The do gooders are at it again.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Apparently it's official Aussies drink and smoke more than they should.
I thought that was a given, anyway therse wankers are suggesting even higher taxes on booze and smokes, and they are supposed to be the working man's government.
BTW I don't smoke.


Australians are among the heaviest drinkers in the world and 98,000 cases of alcohol-related disease could be prevented by cutting drinking habits by a third, a new report has found.
We drink more than Americans (more than 660 standard drinks a year), Canadians (632), Swedes (520) and Norwegians (505), the report's researchers from Victoria’s Deakin University and the National Stroke Research Institute say.
The VicHealth-backed study found that reducing the average annual intake of 773 standard drinks per adult to 505 drinks a year would save 38 lives and $1.2 billion.
The study also found if the rate of smoking was cut from the current 23 per cent of Australians to 15 per cent, 5,000 deaths would be prevented and more than $900 million in health, production and leisure costs would be saved.
The report is "breaking new ground in developing a model that estimates the economic benefits of the home-based activities and leisure that are essential to our daily lives", co-author and Deakin University Health Economic Professor Rob Carter said.
Prof Carter said the report - The Health and Economic Benefits of Reducing Disease Risk Factors - found the financial savings would benefit families and workplaces.
"Production and leisure includes the increased economic benefits from paid work (such as reduced absenteeism) plus unpaid, home-based activities, like caring for families, as well as leisure activities," Prof Carter said.
Australians are big drinkers, according to the report.
We drink more than Americans (more than 660 standard drinks a year), Canadians (632), Swedes (520) and Norwegians (505), the report's researchers from Deakin University and the National Stroke Research Institute say.
VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper told a conference in Darwin on Wednesday that cutting the drinking rates to 505 drinks a year and smoking to 15 per cent were realistic targets that would bring massive benefits.
There would be 98,000 fewer new cases each year of alcohol-related disease, 21,000 fewer years lost to illness and death, 158,000 fewer annual new cases of tobacco-caused illness and 71,000 fewer years lost to illness and death from smoking.
"The 15 per cent smoking target has already been reached in California, where effective policies have seen low smoking levels achieved," he said.
"And these targets point to large gains for relatively modest changes in the behaviours that lead to chronic illnesses.
"If Australia followed California's lead in increasing tobacco prices, using the proceeds for Quit-style social marketing, and tightening smoke-free policies in public areas, smoking rates here could drop even more."
According to the report, 13 per cent of adults drink alcohol at risky or high-risk levels, and alcohol added 2.3 per cent to the nation's health burden, with consequences including alcohol dependence and road accidents.
The smoking reduction target set by the federal government's National Preventative Health Taskforce is to reduce daily smoking to 9 per cent or less by 2020.
 
The road toll, for which we get endless limitations on our driving freedoms due to the "Do Gooders", is minuscule compared with the cost, the hospital admissions, and deathrate from tobacco smoking and excessive drinking. But it appears to be more politically acceptable to come down hard on the drivers in the population.
 

Brian Hamilton

I'm on the verge of touching myself inappropriatel
America's trying to do the same. Apparently if our new Messiah (Obama) has his way, there will be a tax on unhealthy food as well because of the government run health insurance. *sigh* I'm stating this from what I've heard on the radio. I don't have any concrete evidence, but apparently some people do. LOL Don't bash me because I don't like what Obama has done and is doing with this country. His plan for this country is to turn it into a sh*thole just like communist Russia was 25 years ago.

If it didn't work for them, how are we going to make it work? It won't. OK, I'm going to shut up now.

Laters,

Brian
 
With the heartbreak open
So much you can't hide
Put on a little makeup makeup
Make sure they get your good side good side

If the words unspoken
Get stuck in your throat
Send a treasure token token
Write it on a pound note pound note

Goody two, Goody two, Goody Goody two shoes
Goody two, Goody two, Goody Goody two shoes
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow
There must be something inside

We don't follow fashion
That would be a joke
You know we're going to set them set them
So everyone can take note take note

When they saw you kneeling
Crying words that you mean
Opening their eyeballs eyeballs
Pretending that you're Al Green Al Green

Goody two, Goody two, Goody Goody two shoes
Goody two, Goody two, Goody Goody two shoes
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow
There must be something inside

No one's gonna tell me
What's wrong or what's right
Or tell me who to eat with sleep with
Or that I've won the big fight big fight

Look out or they'll tell you
You're a "Superstar"
Two weeks and you're an all time legend
I think the games have gone much too far

If the words unspoken
Get stuck in your throat
Send a treasure token token
Write it on a pound note pound note

Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow, must be something inside
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow, must be something inside
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow, must be something inside
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow, must be something inside
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow, must be something inside


That's hardly a subtle innuendo Brian... ;)


Tim.
 
Last edited:
I guess Adam Ant's lyrics would lead us to believe that the next target of the tax-and-spend crowd would be some sort of tax on sexual activity. Get out of my bedroom, you bloody wankers!
 
What I disagree with in these studies is the method of calculating and presenting "savings." What they do in these studies is estimate the costs of medical services to those who are afflicted with some kind of smoking related illness and call that a "savings" as if the whole world is that much father ahead. The fact is, if those folks didn't die from a smoking related illness they'll die from some other affliction (likely, a little father down the road) just like anyone else which may cost as much or more to treat than the smoking affliction. So, all it really does is potentially defer some medical costs for a a little while rather than actually "save" anything from an economic standpoint ie. no net overall reduction in real costs. These "savings" are really quite deceptively described when not put in context.

Of course, the researchers presenting their findings don't really want to present the economic data in context because that significantly reduces the importance of the research findings.....
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Re: The do gooders are at it again (response potentially NSFW or the young)

Of course, the researchers presenting their findings don't really want to present the economic data in context because that significantly reduces the importance of the research findings.....

Cliff has it right! I worked in the field of education for 32 years and one thing I learned is that you can prove anything you want if you just structure the research correctly. We even enjoyed it so much that we affectionately refered to the phenomenon as "statistical masturbation".

BTW, Pete--good on ya for not smoking, but don't I remember reading a post some time ago by you that said your wife does? You'll pay, amigo, and pay, and pay......b/c we've learned here in the U.S. that increased taxes don't seem to equate to reduced smoking. Addictions are, after all, blind to the economics, and IMHO nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in the world, legal or not. To make the difference that the healthmeisters want the substance would have to be outlawed, and we all know how effective such an action is!

Doug
 
Meh. The supposed health improvements are just a smokescreen, it's all about making you pay more tax.They justify it as being a way to cut down drinking/smoking, but it's really just a way of getting more money into governmental hands. Certainly in the UK, if they were successful and everyone who drinks/smokes stopped, the government would cack themselves, as they realised they suddenly have a serious shortfall in their budget. In the UK, taxes on smoking and alcohol make up something like 15% of the total taxes raised. They go for the smokers and drinkers as a soft target, justifying it as a health issue, rather than putting income tax up...
 

Keith

Moderator
Re: The do gooders are at it again (response potentially NSFW or the young)

Addictions are, after all, blind to the economics, and IMHO nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in the world, legal or not. To make the difference that the healthmeisters want the substance would have to be outlawed, and we all know how effective such an action is!

Doug
Don't fully agree Doug. Nicotine "addiction" is very easy to acquire it's true but also very easy to break as it flushes out of the human system after 3 days of abstinence.

The real addiction is far more subtle and hard to shake unless you really want to: The Habit and it's social implications.

I suffer a chronic lung disease caused in part by smoking, but a lot of the damage was also caused by poorly ventilated buildings (and thus SHS), an affinity with high octane fuels during my racing era, killer smogs in London in the early '60's and general ignorance due to lack of transparency by Governments and Corporations alike. OK, lying bastards then if you will..:veryangry:

PS. Probably the worst case was when I gas axed a commercial ventilating system without breathing protection only to discover years later that when you burn galvanising it gives off a cynadide gas or something similar. Like I said - ignorance.

Oh, and then there was the physical removal of over 5 tons of asbestos soundproofing plaster from the inside of a large cinema. This was an illegal act I committed in the USA along with 2 other guys because the owner did not want to pay for professional removal. However, I did read the EPA Regs quite carefully, and the stuff never left the building and no-one else was ever exposed to it. It was "hosed" off the walls using a high pressure water spray and the resulting slurry mixed 50/50 with cement and 'encapsulated' into the foundations and sprayed fluorescent red in case anyone went digging in the future. I was wearing the right protection for that - but it only takes 1 fibre....

All of this has been relayed to doctors and guess what? My disease is "solely down to smoking" Yeah, right..
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Re: The do gooders are at it again (response potentially NSFW or the young)

Cliff has it right! I worked in the field of education for 32 years and one thing I learned is that you can prove anything you want if you just structure the research correctly. We even enjoyed it so much that we affectionately refered to the phenomenon as "statistical masturbation".

BTW, Pete--good on ya for not smoking, but don't I remember reading a post some time ago by you that said your wife does? You'll pay, amigo, and pay, and pay......b/c we've learned here in the U.S. that increased taxes don't seem to equate to reduced smoking. Addictions are, after all, blind to the economics, and IMHO nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in the world, legal or not. To make the difference that the healthmeisters want the substance would have to be outlawed, and we all know how effective such an action is!

Doug

Yes Doug, Di used to smoke but has given it up for over a year now.
If you ask her it is one year 250 days five hours two minutes and five seconds (at the time of writing).
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
So well done Di. I am oh so impressed. For me is is 2 years 4 months 5 days and 16 hours when the ambulance man sticking the two large patches on my chest for a possible jump start said "These are just a precaution . Do you smoke?"
Answers on a post card.......

ps - Craving for nicotine - none so far.
pps - The smell of a really nice tobacco - still nice
ppps - The smell of crap tobacco - like just outside the exit to most public
buildings - Just awful !

Advice to anyone who smokes? I neither give advice or a toss. Go your own way.
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Interesting isn't it the bias against smokers, especially in the medical profession. I haven't smoked for forty years but when asked by a medico,
"have you ever smoked"? I always say no, because IMHO the standard of care and diagnosis diminishes if you admit to ever having had a smoke.
 

Keith

Moderator
Interesting isn't it the bias against smokers, especially in the medical profession. I haven't smoked for forty years but when asked by a medico,
"have you ever smoked"? I always say no, because IMHO the standard of care and diagnosis diminishes if you admit to ever having had a smoke.


That's so right Pete - you are always classified "ex - smoker" rather than non - smoking. Smoking related problems have come to light following peoples serious breathing problems exacerbated by many other causes, but the medics never get past "smoking." The science is thus lacking because the questions are not asked.

But like Dave says, it's peoples choice. There's enough info out there now, pros & cons so that kids can make their own 'educated' decisions which is more than we had.

Five years now stopped after 45 years full on puffing. Don't miss it, never missed it past first 2 weeks, bloody angry with myself for not stopping sooner 'cos it was so easy..:veryangry:
 
Back
Top