Don’t think that’s the problem.

Problem is low penalties in the law coupled with lenient judges.

Essentially there is no risk to getting caught cigarette smuggling other than loss of stock.

The state needs to treat them with like they are garlic smugglers and throw away the key

garlic smugglers ?

Perhaps you missed the recent story Daithi about the garlic smuggler who has given six years in prison.

Fat people, like smokers, have a variety of health problems caused by their actions. As well as getting conditions related to their obesity, simple things like providing basic nursing care are much harder and more expensive for fat people.

No I don’t think fat people, or smokers, should be put down. We should however be changing their behaviour so they stop getting fatter, and stop smoking.

It’s glandular….

Given smoking related health issues are costing the government more then tax on them brings in any action that causes people to stop smoking (stats prove price is a factor) is a good thing.

Another 20-30 years and they;ll likely be banned in this country anyway…with luck.

Banned like cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroine. Great. Problem solved.

Earlier this year, Ireland’s Office of Revenue Commissioners made a shock discovery, albeit one which sounds slightly dull when put in the language of economics. They found that the price elasticity of cigarettes in Ireland is -3.6, which is to say that a 10% increase in price reduces sales by 36%. This came as a surprise because cigarettes—being notoriously addictive—are usually thought to have a consumption elasticity of less than -1.0, whereas a price elasticity of -3.6 implies that smokers are more price sensitive than people who buy jewellery, DVDs and toothpicks. This struck them as rather counterintuitive, to say the least.
Something was clearly up, and what had been going up was smuggling. Since 2002, the price of cigarettes has risen by 40% in real terms to 8.55 euros a pack and the black market has swollen accordingly. The -3.6 price elasticity figure only took into account legal sales, which have indeed declined significantly. The number of people smoking, however, has not. Smuggled snouts and privately imported baccy have made up the difference.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/laffer-curve-sighted-in-ireland

POWER has gone to Mr. Reillys head. He has broken his ‘Oath of Hippocrates’ in judging smokers with disdain.

Studies have shown that the leading cause of increased taxation is the Government. Perhaps we should ban them too….

Or it means more money will be pilfered out of mommys handbag to pay for them..

Or how about we raise the tax and put the extra revenue raised towards easing the load smokers put on our healthcare system.

A start might be to use the tax take on cigarettes to pay for some of the health costs directly.

Too Trueleft, what about the relief that smokers give to the system by not living to a great age?

Unfortunately for the healthcare system, smokers may die younger than others but they still live to be quite elderly. Along the way they consume health resources far in excess of others.

There’s many variables to consider for that argument Damocles. Whats not in doubt is that if that person is going to die early of a smoking related illness anyways than the cost to the system will be subsidized by the extra tax they paid on the cigarettes.

But, please, explain the point further as there’s good arguments from both perspectives.

@ Paul Anthony.. You are correct…. I’m not a smoker, I never was, my mom died young & was a smoker but I HATE all these rules & regulations that the government always want to impose on the people..it’s banned in the pubs& restaurants which is great… now they might be banning it in cars where there are children present, fair enough… But let people make up their own minds about their own health and if they want to stop or not… otherwise what’s next????

This healthcare argument seems to have holes alllllll over it.

Can someone who uses that argument give a COMPREHENSIVE and research based backing to it? I’d like to see that.

By comprehensive, I mean I’d like to hear:
What is the cost to healthcare?
What is the cost to the exchequer taking all into account?
What revenue does the exchequer make?

It’s a very populous thing to say that smoking is bad, that it costs etc… but very little thought going into these points.

I agree Tomy. I can find out how much is raised by tobacco, but i can’t find any conclusive figures as regards to how much it costs the healthcare system.

Now i know there is a cost to the healthcare system, i’m not naive enough to believe otherwise, But i’d love to know how much it does cost so we can get rid of the general assumptions that are out there already.

Work out the cost of a night in hospital. Smokers don’t come close to covering the cost over their lifespan.

If smokers don’t come close to covering it, then neither do non-smokers.

According to the HSE the average cost of a hospital bed is €331,785 per year or €909 per bed day. Assuming that somebody pays €5 in tax on 20 cigarettes every day, then that comes to €1,825. So somebody who smoked for 20 years would have paid €36,500 in taxes, that would mean 40 days in public hospital bed.

I’m not a smoker but increasing taxation will only hurt the less well off, not really the basis of a fairer society.

Pierce – thank you for the math there – I genuinely appreciate the effort given that numbers get thrown around so much on this and other issues.

Eoghan – I can only assume that you are researching the cost v revenue debate while you continue to avoid a true and honest look at smoking?

30y of smoking covers 40 extra days in hospital over a lifetime, or 10 in ICU.

So not even close to the excess burden caused by the smoking.

First Eoghan – maybe you should read the post….
Pierce’s math was on 20 years not 30.

And your comment once again states your opinion as fact.

What is average hospital stay in lifetime for a smoker? How many nights in ICU? Where are you getting this info from?

Are you ever going to support your claims with facts?

Eoghan, so how much extra does a smoker cost the Health Services? Maybe you are correct, but could you please supply some information, facts and figures.

“pilfered by fine gael” spoken like a true fianna fail supporter, only thing is you are forgetting who signed the bank guarantee papers, none other than fianna fail, and I’m not a supporter of any particular political party, I remain neutral. fine gael are simply trying to clean up the mess left by the previous government, I blame Brian cowen for everything wrong in this state at the moment, he was minister for finance before he was taoiseach, he made the decisions which have us where we are today, Enda Kenny and co are jus t fulfilling contracts which this state signed ever before fine gael were in power.

Oh noes, my cover has been blown. All my posts about how fianna fail cronyism and galway tent politics had wrecked our economy and how Brian Lenihan had inflicted the greatest injustice on our people in the history of our state to protect his golden circle friends have been for nothing. I’m really a me feiner fianna fail gombeen.

Well done. When I think of the years wasted where you could have been uncovering the identities of international spies and terrorist cells…..

Oh, by the way, I don’t have any party affiliation, and consider fianna fail and fine gael to be two cheeks of the same corrupt arse. Their supporters being the bit in between.

Anything else.

just admit you were wrong in your last comment and let that be that

The only person demonstrably wrong around here is you for claiming I was a fianna fail supporter Brian.

There wouldn’t be any extra money. Read Sean O’Keeffe’s excellent reply above and you’ll see why.

Increase in taxes will drive people to black market, not reduce smoking. This will support the black market rather than provide anything extra to exchequer or reduce numbers smoking.

How was he wrong Brian? He doesn’t want anymore of our taxes to be used to bail out the bankers. The fact fianna fail were in power when the mess was made doesn’t excuse the fact fine Gael aren’t punishing the people who made the mess but punishing the general public with more and higher taxes instead.

Here’s some figures for you. I found a report on the tobacco market that was published in february of 2011. It was put together by the Revenue services.
Here’s the link to the report itself http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

I’ll post some of it here:

“It is recognised that the consumption of untaxed cigarettes has become an increasingly important issue. Revenue estimates that currently around 20 per cent of cigarettes consumed in Ireland are not Irish taxed and this figure has been increasing in recent years. It is driven by several factors but the main cause is the price differential between cigarettes on the Irish market and elsewhere. ”

“Increasing the taxation of cigarettes in Ireland no longer carries the combined benefits of better public health and higher revenue for the public finances that would have arisen from such increases in the past. At the very least, these benefits are severely weakened by the substitution of untaxed for taxed consumption. This suggests that taxation increases are no longer the optimum tool for reducing smoking in Ireland. This is further supported by the significance in the model results of the effect of the smoking ban. Such non-price measures are shown to reduce taxed consumption and do not carry the same incentive to switch to untaxed cigarettes as
higher rates of taxation

“tobacco has consistently been a significant source of excise revenue, with over €1bn paid in each year from 2000 onwards. VAT is also paid on tobacco consumption……Cigarettes are the largest contributor to excise revenue from tobacco. For example, in 2008 excise revenue from cigarettes was €1,132 million while revenue from other tobacco products (cigars and cut tobacco mainly) was €39 million.

let’s be reasonable here, your comment did slate fine gael, a primary school child understands that the general consensus when someone slates one political party, is that said person is in favour of parties main political opponents. if you read my original comment, I stated, “spoken LIKE a true fianna fail supporter”, I did NOT state “spoken AS a true fianna fail supporter”, which would have suggested I was implying you are affiliated with them, so there again you are wrong. I am thinking the reason you have not logged in with your own name is that you are wrong a lot, and therefore do not wish to be known. I am no longer going to debate this issue with you, so respond if you like, there will be no further response from myself, regardless of how much you try to goad me into responding.

Not really Brian. I’m a left wing guy who slates both right wing parties for what they’ve done and are doing to our country. Your thinking is exactly the same thought process that drove people from voting for one right wing party to another right wing party in the expectation of change, when all they got was fianna fail in cheap suits.

We don’t have to pay for the exorbitant healthcare needs of spitters.

Every GP visit, every nursing check, every ward round spent on self-inflicted smoking-related illness is taken away from dementia patients, sick children, accident victims etc.

Smoking is disgusting in itself and in its consequences. Smokers rights my arse.

Sorry but I don’t think there should be any idea of smokers’ rights specifically.

I do think that people overall should be able to chose to smoke or not.

I look forward to Eoghan’s outline of what the health issue is exactly……

I would again like to repeat that 2000 hospital beds everynight taken up due to alcohol related problems.

We are talking about tackling obesity through financial disincentives, on a regular basis.

The same shower trot out the tired old “boo hiss nanny state” nonsense every time.

Fat people are the next avoidable healthcare crisis we’ll be forced to deal with.

And in the meantime Eoghan you’re in favour of limiting personal freedoms…. When will you be setting up your extreme right-wing political party?!

I think this government would love to ban smoking altogether if they had the chance but unfortunately the revenue for cigarettes in this country is too much to miss.

Exactly. My mates are just back from the continent where a 50g pouch of rolling tobacco is €6. Here, a 25g pouch of the same brand is €9.10.

That’s €3.10 more for half as much.

Read that again in case it didn’t sink in the first time,
Ireland: 25g golden Virginia = €9.10
Mainland EU: 50g golden virginia = €6

Presumably mainland European countries have smokers draining their health service too, yet their tobacco is less than half the price of ours, and this clown wants to raise it by another 66%!

Makes taking a weekend break overseas to buy tobacco a financially sound exercise.. Is he trying to boost tourism revenue for other EU countries or something??

If they go up to €20 finbar, the smugglers won’t be selling them for €4 anymore.

That’s a REALLY solid argument for what Too True?!

Its not an argument for or against anything, merely an observation. If the price of the legal goods doubles it is unlikely that the price of the illegal goods will not increase also.

legally you can bring in to the country 3 sleeves(600)cigarets. in some of the EU countries pack of cigarets would cost …Marlboro red 3.20eur, Marlboro light 3.10 etc. meaning 600 cigarets would cost around 93-96 Eur. with low budget airlines you can get return tickets around 70 Eur it just makes me think that with 163 Eur for weekend away
+ fags isn’t to bad and i could do it twice in month, instead paying out 150 Eur for 200 cigarets….

I agree with you Will. But making tobacco illegal would create mass outrage and would lead to major job losses. It is legal and to make it illegal would cause a massive protest. Tobacco farmers aren’t drug growers and if tobacco was made illegal can you imagine the financial and political implications involved.

I agree with you Brendan, I actually wouldn’t want the tobacco industry shut down as I think its people’s choice to smoke or not. But when they claim they are increasing the tax to try get people to quit it annoys me as it is disingenuous. I am more in favour of all drugs being legal versus none at all, its people’s choice and the money for them might as well be contributing to society as opposed criminals.

Again it would need to be heavily regulated in terms of advertising and sale to try and manage abuse similar to alcohol, certain hours, establishments, drug testing on the roads etc.

Well I don’t think that legalizing all drugs would be a solution. How can a government legalize drugs? It’s impossible! A plan for that would never work; and if it was regulated there would still be a black market. Nicotine does not alter the mind or make people insane but it’s highly addictive and destroys a person’s body. Caffeine is like nicotine too but a lot less addictive.
I have an issue with non smokers saying cigarettes should have the price hiked. I think fast food and red meat should have the price hiked as they are also dangerous for health. I am pretty much a vegetarian and I am a good eater but I hate fast food and I believe it should be heavily taxed. Minister O’Reilly would definately not agree with that he would lose too many votes as who has a perfectly healthy diet in this country when we have a very high obesity rate!

I suppose not all drugs but some of them, also alcohol affects your mental state as well as your health and destroys peoples lives far beyond their health if taken in excess, it is also extremely addictive. If a drug like this is legal why not some others.

Also there is a black market for everything, if you want to buy a toaster illegally you can but it legitimize the market to a degree, revenue can be gained from it.

And its a bit hypocritical of you to say you don’t like non-smokers saying the price should be hiked when you admitted to being a non red meat or fast food eater and are calling for a price hike of those things. I’m not disagreeing with you but its still hypocritical.

What I was saying was Will or I meant to say was that if they hike the price of cigs then why not hike the price of red meat and fast food which is also dangerous for your health. I probably put it forward in the wrong way.

No I understand your point and as a red meat and fast food eater I agree with you. What I am saying is its fine for anyone to make this claim whether they indulge in it or not. I am not a smoker so it is easy for me to call for a hike because it won’t affect me, the same is true of you and fast food.

However if I can’t call for a hike in cigarette prices because I don’t smoke then you cannot look for the same hike of red meat and fast food, based off your logic above and you made this call in your original comment.

But its semantics as we seem to be in relative agreement on this point.

Yes you do make sense. Many carcinogens are available in foods on the market yet smoking is the most in your face and most socially unacceptable! Have you looked at the E numbers used in foods in Ireland. Many are suspected carcinogens and many others cause problems such as allergies. Tobacco smoke is by far the worst know cause of allergies and health problems but still obesity and over indulgence is shoved under the carpet in my opinion and nothing is being done about it.

I agree again, obesity is a huge problem, one I struggle with personally. I am not morbidly obese but I am over weight and struggle to maintain my weight.

It is a huge problem in Ireland and world-wide. I have been living in the US for a while and its much worse over here, and its much harder to to shop for fresh fruit and veg, especially if you are on a lower income. Walmart do not have anything fresh including meat its all frozen processed stuff. unless its a super-Walmart!

Tesco is not high quality but they still have it and its cheap as it gets really, but is States there’s no option for it.

Red meat in its self is not unhealthy. Lean red meat cooked and consumed correctly is in fact good for you and helps with your body’s development.
Everything is unhealthy if not moderated, you can destroy your body by eating to much of certian healthy veg (an extream example) its not up to the goverment to tell us what to eat drink and inhale. It is up to the induvidual. I do belive however that it is the governents responsibility to educate people to the dangers of smokeing eating fatty foods and drinking ect.
Increasing cig prices is a stopgap mesure, tht should be used to fund further education and helping people quit.

I agree with you Jam Jam, the taxes should be put to the health cost in hospitals too for these things, lung cancer treatment and research, wellness programs and healthly eating initatives.

Also I think similar to the way insurance companies offer these, the every citizen should have a medical card and cost of public health care should be affected by how healthy you live. I often wonder if these ideas are put to the government and if so are they dismissed because of the cost to initiate them or are we missing something in the picture.

They educated kids at school about it in my day Robbi, and judging by your profile pic I’m a fair bit older than you.

Have they stopped?

I totally agree, it may be society’s drug of choice but sooner or later this country needs to have a look at it’s relationship with alcohol.

Attacking alcohol pricing doesn’t make sense. The average smoker has significant, costly health problems caused entirely by their smoking.

The average drinker does not.

Smoking is harmful to all those who partake, and to the society lumbered with looking after them.

Tobacco should be banned outright. It won’t be, so the next best alternative is to make it prohibitively expensive.

Tobacco should be banned outright. It won’t be, so the next best alternative is to make it prohibitively expensive.

Sorry but that is not a solution. It drives people to the black market. And I’d like to hear what you believe those costs you referred to are and who these costs are to?

Eoghan

Alcohol and Costs

•Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 – that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland
•Treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases cost the healthcare system an estimated €1.2 billion – around 8.5% of the total annual healthcare budget
•Each night, 2,000 hospital beds are occupied for alcohol-related reasons
•10% of all general in-patient hospital costs, 7% of GP costs and up to 30% of emergency department costs are alcohol-related
•An estimated €1.2 billion of tax payers’ money is spent on dealing with alcohol-related crime including violence and vandalism
•An estimated €527 million is lost on alcohol-related absenteeism and accidents in the work place
•Beyond the immeasurable human costs, each fatal car collision is estimated to cost the state €3 million. In 2007, alcohol-related road collisions cost an estimated €526 million
•A 30% reduction in alcohol-related harm would save taxpayers an estimated €1 billion a year, according to the Chief Medical Officer of Ireland

Pay particular note to the 2000 hospital beds that are unavailable every day due to alcohol related illnesses.

For more informaton – http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

hahah well said Adam. I just made the exact point.

And if people continue to smoke they will still pay for them in the black market because they will still be a lot cheaper than taxed sources. An increase in price on the black market does not drive people away from smoking – an increase in the taxed source drives people to the black market or encourages them to buy when off on holidays.

At the right time of year you could get very cheap flights to Europe somewhere, buy a legally acceptable amount of cigarettes and come home with them – all while having a nice holiday too.

If you closed the borders completely your argument might work but again, it’s short-sighted.

extra holidays to stack up on cheap fags….hahahahahha. now there’s failed economics if i ever seen it.. hahhaha.

Nope – not extra, just do it while away. There you go, taxes to Ireland denied.

If you want to concentrate on that as “failed economics” fair enough – but if you were willing to look at your own points you’d see failed economics there too.

i dont think you smoke tony.. you dont go on holidays to stack up on fags for the year. (which is not possible unless you go on 24 holidays a year) you have an addiction you smoke everyday. you need a constant regular supply. its just not worth the hassle. you will either pay the premium price face procescution for breaking the law when buying black market fags or just call it a day and give them up.

You’re right – I gave them up a month ago after about 4 years of smoking.

Let me explain why it is that I don’t believe what you’re suggesting will work:
raised prices will have 3 main effects in my opinion – send people to the black market, reduce revenues, have people reduce or quit.
I don’t believe that that many people will quit. The smoking rate in Ireland had dropped to remain stubbornly at 29% and has risen in recent years.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/smoking-rate-soars-up-to-one-third-despite-ban-1923543.html

A broader approach is needed – if people have the option to go to the black market then many will. Increasing prices by itself is pointless without being stronger on smuggling.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0131/1224310999138.html

It all depends on how much you smoke.

On the mainland a 50g pouch of rolling tobacco is €6 in the shop. A dozen in a pack is going to be a maximum of €72, and most likely less.

A 25g pack of the same brand here is €9.10. This is only half of a 50g pouch, so if we factor that in, a 50g pouch over here would cost €18.20.
A dozen of those is €218.40.
Difference between the two = €146.40

Now, let’s factor in the 66% tax increase.
A dozen 50g pouches on the mainland = €72
The equivalent in same brand in Ireland = €364
Difference = €292

If you have a friend to stay with for the weekend, what you save on smokes could well pay for your time away.. Hell, you could probably even get the flights and a cheap hostel for less than half that..
How exactly would going overseas to pick up smokes be false economy in that case?

(maths is not my strong point, if I have miscalculated the 66% as I literally just added 2/3, please correct me)

as i mentioned above…
legally you can bring in to the country 3 sleeves(600)cigarets. in some of the EU countries pack of cigarets would cost …Marlboro red 3.20eur, Marlboro light 3.10 etc. meaning 600 cigarets would cost around 93-96 Eur. with low budget airlines you can get return tickets around 70 Eur it just makes me think that with 163 Eur spent on weekend away and fags isn’t to bad. Could do it twice in month, instead forking out 150 Eur for 200 cigarets….

It doesnt take away the right to do anything, you still have the right to throw away your money if you want to. And as i said, you’ll still be paying more for the illegal ones too

Paying more on an untaxed black market product is still cheaper than buying taxed ones – this is an non-argument

Tony with all your non points.. you fail to realise MOst people are not willing to break the law. i cant see my gran going down to Thomas St to get 20 Polish fags just coz she saves a €5… the die hards will continue . the dole hounds/students/poor but most people will be faced with either very high priced cigs or the ooppurtunity to give them up…. its a no brainer.

Problem solved Raf? So if a fifty year old father of 2 turns up at a&e unable to breathe properly or coughing up blood he’s turned away if he admits to being a smoker. Sorry Mr Murphy, our tests show you are a smoker, go home and die. Any other solutions for our countries many problems?

G’way will you Killian – that’s not what he said at all.

In addressing your point Raf – can you outline what these costs are? and how is it that smokers are not apparently not already paying their way for healthcare?

Public healthcare should not be covering smokers diseases. Problem solved”
. I presume you can understand what that means you idiot. It means he thinks people with lung cancer shouldn’t get treatment if they were ever a smoker, unless they can cover the costs which 95% of people can’t.

Killian, come on now – resorting to name calling?

I’ve asked my questions for a reason – I think you are jumping to conclusions. I’d just like an answer because I’d like to understand Raf’s take on the situation.

So you’d like to hear more about raf’s solution. Smokers diseases like heart disease, lung cancer and many other not as serious ones like lip and throat cancer, problems with blood circulation. All that can be blamed on smoking shouldn’t be covered by public healthcare. I don’t smoke but I wouldn’t expect a hospital to turn anyone away with any problem because they smoked and “brought it on themselves”.

Let’s say there is a small village where all homeowners chip in to a pool in case someone’s house is damaged by unforeseen circumstances. It is a sort of insurance system.

Now, some homeowners damage their houses because of their carelessness, let’s say by throwing mad parties, some deliberately. They get the same payout from the pool as the other guys who make sure their houses are kept in good shape.

Would you say the system is unfair to those who take care about their houses and that those who keep consciously damaging their houses are technically robbing their peers?

The above system is exactly what public healthcare is. Everyone chips in in case of a health misfortune. Some just go and make themselves sick for momentary pleasure. Not only are they harming themselves, they literally rip off those who pay and keep themselves from harm if they can.

I know excluding smoking-induced illnesses from healthcare would be a precedence opening a Pandora’s box of consequences, e.g. “should obese people be covered?”, “what about people harmed in self-inflicted accidents, e.g. sports?”

I don’t propose a perfect system, just another perspective to look at the issue.

You come up with some beauts raf, your “above system” is exactly the same as public healthcare.. That statement really did make me lol.

No insurance would cover a house whose owner keeps setting it on fire. They would go out of business.

I’m guessing you need glasses because you’re shortsighted David – just like your views on this topic?

you have a beard. the end. thank you. move along.

In the interests of discussing the topic rather than heading towards flaming would you care to expand on your original point?

P.S. I also have a full head of hair.

i have one word for you. wig.

I return to my previous post -

“In the interests of discussing the topic rather than heading towards flaming would you care to expand on your original point?”

So does alcohol!

@Ann – ok, I’m sure we’ve all seen you make that point – but the story is about cigarettes……

What is heathcare and copd? Thank you.

Thats like saying only people who pay road tax are allowed use the road, and the likes of cyclists should not be allowed because they don’t.

The money that the government collect is used for many things, included the health service. So therefore somkers ARE paying for healthcare. Drinkers are also a drain on the health system but i don’t see them planning on massively raising the price on them either.

The black market has been brought up many times, as it should be. And if cigarettes are banned, what is the government going to do to cover the black hole in finances that will left when cigarettes are gone? What about the jobs that will be lost? We are struggling to create jobs as it is, and already struggling to cover banks and everything else as it is, so they’ll either have to reduce services because they can’t afford it, or start raising taxes to cover the loss.

I’ll ask you what I asked someone else:
I’d like to hear what you believe those costs you referred to are and who these costs are to?

“…..in 2008 excise revenue from cigarettes was €1,132 million while revenue from other tobacco products (cigars and cut tobacco mainly) was €39 million.”

And thats from the revenue. It can be found on their site http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf.

So thats a total of €1,171 million raised in 2008 from tobacco sales. Alot of money to spend in Hospital services and other areas.

If smoking is banned, where are we going to get that kind of money from?

Damien – that’s not a comprehensive answer – it takes no account of the cost of healthcare. While a lot of money is taken in through smoking it doesn’t tell the whole story to just say “it takes in loads”.

As regards how much it costs of healthcare, that will vary. A search throws up a whole different variety of answers so you can pick and choose. But i can show you how much tobacco sales are, as i have shown

“According to Aspect, an EU commissioned report there is very little information on the direct and indirect costs of smoking in Europe. Some estimates are available for individual countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Iceland and the Uk but they each estimate using different methodology, which makes comparisons difficult”

VS.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0327.pdf

That still says nothing really.
Surely the argument should be more about the comparison of revenue vs cost rather than just revenue?

(to say nothing of the human cost – I’m simply sticking to what has been argued by many here.)

Well i’m going by the figures i find, not on what other people say. If i’m shown figures to prove otherwise, then great i would have been proven wrong. Until then im sticking with what i can find.

The way i see it, if they are going to ban smoking, then fine. I just hope they are going to have a back up plan to work with a large hole in their finances, which WILL have an affect on EVERYONE, not just the smokers.

It will affect Hospitals, small business’s that rely on people coming in to get their smokes and other bits and pieces, not to mention a major increase in smuggling, with cheaper, far more dangerous cigarettes then what we have already.

Prohibition in the States didn’t work when that happened, we do the same to cigarettes, then the same will happen here.

Right, I probably should clarify my points I made earlier, I was on the phone.

Firstly what I am proposing is that smokers fund their own healthcare for smoking related disease. We can all be adult about it and say people should have the freedom to smoke and do what they like, but why should the state fund those who ignore the blatant health risks towards smoking? A health tax, funded of let’s say 1 euro per packet of 20 cigarettes payable directly to the HSE. There is a significant chance that long term smokers will get a smoking related illness at some point of their life. So why shouldn’t they pay directly for that care? Rather then draining the general hospital budgets?

@Ian, healthcare, well, call it the GMS scheme, or health insurance or what have you. The care you revive from a medical professional. COPD is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long term illness common in life long smokers which results in lower lung capacity. Have a google of it if you are unsure, wiki has a good article on it.

@Damien, firstly, we don’t have “road tax” we have motor tax, a tax on well, an engine in a vehicle. Cyclists don’t have engines in the traditional sense. Hospital budgets are already strained as it is, further tax on tobacco could help alleviate this.

Tobacco brings in about €1.2bn a year – if this isn’t going into healthcare then why isn’t it?

And if people are paying their own health insurance then they are getting loaded according to their habit too – so what is the true cost to the exchequer?

Maybe we should be looking at this as cost to the exchequer?
There is a revenue take from smoking, there is a cost to healthcare too, health insurance offsets some of this cost too surely and with shorter lifespans smokers are arguably less of a “drain” on the state as non-smokers during retirement?

This may be a cold way of looking at it, but that’s the tone of the OP.

“Hospital budgets are already strained as it is, further tax on tobacco could help alleviate this.”

Then why just target smokers, it’s not just smokers in the health system. EVERYONE should share the burden. Also why not go through the entire health service and find out WHY it is struggling. P*ss poor management and wasting of money is alot to due with it struggling, not smokers.

Key Facts

•Smoking is estimated to be the cause of approximately 7,000 deaths in Ireland each year, chiefly by illnesses such as lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and emphysema (Department of Health and Children).

•Around 30% of all cancer deaths in Ireland are attributed to smoking.

•90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking (Department of Health and Children)

•It costs the State €1 billion per year to provide health services for smokers (Department of Health and Children)

•On the 29th March 2004, under provisions in the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts 2002 and 2004, enclosed workplaces became smoke-free in the Republic of Ireland.

•94% of all workplaces inspected under the National Tobacco Control Inspection Programme are smoke-free. (Office of Tobacco Control, 2005:4)

•98% of people feel that the smoke-free law is a success (Office of Tobacco Control, 2005:4)

•Air quality in pubs has improved dramatically since the introduction of the smoke-free law (Office of Tobacco Control, 2005:4)

•Levels of carbon monoxide have decreased by 45% in non-smoking bar workers since the introduction of the smoking ban.
(Office of Tobacco Control, 2005:4)

•People are usually underage when they become addicted to nicotine (Report of the Tobacco Free Policy Review Group, 2000:23).

•By 2030, tobacco is expected to be the single biggest cause of death worldwide, accounting for about 10 million deaths per year (World Bank, 1999).

•Tobacco is one of the greatest causes of preventable and premature deaths in human history.

•Price is a key factor in reducing the numbers who smoke (World Bank, 1999).

•On 1st July 2009 new legislation came into place prohibiting all point of sale advertising in retail outlets and the storage of tobacco products out of sight of the customer

For more information see Ash.ie http://www.ash.ie/Resources/Resources/Key_Facts.html

So Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 – that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland.

•It costs the State €1 billion per year to provide health services for smokers according to ASH.

I always think the cost part of the argument is absolute rubbish.

Sticking to cost:
– Revenue take is about €1.2bn/yr
– 8-15% is the percentage of health budget which is put towards dealing with tobacco related illness (most of the time, people just put a figure on this which is greater than the revenue take – that’s what bothers me about the cost element of the discussion)
- 7-8 years is the number of years that the tax payer doesn’t have to support those who die early from their own bad habits

So, at the moment there is no accurate indicator of how much tobacco actually costs or indeed whether it is cost neutral (which it could actually be), rendering it a moot point for now.

In the meantime, ideas like this – to raise taxes in the guise of trying to stop people smoking is an absolute lie.

Completely agree with you, but the problem is that most people are only interested in the “cost to the health system” and not with the amount of revenue tobacco products create. Then when you mention the cost to the exchequer relating to alcohol consumption, people dont want to know or refuse to accept the facts.

Full of assumptions there Dave. Many of them your opinion stated as fact. If we’re depending on the likes of this for health and economic policy then we’re banjaxed even more than we are right now.

Can you still get cheap cigs in Moore Street? Crikey, if only i’d known….

The price? That was the conclusion? If the law was being enforced then kids wouldn’t be able to buy cigarettes even if they were €2 per pack.

There is an optimum price for cigarettes – just on the edge of the price that makes people decide to go to the black market. It’s at this point that you get the taxes which can maximise revenue. Below this price and it’s pretty much promoting the product.

If this is the report: http://www.utoronto.ca/chp/download/RptsandPresents/youthsmoking.pdf then my interpretation is certainly different from yours on what the main point is.

This study was done while event sponsorship from tobacco companies was allowed. This by itself is significant. It also mentions that 30% of infrequent smokers and 59% of frequent smokers got their cigarettes at a store despite the fact that 19 was the age required to do so legally.

yep Simple as that it is :)…. and young people who are smokers and find it hard to quit( students as example, or young professionals would find yet another reason amongst many of them to leave from country… to other more tolerant and with better salaries and job opportunities…

Actually – The companies will make less because of decreasing consumption

The only gain here is Tax from a government perspective and a lucrative black market economy.

Never mind that, imagine all the money the government is going to lose in lost tax and duty if tobacco is banned.

Money that will be taken out of the economy, that they will then have to find somewhere else. Which means one of three things:

1) A reduction in services due to lack of money caused by banning tobacco
2) Major hike in taxes to balance out the books caused by banning tobacco
3) Combination of both to recover money caused by banning tobacco.

From a purely moral perspective, whether people’s suffering is financially advantageous to the government shouldn’t be a consideration.

From a purely practical perspective, smoking is a net loss maker for the government as it pays out more money in treating smoking related illnesses than it collects in smoking.

Peter, where are your figures to show that? Or are you just assuming?

Your argument is totally ridiculous! If you’re saying that the cost of smoking should be increased (again!) because it causes health problems, why not bring the price of food up because obesity. The government needs to think of a way to raise revenue, while also realizing that smokers are not rich (and many keep healthier than a lot of non-smokers). It’s not fair to take out of already decimated pockets from one demographic on your argument.

Because food is a necessity and you can eat healthy. You cannot smoke nicotine healthy.

to Too Trueleft….. you can coos to eat healthy, still everyone wont choose healthy diet ( even tough we all have heard about how bad certain food croup’s are .. therefore we have problems with obesity. same with smokers(i am smoker me self) you can choose to smoke or not….
so it is down for individual decisions.