• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

An economic and a social solution to the smoking problems

Status
Not open for further replies.
While smoking a cheap smuggled cigarette with my student-corridor neighbor, out of boredness we had a discussion about the social problems of smoking and the economic problems of having high taxes on cigarettes which has resulted in me coming up with a solution to the problems that we have today with smoking, and the solution is:

Since nicotine is a drug, and one that is quite harmful to our health, it should be banned and stopped from being sold as a commercial product in stores around the country and instead should be sold in government owned pharmacies as a controlled substance just like marijuana and other drugs.

In order to buy cigarettes this way, which will be sold in a very unappealing packaging to the young people, a simple white package just like any other headache tablets package, one must register himself in order to buy the cigarettes. After the registration one is able to buy a maximum of 10packs a week, this is to minimize the possibility of them being sold on the black market.

After a period of about 5 years of consuming the drug one risks to loose the free government paid dental insurance and after about 10 years risks loosing the the government health care/insurance for the lungs, heart and other organs that get directly affected from smoking.

This way we solve several problems including:

Smuggled cigarettes and the black market cigarettes; since cigarettes are no longer a commercial product it will be cheaper for the government to sell at a lower price, this way it will close down the gap for a black market, and most of the profit will go directly to the government, and which it can spend on the smokers future health problems.

The cool factor of smoking, it wont be any longer appealing to young people nor considered cool to stand outside a bar and smoke a pharmacy looking drug.

At the same time people are still free to consume the product, it would be cheaper too but it will be them who will at the end pay for the damages that they have brought to themselves and their healths and not the tax payer.

What do you think Gaf? good or bad idea? any improvements to the plan? any points that you disagree with? all constructive criticism is welcome.
 
Terrible idea.
Smokers are cheaper to society because they die earlier, and taxes on cigarettes right now pay for useful things.
 
I think the evolution of e-cigs are going to eliminate the need for regular cigs in a natural way. No government intervention will be needed.
 
hi government i have a 50 pack a day smoking addiction. thanks!

*walks outside pharmacy to elementary school*

a buck a smoke, kids!
 
Hari Seldon said:
I think the evolution of e-cigs are going to eliminate the need for regular cigs in a natural way. No government intervention will be needed.
Technology solves another problem. Hurrah!.
 
Smoking makes money. Just like alcohol, this shit won't go anywhere. The government doesn't want a solution to it. Well actually, here in the UK, they're trying their best to stop it. Even alcohol, I heard they're fighting to have ads for it removed.
 
News Bot said:
If you are dumb enough to smoke cigarettes like a twat you are not worth saving.

I hope you don't enjoy cakes or carbonated drinks you judgemental... ...person.

Smokers underpin the healthcare system in the UK, paying ÂŁ11 billion in tax and taking ÂŁ5 billion back. We pay for the bed of the non-smoker next to us too.
 
I think it's a great idea. We should do the same for caffeine which has many of the same effects, side effects, and addictive properties of nicotine. Take that Starbucks and Coca Cola.
 
Kabouter said:
Smokers are cheaper to society because they die earlier, and taxes on cigarettes right now pay for useful things.

Actually, I'd argue they don't die fast enough. They linger on with cancers of all kinds that require medical support. If they could make a cigarette that didn't give you long lasting diseases and just killed you dead after too much use, then I would agree with you.

OP, cigarettes will still look cool. Nobody thinks "Boy, that packaging is awesome!" Cigs just naturally look badass.
 
Nizar said:
Since nicotine is a drug, and one that is quite harmful to our health, it should be banned

There are other drugs that are harmful to your health. Virtually anything in sufficient quantities is harmful to your health. Fatty foods are harmful to your health. Where exactly does the banning stop?

What you are advocating - adding to the number of banned substances - is the exact opposite of what should be done. More things currently considered illicit drugs should be openly sold.

Your body is your property, your business. What you do to yourself is your own concern.

and stopped from being sold as a commercial product in stores around the country and instead should be sold in government owned pharmacies as a controlled substance just like marijuana and other drugs

So you want a government monopoly on cigarette selling. :rolleyes

After the registration one is able to buy a maximum of 10packs a week, this is to minimize the possibility of them being sold on the black market.

Not really how the black market works... :lol

After a period of about 5 years of consuming the drug one risks to loose the free government paid dental insurance and after about 10 years risks loosing the the government health care/insurance for the lungs, heart and other organs that get directly affected from smoking.

Well, fortuitously this isn't an issue in the United States, but you're basically nakedly advocating using socialized medicine as a weapon against personal liberty, one of my greatest concerns about such a thing. Nanny doesn't want you smoking - naughty, naughty.
 
SmokyDave said:
I hope you don't enjoy cakes or carbonated drinks you judgemental... ...person.

Smokers underpin the healthcare system in the UK, paying ÂŁ11 billion in tax and taking ÂŁ5 billion back. We pay for the bed of the non-smoker next to us too.

Amen.

As an ex-smoker I'd like to think I've paid more than my fair share of taxes and being told that I'm not worth saving makes me laugh.

If every smoker was to give up tomorrow, we'd be up shit creek.
 
JayDubya said:
Well, fortuitously this isn't an issue in the United States, but you're basically nakedly advocating using socialized medicine as a weapon against personal liberty, one of my greatest concerns about such a thing. Nanny doesn't want you smoking - naughty, naughty.

No one minds the nanny state until it turns on them.

On the private side, our employer has started charging more for health care benefits if one is a smoker. No real outcry. Would love to see them do the same thing to the obese - if you're over a certain BF%, pay up. Lawsuits galore.
 
malingenie said:
I gotta quit someday too. HAs anyone ever had any luck with e-cigs or anything like that?

Absolutely. I started using them just as a cheaper alternative than cigarettes. They helped me still get the nicotine and mimic the physical habit while going though the withdraw of all the other chemicals Marlboro adds to the tobacco.

After that withdraw, I noticed that even when I did crave the nicotine, it really wasn't hard at all to distract myself an eventually I just didn't need it anymore. One day while out, I lost my e-cig and just didn't bother getting a new one.
 
iapetus said:
I missed the evidence for passive cake-eating.

Oh, so we're assuming that every smoker is inconsiderate of non-smokers too?

See, if I took the inconsiderate approach I'd say "I paid for your hospital bed, I wanted to make sure you used it".

As it is, I don't even smoke in my own house so to avoid discomfort for guests.

But hey, I'm just a smoker, maybe someone should take me out the back and shoot me?

Also, I wasn't going to say it, despite wanting to, but...

J Tourettes said:
I missed the evidence for passive smoking.
 
PrivateWHudson said:
Absolutely. I started using them just as a cheaper alternative than cigarettes. They helped me still get the nicotine and mimic the physical habit while going though the withdraw of all the other chemicals Marlboro adds to the tobacco.

After that withdraw, I noticed that even when I did crave the nicotine, it really wasn't hard at all to distract myself an eventually I just didn't need it anymore. One day while out, I lost my e-cig and just didn't bother getting a new one.

That sounds great! I KNOW that my main driver is oral fixation, so if I can mimic the activity... well I want this. Where did you get your e-cigs?
 
J Tourettes said:
Amen.

As an ex-smoker I'd like to think I've paid more than my fair share of taxes and being told that I'm not worth saving makes me laugh.

If every smoker was to give up tomorrow, we'd be up shit creek.

I dunno, the logic that you're "paying your due" by smoking pretty much the most unhealthy (and disgusting) shit known to man is a pretty funny notion. Your choice if you want to, though. Still, if there were two cancer patients awaiting treatment in a small jurisdiction with limited ability to treat only one of them, I'd go with the one who didn't bring it upon themselves.

I missed the evidence for passive smoking.

Someone hasn't been reading.

life aint worth living without cigs

Why?

Would love to see them do the same thing to the obese - if you're over a certain BF%, pay up. Lawsuits galore.

Not a bad idea.


I don't particularly have any issue with someone who smokes like say, one or two a day. Anything over that loses any sympathy from me.
 
I enjoy smoking. I don't smoke around non smokers unless smokers are in the majority in the particular group I am in. And even then I attempt to have some discretion.
So if you have a problem with me being a smoker, to be blunt, you can go fuck yourself.
 
malingenie said:
I gotta quit someday too. HAs anyone ever had any luck with e-cigs or anything like that?

Yeah I smoke e-cigs, they are very nice. I don't use them as a device to quit, I just use it as a way to get sweet flavored nicotine. They are cheaper than regular cigs, and much healthier (not perfectly healthy, but not having tar removes a vast majority of the unhealthiness). Plus you don't stink when you smoke them.
 
Kastro said:
cause it's enjoyable.

At the expense of... your lungs/heart/throat/nerves/penis/testicles/sperm/skin? It certainly isn't the most enjoyable shit ever created. Marijuana still trumps it, with none of the ill-health. :lol
 
News Bot said:
At the expense of... your lungs/heart/throat/nerves/penis/testicles/sperm/skin? It certainly isn't the most enjoyable shit ever created. Marijuana still trumps it, with none of the ill-health. :lol

obviously i won't be so happy in the long term if i keep smoking but in the now I don't experience any of that.

i'm not crazy about weed.. just makes me feel stupid and it's more of a turn off to women folk in my experience. not that smoking can't be either.
 
Kastro said:
obviously i won't be so happy in the long term if i keep smoking but in the now I don't experience any of that.

i'm not crazy about weed.. just makes me feel stupid and it's more of a turn off to women folk in my experience. not that smoking can't be either.

Point taken. At least you don't turn a mere blind eye to it.
 
Kabouter said:
Terrible idea.
Smokers are cheaper to society because they die earlier, and taxes on cigarettes right now pay for useful things.

Tell that to all the smokers with COPD and Emphysema, who live into their 80's, wanting to die for the past 15 years of their life. Getting to exhausted from walking to their bathroom to even think about taking the shit they went on the long arduous journey for. Not being able to go outside for a walk, not being able to walk up a flight of stairs, not being able to take a stroll to the store or manage their own life anymore. Getting sick all the time, having to be on ventilators at night and wear air tanks during the day. All the while still sucking down a pack a day of the poison that is trying to slowly kill them, but can't quite do it yet.

I can't blame all older smokers. The ad-campaigns, the marketing blitz's and bullshit studies backing cigarettes for many years made it seem safe to smoke. But if you are young, and currently smoke, I actually feel pity for what you will become one day.
 
missbreedsiddx said:
I enjoy smoking. I don't smoke around non smokers unless smokers are in the majority in the particular group I am in. And even then I attempt to have some discretion.
So if you have a problem with me being a smoker, to be blunt, you can go fuck yourself.
Unless you NEVER smoke when there is at least one non-smoker, you are being unciviliced. Discretion ain't enough.
 
trineo_feo said:
Unless you NEVER smoke when there is at least one non-smoker, you are being unciviliced. Discretion ain't enough.

As a civilized person, you do realize that other adults can consent to the presence of a smoker around them, right?
 
Trax416 said:
. But if you are young, and currently smoke, I actually feel pity for what you will become one day.

it's not like not smoking can't lead to a miserable old life either, living in an old folks home playing scrabble.
 
Smokers cost more money than they generate to treat medically, at least here in Canada.

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

Don't have a more recent study, but I highly doubt the situation has magically reversed.

In the US, I assume that the situation is similar. Taxes on cigarettes do not make up for the drain that smoking has on society. The real issue is that the horrible and expensive smoking related illnesses don't stop if the sale of cigarettes stop, making the government extremely broke until all the smokers either get healthier or die.

Most people in Canada don't realize how expensive healthcare is, and will go to the doctor and demand tests at the slightest provocation. Health care was about 170 billion in 2008, or about 5,200 a person. People might want to calm down on going to the doctor when they have a cold (no antibiotics don't work on colds, no the doctor can't help you, yes this is increasing your taxes and yes how to deal with a cold is obvious).
 
trineo_feo said:
Unless you NEVER smoke when there is at least one non-smoker, you are being unciviliced. Discretion ain't enough.

Part of being a grown up is putting up with things you may not like. I hate the smell of weed, it makes me damn near nauseous and gives me a headache. But when the joints start getting passed around within my group of friends, I don't throw a bitch fit and ask them to do it elsewhere. People are too damn coddled these days.
 
iapetus said:
No, we're assuming that implying false equivalences is bad.

I won't pretend it's a 1:1 comparison but an awful lot of the arguments levelled against smokers could be levelled at (excessive) cake-eaters, car drivers etc etc.

Assuming the guy I replied to actually had any arguments other than "I'm a twat that deserves to die". I'd hope he did.
 
Kastro said:
it's not like not smoking can't lead to a miserable old life either, living in an old folks home playing scrabble.

Playing scrabble in an old-folks home sounds splendid. At least compared to not having the stamina to wipe my own ass, while coughing up thick brown goo and scrambling to get my air mask over my face so I have the Oxygen to do both at the same time without dying.
All this in the same old-folks home as my awesome scrabble game

It's up to you to guess which one is the more probable outcome.
 
Trax416 said:
Playing scrabble in an old-folks home sounds splendid. At least compared to not having the stamina to wipe my own ass, while coughing up thick brown goo and scrambling to get my air mask over my face so I have the Oxygen to do both at the same time without dying.
All this in the same old-folks home as my awesome scrabble game

you act like smoking is the only way to get cancer.
 
missbreedsiddx said:
Part of being a grown up is putting up with things you may not like. I hate the smell of weed, it makes me damn near nauseous and gives me a headache. But when the joints start getting passed around within my group of friends, I don't throw a bitch fit and ask them to do it elsewhere. People are too damn coddled these days.
Part of being a grown is not doing things that are inconsiderate of others.

No one should have to put with someone else polluting the air they breathe.
 
You know, I can't stand smoke, gives me headaches immediately, but this idea is horrible. Banning it in indoor public spaces? I'm ok with that. There have been many times I wanted to be away from smoke in a public space and couldn't be, unfortunately. But seriously, when it start taking it too far it's just a bad idea.

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

Wow, that is the biggest bullshit figure I've ever seen. Seriously? $10.5 billion due to lost future income? So they're counting the money these people would have made if they haven't died, but not counting the costs of future government pension/retirement plans, healthcare costs that are much higher for aged populations, and in general they're counting dollars that haven't even actually been made yet? Worker absenteeism? This is just the worst :lol

Actual costs: $2.5 Billion (although this probably isn't even real, because since smokers die early they end up costing the government less overall as they collect for a shorter duration) + $1.5 Billion + $0.08 Billion = $4.08 Billion. That gives over a $3 Billion net gain from smokers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom