$40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?

[#juan]

Addictions bleed nearly $40B a year from economy: study
Last Updated Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:47:50 EDT
CBC News

Addictions to tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs cost the Canadian economy $39.8 billion a year, according to survey results released Wednesday.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse said that figure, based on data from 2002, includes the cost of providing health care, losing millions of days of productivity, and handling court cases and jail sentences.

link

That is serious money

What is the answer? Do we withhold medical care to people who abuse drugs, booze, tobacco? I know I'm a bit of a hypocrit because I will have the odd drink. I haven't smoked for 18 years and I don't do drugs but $ 40 billion is a lot of money for something that is, on the face of it, voluntary abuse.

Am I wrong? Comments?[/url]

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: The Cost of Addictions

#juan, I would suggest that, while I understand where you're coming from (that is a lot of money, even when stood next to the revenue of the Government of Canada), I would think that the Supreme Court of Canada would quite likely override efforts to deny care to persons suffering from addictions. I think that we need to search for better ways to solve these issues, as opposed to shutting them out of services, and hoping they fix themselves.

 

[Jay]

I know I'm a bit of a hypocrit because I will have the odd drink.

Don't worry about that, your entitled to get smashed if you want to....

I would however take issue with denying people healthcare over it. I simply do not believe the government can use healthcare as a tool to direct people's behavior in the free world. Our health care system has to go especially if this is the sort of thing it is going to be used for.

I simply do not mind paying more for my personal health care insurance because I smoke.

 

[tracy]

What people don't seem to realize is that most health issues have some lifestyle component to them. If we don't treat people for addictions and problems relating to alcohol, drugs and smoking, I don't see why we should treat type 2 diabetics, patients with heart disease, lung disease, etc. And we certainly shouldn't treat anyone who wasn't wearing their helmet when biking, or their seatbelt in the car....

 

[#juan]

I admit I was holding out a bit of a red flag with my reference to withdrawing medical services. I wouldn't do that and nor would most Canadians.

I do get more than a little upset when I see a biker without a helmet. G.F. Strong Hospital in Vancouver, is full of bikers who tempted fate once too often. People who don't wear seat belts are definitely making others subsidise their potential medical problems.

Knowing what we know today of the dangers of smoking, are not smokers pretty much the same as people flaunting fate by not wearing seat belts?

Can these problems be solved? It's a hard question.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Solutions to Addictions

Of course there are solutions to these issues; as to whether or not they are solutions that anyone would dare to legislate, or whether or not the population would like these solutions, are far more contentious than the idea of the solutions themselves. I would suggest that the issue is not whether or not there are solutions, but whether or not there implementations for those solutions.

As an example, I would suggest that the Government of Canada should pass legislation that would restrict corporations from marketing their products using overt advertisements on television; I don't think that there is any need for us to be bombarded with messages that amount to, more or less, drinking makes you cool, and you're going to be lonely unless you do so.

As for products such as tobacco, I would suggest that it is more dangerous than some other controlled substances, such as canabis. I think that the outright ban of tobacco would be a major step forward in terms of saving money in terms of health care, and more importantly, in saving lives — however, if ever one raises this notion, one would be bombarded with hard-core smokers who would raise arguments such as the notion that one has the "right" to smoke, so its implementation would be quite unlikely.

 

[Laika]

First of all, I don't think it's right to deny health care to anyone. That is one of the things we cherish most highly in Canada, is it not?

Second, I am curious to know how this sort of thing would be enforced? Who is going to admit to being an addict if they know that doing so will prevent them from receiving the care they would otherwise be entitled to? Sure with some people and addictions you can tell right off the bat, but with others it is more difficult.

I question the motivation for and special interests behind this survey.

 

[Sassylassie]

Laika I also question this survey. Now our over worked health care providers are going to be the Moral Police. If your anorexic you deserve to starve to death, if your over weight medical care denied, my parents made my take Buckleys as a child am I an addict? My mother use to make me drink Campher Crystals, on the label it states Poison do not injest, it was an old remedy that she swore by and will I suffer the consequences of this? The list is endless. Frankly these studies always end up flawed a few years ago the Cancer Society said peanut butter could give you cancer now that has been recanted. The list of flawed studies is endless. Moderation is key in all aspects of our life? No?

 

[tracy]

I've actually never heard a health care worker I know advocate that. I have enough other stuff to do at work already, I don't need to be the moral police.

 

[cortezzz]

every society requires these kind of outlets
its a form of soma
without these tranquilizers--- youd have a whole bunch of people starting to believe in imaginary beings like-- god

 

[Sassylassie]

Tracy what I meant was that if the Government were to enact a law that Certain People could be denied medical care based on Addictions it would be the front line medical staff that would be burdened by such a law. Hence Moral Police.

 

[tracy]

I gotcha Sassy, just pointing out I can't imagine any of us would like that one bit.

 

[#juan]

What if we take another tack? Should people who smoke pay the same amount for health care as a non-smoker? Smokers invariably have more medical problems that non-smokers? The government rakes in a pile of tax money from the sale of cigarettes and booze, so maybe the tax on these items should be allocated to fight the medical problems caused by smoking and drinking. Just a thought....

 

[FiveParadox]

#juan[/color]]What if we take another tack? Should people who smoke pay the same amount for health care as a non-smoker? Smokers invariably have more medical problems that non-smokers? The government rakes in a pile of tax money from the sale of cigarettes and booze, so maybe the tax on these items should be allocated to fight the medical problems caused by smoking and drinking. Just a thought [...]

I think that would be a good suggestion.

Now, of course, there would be a huge number of things that would need to be considered upon bringing in any such regulation; I would suggest that, in keeping with your suggestion, #juan, that the Government of Canada levy a Pre-emptive Care Tax (or P.C.T.) on products such as tobacco, to assist in paying for the costs of future care that may need to be provided to whomever is purchasing such products in the present.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Smoking, Alcohol and Drug Addictions are Diseases. Alcoholism is classed as a disease medically because it is not considered to be totally voluntary. In fact, there are now indications of genetic tendencies toward becoming addicted. This may be why some people can smoke just at parties, and some people are hooked right from cigarette one.

The money spent on trying to reduce these addictions will be likely saved in the long run by reduced health costs. I think the government has done the right thing by banning smoking in public places. This alone had forced many people to at least cut down, and many of my friends have now quit.

And financially restraints I think help too. Yeah, tax the ciggies and alcohol, but use that money for health purposes. Nonsmokers get many other significant financial breaks such as Mortgage insurance, house insurance, car insurance.

Not wearing a seat belt or helmet is different because that is completely voluntary and maybe you should have to pay medical costs if injured. But then you would have to consider anyone with risky activities--- ie skiing, parachuting, sailing, golfing ( one of the highest causes of sudden death),,,maybe you should have to pay if hurt in these activities........

 

[Colpy]

I smell a Social Engineer in the wood pile.

Fetch me my shotgun.

First of all, if free medical care is to be used as a bludgeon to make us all conform to the healthy norm, I say GET RID OF IT!

I'd rather be free, and pay for my own healthcare.

Secondly, these silly studies that estimate the "costs" of social phenomenon are BS from the start. They are simply an attempt to manipulate norms in society, and they have absolutely no real meaning.

For example, they estimate the cost to society of productivity lost due to early death, and that makes up a major portion of that cost.
What they DON'T consider is if I overdose on herion, I'm usually an addict, and I produce NOTHING but crime and law enforcement costs, which are costs no longer once I'm dead. If I die at 55 because I smoke too much, society is spared the cost of supporting me for the twenty or so non-productive years I would have had after retirement, if I'd lived to a healthy 85.

These things are dangerous in the extreme.

Live how you choose, do not allow the self-righteous to deceive you.

Deception is EXACTLY what this crap is.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

What if we take another tack? Should people who smoke pay the same amount for health care as a non-smoker? Smokers invariably have more medical problems that non-smokers? The government rakes in a pile of tax money from the sale of cigarettes and booze, so maybe the tax on these items should be allocated to fight the medical problems caused by smoking and drinking. Just a thought....

They do. They are called Excise Taxes. They make up a huge portion of the price of these goods. This is justified by the additional burden that these goods place upon the health care system. :wink:

 

[#juan]

I smell a Social Engineer in the wood pile.

Fetch me my shotgun.

First of all, if free medical care is to be used as a bludgeon to make us all conform to the healthy norm, I say GET RID OF IT!

I'd rather be free, and pay for my own healthcare.

Secondly, these silly studies that estimate the "costs" of social phenomenon are BS from the start. They are simply an attempt to manipulate norms in society, and they have absolutely no real meaning.

For example, they estimate the cost to society of productivity lost due to early death, and that makes up a major portion of that cost.
What they DON'T consider is if I overdose on herion, I'm usually an addict, and I produce NOTHING but crime and law enforcement costs, which are costs no longer once I'm dead. If I die at 55 because I smoke too much, society is spared the cost of supporting me for the twenty or so non-productive years I would have had after retirement, if I'd lived to a healthy 85.

These things are dangerous in the extreme.

Live how you choose, do not allow the self-righteous to deceive you.

Deception is EXACTLY what this crap is.

Sounds like a smoker to me

Is it normal to fill a tube of paper with a poisonous weed and light it on fire and draw the smoke and gasses into your lungs? Smokers do this as much as fifty or sixty times a day, or more.

Smokers don't file out of this life in an orderly fashion at fifty five years of age. A high number of smokers linger on, in and out of hospital for years before they die, and take up far more medical costs than non-smokers. I had a brother and a sister do exactly that.

Deception is trying to convince people that smoking is a "right", and that calling attention to the inordinate medical, and other costs of these addictions is some sort of conspiracy. Smoking, or drinking to excess, is indisputably, bad for your health.

I say this, as a person who has been a smoker, and who has probably consumed more than his share of booze.

 

[fuzzylogix]

I smell a Social Engineer in the wood pile.

Fetch me my shotgun.

First of all, if free medical care is to be used as a bludgeon to make us all conform to the healthy norm, I say GET RID OF IT!

I'd rather be free, and pay for my own healthcare.

Secondly, these silly studies that estimate the "costs" of social phenomenon are BS from the start. They are simply an attempt to manipulate norms in society, and they have absolutely no real meaning.

For example, they estimate the cost to society of productivity lost due to early death, and that makes up a major portion of that cost.
What they DON'T consider is if I overdose on herion, I'm usually an addict, and I produce NOTHING but crime and law enforcement costs, which are costs no longer once I'm dead. If I die at 55 because I smoke too much, society is spared the cost of supporting me for the twenty or so non-productive years I would have had after retirement, if I'd lived to a healthy 85.

These things are dangerous in the extreme.

Live how you choose, do not allow the self-righteous to deceive you.

Deception is EXACTLY what this crap is.

Yeah, #juan, I have to respond to this too. One sees this all the time, the person who wants to pay for their own health care and let everyone else pay for theirs. You havent been sick yet, have you Colpy. I dont mean with a bit of a cold. I mean SICK. You havent yet had to pay for extensive chemotherapy and surgery. Your life savings wont cover it. And yeah, when smokers die, they are dead. But I can assure you they rack up HUGE bills before they die. Bills for cancer, bills for pneumonia, emphysema, car accidents while lighting cigarettes (yes, the insurance statistics support this- thats why you get a break on being a nonsmoker) And in fact when they are dead, society is often faced with their nonproductivity because now there may be a family that has lost their means of support.

You like private health care. Try the States where your job is important not for the money but for the healthcare and you often cant take a better job because the health care attached to it sucks. Or how about when the insurance company drops you after your first big claim.

Got kids?? Think there is NO possibility that they will get into drugs? Your idea of heroin addicts being the nonproductive crap of the world is rubbish. There is a huge drug and alcohol problem among the white collar workers of the world. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, judges....... hope your kid doesnt have the addictive gene---and yes, it IS partially a genetic thing.

Have you ever tried to quit smoking. Hard, aint it. Even when you know it is killing you. But hey, by the time you need cancer care in Canada, youll have your wish- youll have to pay for it yourself.

 

[#juan]

fuzzylogix

Good post. One more small point. Not everyone who retires is a burden to society. Quite a few of us have set up a pension for ourselves so that when we do retire, we are not adding to the costs.

I realise that there is no way to just chop $40 billion off our health care costs. I wish there was. We could raise the fines for driving without seat belts, and we could make it harder for teenagers to get cigarettes. I don't know if these measures would do any good but anything is better than just watching, and doing nothing.