The Surgeon General has determined that smoking is hazardous to your health...

I await the inevitable "on the other hand" reply...

:eyes:


http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=209

August 2006

The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that adopting smokefree workplace policies is a wise business decision. The results of all credible peer-reviewed studies show that smokefree policies and regulations do not have a negative impact on business revenues. Establishing smokefree workplaces is the simplest and most cost effective way to improve worker and business health.1

PROFITABILITY

* The Society of Actuaries has determined that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. economy roughly $10 billion a year: $5 billion in estimated medical costs associated with secondhand smoke exposure, and another $4.6 billion in lost wages. This estimate does not include youth exposure to secondhand smoke.2

* If all workplaces were to implement 100% smokefree policies, the reduction in heart attack rates due to exposure to secondhand smoke would save the United States $49 million in direct medical savings within the first year alone. Savings would increase over time.3

* Smokefree laws add value to establishments. Restaurants in smokefree cities have a higher market value at resale (an average of 16% higher) than comparable restaurants located in smoke-filled cities.4

ABSENTEEISM AND LOST PRODUCTIVITY

* The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that smokefree workplace policies lead to less smoking among workers and the elimination of secondhand smoke exposure, thus creating a healthier workforce.

* Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke cost $92 billion in productivity losses annually, according to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.5

* Smokers, on average, miss 6.16 days of work per year due to sickness (including smoking related acute and chronic conditions), compared to nonsmokers, who miss 3.86 days of work per year.6

* In a study of health care utilization in 20,831 employees of a single, large employer, employees who smoked had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs. 76), had a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days), and made six more visits to health care facilities per year than nonsmoking employees.7

* A national study based on American Productivity Audit data of the U.S. workforce found that tobacco use was one of the greatest variables observed when determining worker lost production time (LPT)-greater than alcohol consumption, family emergencies, age, or education. The study reported that LPT increased in relation to the amount smoked; LPT estimates for workers who reported smoking one pack of cigarettes per day or more was 75% higher than that observed for nonsmoking and ex-smoking workers. In addition, employees who smoked had approximately two times more lost production time per week than workers who never smoked, a cost equivalent of roughly $27 billion in productivity losses for employers.8

* The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment estimated that in 1990 lost economic productivity from disability and premature mortality caused by smoking was $47 billion.9

* The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) puts a $3,391 price tag on each employee who smokes: $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures.10 In addition, estimated costs associated with secondhand smoke's effects on nonsmokers can add up to $490 per smoker per year.11,12

* Smokefree air will save Scotland £4.2 billion ($7.9 billion) a year, according to a study conducted by Aberdeen University, assessing the costs and savings involved in the Scottish Executive's proposed bill that would make most enclosed public places in the country 100% smokefree. The report estimates that £1.9 billion ($3.9 billion) of the savings would be in productivity gains, reduced sickness absences, savings on National Health Service treatment and reduced cleaning and decorating costs.13

similar stats on obesity and alcoholism???

And race-car driving..

:)

just because something else is hazardous to your health does NOT make smoking "safe"...

Thanks for playing...

but it isn't the biggest threat out there....

:smoke: There is so much toxic waste in the air and water now days, I think smoking a cig once in a while is the least of my worries. two wars, enough nuclear weapons to blow the planet up about 10 times, .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

So Obama's not perfect. Big deal.

Sorry I couldn't help myself...

if we can't even agree on smoking being bad what's left?

I don't think we're getting it. Maybe you need to start another thread on the same subject.

I get so many sick days a year and I want the time off.

My dad, a lifelong smoker, died of a stroke. Late in his life he wrote in a diary (which we found after he died) of his hatred of his habit (which he did manage to beat very late in life), the impact on his family and our finances, and the power it had over him.

It is a rare thing that crosses education, economic and political affiliations - another powerful example of the addiction.

Reasonable expectation of privacy
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the Court as the definition of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.

Meaning, of course, that the right of a person to smoke in his or her own abode is no one's business but that person's.

and, I agree.

as I said... people here refuse to even agree on a simple statement like that because they'd rather let their political passion obfuscate the basic facts of the matter.

:eyes:

So I don't see why you are satisfied that we don't live up to your expectations.

yet people insist on challenging it anyways through oblique responses.

:eyes:

:rofl:

And that's that.

Theres no escaping it, we all die eventually.

:eyes:

Another oblique response...

that "pearl" of wisdom!

And what's more, they don't want anyone else to hear about it.

They are already throwing up a verbal smokescreen.

:hi:

If it feels good,,,, DO IT!

How much does Social Security save due to early mortality.

...that's a silly one and not a refutation of the OP...

Doug D.

How about 24/7 health care for dementia?
How about hip and knee replacement surgeries?

so try again...

What are you a tobacco exec???

Take a look at planned economies with long-term socialized medicine.

Economies where life-span costs are balanced out against numerous factors.

Now, take a look at their policies.

What the numbers tend to show is that smoking increases early death, but reduces overall health and medicine costs, as people who live longer have other ailments to treat later in life, when their productivity is greatly reduced.

So, if your argument is for longevity of life, yes, reducing smoking increases longevity.

If your argument is reduced health-care costs, increased smoking decreases health-care costs.

It seems counter intuitive, I know, but in a simplified nutshell:
A person who dies at age 60 will have two thirds the lifelong medical costs than somebody who lives to age 90.

So, it becomes a matter of setting long-term priorities... should society pay more for medical care, to have less smokers, who live longer, but are less productive?

...and no, I'm not a tobacco exec. :evilgrin:

It wasn't intended as a refutation. Since you have the numbers, could you provide a link?

Lost tobacco tax revenues...

I note with sad amusement how many of these numbers are about "worker productivity", and "business revenue". Pretty much sums up the argument that created these cherry-picked numbers.

end of life costs are actually much higher for people dying of emphysema, heart disease and cancer and strokes....

Doug D.

Firstly, heart disease, cancer, and strokes don't just go away as fatal disease. (I'll grant you massive emphysema reduction). They'll still all happen, with different assumed origin causes, later in life.

Secondly, as I posted above, compare 60 years of medical care, for a smoker who dies of cancer at 60, vs. 90 years of medical care, for a non-smoker who dies of cancer at 90.

If you're at all familiar with elder-care, you'll probably be aware that monthly costs often skyrocket between age 70 and age 90 (depending on the individual), as the human body wears down.

My dad hung in there for years with Alzheimers.

If he'd have dropped dead from a heart attack at age 60, it would have been a lot less expensive.

What are these "cheaper things" that kill non-smokers for their extended lifetimes while they collect social security?

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023914998-5020.html

NBER Working Paper ai2234 May 1987 The Social Security Cost of Smoking

ABSTRACT
Our paper is an ezaaination of the Social Security cost of smoking from.an individual point of viev. It is well latown that smokers have a shorter life expectancy than nonsmokers. This means that by smoking they are giving up potential Social Secutity bensfits. We estimate this caat and consider the effects on the system as a whole. Qe use mortality ratios, which relate the annual death.probabilities of smokers and nonsmokers, and the percentage of smokers in each age group to break down the life tables for men and women born in 1920 into the approximate life tables for smokers and nonsmokers. ue then calculate expected Social Security taxea and benefits for each group, using median earnings as a base. We find that smoking costs men about $20,000 and women about $10,000 in expected net benefits. The implication of this for the system as a whole is that the prevalence of smoking has a direct effect on the financial viability of the system; every decrease in the number of smokers in sociery increases the system's liability. Changes in smoking behavior should be•recognized as affecting the system. John B. Shoven Department of Economics Stanford University Encina Hall, 4th Floor Stanford, CA 94305 (415) 723-3712 Jeffrey 0. Sundberg John P. Bunker Department of Economics Stanford University Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, CA 94305 HELP Building Room #7 (415) 725-0959 Stanford, CA 94305 (415) 723-6426

what's the point in posting this?

:eyes:

Surely that must be it.

:rofl:

social science experiment if you will..

Doug D.

no matter how self-evident:

2+2=4

Earth is round

Earth orbits sun

Sun rises in east sets in west.

smoking is bad for you.

pick one.. someone here will try to argue the "on the other hand" case...instead of just agreeing to the Captain Obvious point being made.

Doug D.

called the collection of differences that make a difference.

Since you claim to already know this, this is more like bear baiting than an actual experiment.

But it's amusing.

nor did I single out Obama in my discussion of cigarettes - it was an argument for a healthier fitter America and a positive process of education and inspiration to do it instead of passing more laws.

Yet I got piled onto by would be Obama defenders who saw nothing but an (imagined) attack on Obama and would argue anything in support of Obama regardless of the bigger picture that CIGARETTES ARE BAD FOR YOU....

I'm actually a big supporter of Barack - originally for Edwards I wanted an Edwards Obama ticket, then an Obama Edwards one after Edwards withdrew so I don't get the unnecessary hostility.

Doug D.

You posted this in GDP. The smoking debate has nothing to do with GDP. The only reason to post it here is to take a cheap shot at Obama. You deserve the response you got.

but lots of the people who disagreed with you in that thread HAVE been critical of Obama policies as of late, so you can't lump everyone into the "apologist" group. I'm sure you mean well...

People add to points, argue points, make sure the nuances of a position are discussed.

Ad naseum. :D

I'm cool. Frankly, I can't see how anyone could take up such a habit with all the info that is now known about it.

Then again, there are so many other vices out there that are just as harmful as smoking (overeating, drinking, etc.).

So, DD, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

The greatest president in my life time, FDR did his best work while was sucking down 50 cigs a day. Same goes for Eisenhower and many others.
Obama is a grown up already! I just want him to govern well.
I don't care if he eats shit & howls at the moon while dressed up like Big Bird in lingerie as long as he delivers what we need!
BTW......... I don't (and never will) smoke.