keep ecigs = increase govt funding

[frankie1]

Has anyone done a calculation on what the govt would SAVE in health care as opposed to what they collect in tobacco tax?

Just thinking...I won't spend in my lifetime the $$ in tobacco tax that the govt will spend on smoking related health care....at least according to the govt propaganda. I think I will try to get some sort of realistic numbers on what they say they are spending as opposed to the tax revenue they are receiving and see what those figures actually look like! Any resource ideas would be appreciated!

 

[katink]

Realistic figures are, that healthcare-costs are overall LESS for smokers. Simply because they live so much shorter, that the costs of their 'sick' years disappear against the costs of otherwise, when not smoking, getting ten or fifteen years older - with all the healthcosts that come along with being elderly.
So it's cheaper for the government, healthcosts-wise, to make sure that people continue to smoke...
What should, but doesn't, weigh in are ethics...

 

[frankie1]

Yeah Katink...I think you are right, but I was just going to try to do a comparison that would be beneficial to vapers. Ostensibly our argument would be that an individual would spend less in tobacco taxes than it would cost to insure that same individual. Thus the loss of tax revenues would be negated by the health savings. The early death concept is unethical (as are other factors, but really we can only get them to be publicly ethical) so they would never use that as a rebuttal.

 

[katink]

Good luck then Frankie - perhaps they indeed won't use the early-death factor in public... (ah, and negate was the word I was looking for earlier *tries to get it to stick in her head*, thanks )

 

[Backslash]

The Heritage Foundation has a pretty on-topic commentary posted about this: 22 million new smokers needed. The $0.61/pack tax added to fund SCHIP was clearly not enough.

 

[nickgamble]

This is a matter of capitalists' and politicians' issue. I will leave it all up to them. But if they think that it is right to ban e-cigs then I have to go to UK.

 

[HaploVoss]

I would think that simply the comparisson of life *saving* should be enough. I can't believe that there is no way to unearth studies like several people here in the forums have... compile them properly, and somehow submit that it is obvious that e-cigs, PVs whatever you want to call them - would save thousands of lives per year as a smoking alternative.

 

[sugahness]

This is a matter of capitalists' and politicians' issue. I will leave it all up to them. But if they think that it is right to ban e-cigs then I have to go to UK.

Not about e-cigs per se, but I think it's relevant to hear/read varying opinions about 'Big Brother'....

"Basic rights being burned off

The anti-smoking Nazis are about to win another battle -- and no matter how you feel about tobacco, this is no occasion to celebrate.

Brain-dead government bureaucrats are getting set to force manufacturers to put graphic images of diseased mouths and lungs across the front and back covers of cigarette packages.

Give me a break.

We have some of the weakest labeling requirements anywhere -- yet we're not even in the world's top 50 when it comes to percentage of adult smokers, and, depending on whose numbers you believe, we're barely in the top 100.

But forget all that for a moment, and even forget how you feel about smoking, because that's not even the point here.

The government is now taking complete control over how an entire legitimate industry can sell a legal, over-the-counter product to the consenting, law-abiding adults who want it.

And if we let them get away with that, what'll they decide to regulate next? Because believe me, something else WILL be next.

Should the government order automakers to paint graphic images of traffic accidents across the hoods of cars? Every year, these accidents kill more than 40,000 Americans and injure millions more.

Will the food industry be forced to put photos of gastric bypass surgeries on packages of cookies and bags of chips? After all, the slop we put into our own bulging bellies is leading to one of the worst mass health crises in all of human history.

While we're at it, why not just tattoo images of STDs onto our genitals, since that's a known risk of sex? More Americans are carrying herpes than cigarettes.

Can you see where this is going?

The risks of smoking are not nearly as bad as what they want you to believe -- and I've got all the science to prove it. The tobacco controversy is soaring out of control. It's time to end the paranoia and confusion and face the facts.

In most cases smoking WILL NOT give you heart disease or cancer -- but smoking CAN fight off a whole slew of health problems you'd never guess.

I've never been afraid to enjoy a good cigar -- and you shouldn't be either. But you should be absolutely terrified at that thought of what Big Brother plans to next in its never-ending quest to control your life.

And it starts with a cigarette."

 

[spring007]

Realistic figures are, that healthcare-costs are overall LESS for smokers. Simply because they live so much shorter, that the costs of their 'sick' years disappear against the costs of otherwise, when not smoking, getting ten or fifteen years older - with all the healthcosts that come along with being elderly.
So it's cheaper for the government, healthcosts-wise, to make sure that people continue to smoke...
What should, but doesn't, weigh in are ethics...

Really?
I always thought that health costs for smokers will be high, especially here in the us. What I thought was that smoking => more health problems => more money spent also, smoking => more health problems => smokers will not be working at their optimum performance level => less productivity => lower gains...

correct me if I'm wrong...