gb2000ie
Super Vip
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 4,529
- Reaction score
- 325
- Points
- 0
I am not even sure one could get those numbers at all, because too many what-ifs are involved and it is impossible to know whether an illness is caused by smoking or would have happened anyway and how much smoking shortened the live. Even the exact health risks of smoking are kind of blurry as too many environmental factors play into it.
It would require a longitudinal study taking 50+ years. You would need to follow a statistically significant population of non-smokers, some-time smokers (they did, then they quit), and smokers who never quit from the age people start smoking, until they die.
You would then see if the average cost of the three groups is markedly different.
I guess you could do it by looking back in time through medical records, but it would involve getting a lot of permissions from a lot of families, and be a lot of work!
But it sounds plausible, as healthy people die of the same causes, just ten or twenty years later.
But, crucially, not at the same rate! Yes, non-smkokers get lung cancer, but not at the same rate. Yes, non-smokers get emphysema, but not at the same rate.
A smaller proportion of smokers die in their beds of old age compared to the population as a whole. And, conversely, a larger proportion die after long battles with nasty diseases like cancers and lung disease involving many surgeries and much hospital care.
I can see arguments both ways on this one - I think we can't know until someone does the science.
So I guess it depends on how much the productivity decreases before that point, which is even more difficult to find out. The only thing we can be sure about is that people cost money when they die and that they die. All of them, even the healthiest.
But not all deaths cost the same. (hey, isn't this a fun and uplifting topic!)
That is the idea behind the EU smoking ban guideline. The workers in restaurants and bars have to be protected (just like industrial workers are protected from that kind of workplace hazards). So banning smoking in enclosed spaces has nothing to do with interfering it people's choices but is meant to protect other people's rights.
Yup.
I'm still in shock that IRELAND, IRELAND of all places, was first to do this.
It's actually transformed the country. Before the smoking ban, there were no terraces outside pubs. Everyone drank inside all the time. MAYBE on one or two hot days someone would bring out a chair and sit outside, but on the whole, the culture was not one of terraces and beer gardens.
Post-somking ban, just about every pub has a place to sit out and drink in the open air.
I'm not a smoker, but I love being able to sit out in the sun and chat to friends away from all the loud music indoors!
B.