around. Maybe have some free govt programs to help people quit? I know there has to be a better way to deter people from smoking but I'm not sure the govt wants that. I mean life sucks for everyone but for fuck sake why make it hard on yourself or your family by slowly killing oneself by smoking?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Smokers pay for their own healthcare. Studies in the uk and canada concluded that smokers are a net profit to the government because they pay 10 dollars tax on every pack of cigarettes and they often die before they start collecting old age pension.

You know how I know you're lying?
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
WTF. Anyone else notice that the definition of a current smoker is: HAVING SMOKED 100 CIGARETTES IN THEIR LIFETIME?

So you could have smoked for 2 months 20 years ago and be classified as a current smoker. No wonder the numbers haven't come down. Hell, I'm pretty sure I would be classified as a "current smoker" even though I've never smoked more than just the casual cig at a bar while in college.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
WTF. Anyone else notice that the definition of a current smoker is: HAVING SMOKED 100 CIGARETTES IN THEIR LIFETIME?

So you could have smoked for 2 months 20 years ago and be classified as a current smoker. No wonder the numbers haven't come down. Hell, I'm pretty sure I would be classified as a "current smoker" even though I've never smoked more than just the casual cig at a bar while in college.
Very good note.

I really don't see how there aren't less smokers in 2010 vs 2005.
 

Pollock

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2004
1,989
0
0
Why should a federal law mandate anything? Why not CHOOSE an insurance company that charges smokers more. Vote with your wallet instead of demanding big brother placate your morals?

Exactly. One does not and SHOULD not have to justify their freedom by "does it benefit society." The ONLY justification for restriction should be "does it infringe on the rights of another."

Thank you for being intelligent.


I think Grandma is to be commended for stimulating the economy.

The smokers just lay there in their graves being lazy-asses and contributing nothing.

You do realize grandma isn't "stimulating" the economy, right? And economic "stimulus" is just a word for "consume needlessly"?

Individuals are nice, but everyone lives in a Society.

Everyone does live in a society, but everyone is an individual first. An individual's needs trump a society's needs.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
The only thing I want to add is that smoking has to be one of the most disgusting habits I have ever seen. I simply don't understand how or why people start in this day in age knowing what we know.

That being said, you have the right to do so. Just don't come near me stinking like an ashtray. I was so happy when WI banned smoking in bars and restaurants (though I think it's a stupid law and should be left to the owners).