You couldn't make it up - but they did
Tuesday, June 9, 2009 We've all heard the claim that smoking costs the NHS £1.5 or £1.7 billion a year. This figure is often trundled out to demonstrate what a burden smokers are to society, although campaigners conveniently ignore the huge amount of money smokers contribute through tobacco taxation and VAT (£9-10 billion).
Anyway, the figure of £1.7 billion isn't the cost of smoking at all. It refers to "smoking-related diseases" which is quite different. Almost all smoking-related diseases are multi-factorial which means it is very difficult to prove that smoking is the cause (or the only cause). Nevertheless, they are counted as "smoking-related diseases" (because they are, literally, associated with smoking) and smoking cops the blame for the cost, irrespective of the cause.
Personally I think we've done quite well over the years to emphasise the huge financial contribution that smokers make to society and the ridiculous nature of the "cost/burden" argument. (It seems to surprise a lot of journalists and broadcasters and their previously unsympathetic tone sometimes changes as result.)
This may explain why anti-smoking campaigners have torn up the figure of £1.7 billion and come up with a new one of - wait for it - £5 billion!
Yesterday I was asked to respond and I came up with this quote:
"This figure is based on the usual guesstimates and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
"Even if it was true, smokers still contribute twice that amount to the Treasury in tobacco taxation and VAT. Far from being a burden on society, smokers make an enormous financial contribution.
"Smoking rates have been falling for 50 years. The percentage of the population that smoke is half what it was 30 years ago. It is preposterous to suggest that as the number of smokers falls, the cost to the NHS should increase so dramatically. Have they considered other factors like diet?
"Anti-smoking campaigners will stop at nothing to denormalise smokers. This absurd calculation is simply the latest weapon in the war on tobacco."
The BBC has the story HERE. (Note the definitive headline, 'Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn', as if it's a fact.)
PS. According to the British Heart Foundation, "This annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate, [researchers] say, because it does not include indirect costs, such as lost productivity and informal care; the costs of treating disease caused by passive smoking; or the full range of conditions associated with smoking."
No doubt, after a few beers and with the help of a wonky calculator, they'll come up with a figure close to (or possibly exceeding) £10 billion. You read it here first.
Simon Clark
My colleague Neil Rafferty will be commenting on this story on the BBC Radio Wales lunchtime phone-in. I shall be doing BBC Radio Oxfordshire this afternoon.
Simon Clark
Neil emails to say: "Just done half hour phone-in on Radio Wales. It was basically me, Antony Worrall Thompson and Susie Squire from the Taxpayers Alliance. If anyone from ASH was listening, they must have been going mental."
Reader Comments (28)
Can someone please explain how with the smoking rate decreasing the number of people with so called smoking related diseases keeps increasing? Do all of the people who end up hospitalised with these diseases smoke? Is this documented? It is now possible to live entirely without exposure to any form of tobacco smoke, what will be the excuse when such people start dropping dead from heart disease and lung cancer and they will because these are diseases of age NOT lifestyle.
Well what do you expect from, "Pravda".
The BBC needs its wings clipped.
The BBC needs to stop printing lies.
The BBC needs to publish its salaries.
Why should I support this bunch of "spongers".
Scrap the BBC it costs too much.
We are not stupid .
.
I just read the usual propaganda bullshit!!
God dont they think people are thick to belive that.
And if the costs are rising to the NHS the simple solution being scrap the NHS.
Some people have to remember the NHS serves us we do not serve the NHS.
MCO, as you rightly say, people can now live a smoke free lifestyle, however if any of them end up with heart disease or cancer, they no doubt will blame it on the fact that prior to the ban they had been exposed to SHS!
Of course, as I have said before, one of the things that has greatly increased, whilst smoking rates have decreased, is vehicles on our roads. With lower and lower speed limits, especially through towns (20mph) far more toxins are being spewed into the atmosphere and especially around populated areas. There is also the fact that much livestock is grazed on land adjacent to motorways and other busy roads, does this not have an effect on the milk and meat products we consume from these animals? What research, if any, has been done on this potential source of toxins?
Peter James - I don't agree with getting rid of the NHS, but what we do need to do is get rid of the money draining management and clerical staff and also the brazen liars who use smoking as rod to beat everyone with!
We all pay towards NHS care, regardless of how much of it we use, therefore it should be there for everyone, regardless of lifestyle. Education and positive encouragement, rather than bullying would be a far better tactic and still leave people with an element of choice, which is people want, rather than to be bullied and nannied.
ASH, CRUK, BHF, and the like, all who drain money from the government coffers should be exposed for what they are - out and out manipulative liars - perhaps that would also put a stop to innocent people donating hard earned cash to their 'pseudo' cause of 'Research'!
As we all know that if the smoking rate decreases it is just impossible for smoking related deseases to increase.
As old age has been proven to be the biggest cause of death, it probably wont be long now before some enterprising minister will try to ban old age too!!
Also as regards drink driving statictics any driver with even a morsel of drink thats unlucky enough to have an accident and/or with a cyclist or pedestrian who has a morsel of drink on them too, its statistacally classed as a drink driving accident.
It reminds one of the type of dishonest propaganda once used in communist countries.
We sure are a sophisticated society letting our minds be altered by such false stastics by dictators who use the media as a mind altering drug.
Our over regulated society seems to be a victim of its own success as is now evident by our false economic and social society, like when they convinced us we were very rich, but now that reality has struck and we can see with our own eyes the true consequences of the lies, When, I wonder, will our propaganda dictators be held to account.
How much longer will the anti smoking quangos get away with all these false and twisted stastics!
How long have the BHF been experts in finance? We all know that a lot of their money is spent on anti-smoking propaganda and this is just another piece of anti-smoking propaganda. Costs of all NHS treat have obviously risen over the years, but treatment for 'smoking related' illnesses is still only a fraction of ALL NHS costs.
Oh dear can of worms for the anti smoking industry, let us look at the other sources of revenue for our government to burn.
There are 3 main British tobacco companies in the UK, BAT, Japan Tobacco and Gallahers.
BAT alone have 55,145 employees and made profits of £2.6 billion in 2006, the corporation tax alone was £716 million.
Assuming that the average salary at BAT is £30,000 that person would pay £6000 per year as tax and NI plus £4,000 employers NI from BAT.
Hence the government earns £10,000 in taxes per year per employee.
Hence 55,000 x £10k = £1.65 billion the revenue from tobacco employees.
Three major tobacco companies:
3 x 1.65 = £4.95 billion
Corporation tax for 3 tobacco companies for arguement sake = £1.5 billion.
The tobacco comfortably is worth to the government
4.95 + 1.5 = £6.45 billion.
I have not factored in that tobacco comapnies will employ third party suppliers like employment agencies, cleaning companies, suppliers travel agents etc.
Calculators at the ready guys.
Provenance for the above, sorry.
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/news/archives/tax/Cleaning+up+corporation+tax.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/7679.html
Sorry I did not check it:
Assuming that the average salary at BAT is £30,000 that person would pay £6000 per year as tax and NI plus £4,000 employers NI from BAT.
Hence the government earns £10,000 in taxes per year per employee.
Hence 55,000 x £10k = £550 million the revenue from tobacco employees.
Three major tobacco companies:
3 x 550 = £1.65 billion
Corporation tax for 3 tobacco companies for arguement sake = £1.5 billion.
The tobacco comfortably is worth to the government in direct employment.
1.65 + 1.5 = £3.15 billion
My apologies.
Neither the BBC nor the national press has read the report. I couldn't find it on the JTC website and rang the BMJ at 11.25am. I was told that the study was to be put online in the next 15 minutes. I suspect it will neglect to offset the savings from old-age related diseases, particularly dementia. Previous serious studies have all come to the conclusion that the "healthy" consume the most healthcare resources. Also, 110,000 people having a life expectancy reduced by, on average, 6 years, equates to a saving of £3.5 billion a year in pension payments.
What is the BHF doing paying out for Oxford researchers to find out how much smoking costs the NHS? Surely their finances should be used for research into the causes and cures for heart disease and not to produce propaganda. Even if the figures were not a complete pack of lies it would be up to the NHS to investigate how it can save itself money and not be down to some 'Charity'.
More phoney figures to get the gullible fools to demand more dictatorship laws from this government against people who smoke
Michael, my wife is Head of Fund-raising for one of the big charities, (none that are anything to do with our cause, thank God), but in order for them to keep their heads above water, they have to align themselves with whichever government is in power, and carry out batches of "free" research in order to receive government funding. Without such funding, many of our major charities would go out of business. In other words, the government has the charities over a barrel. Produce the right results and they can remain in business, produce nothing or the wrong ones, and its goodbye to you and hello to the next in line.
The report has now been published online. It doesn't appear to offset the cost of the fractions of smoking related diseases attributed to smoking with the savings from not treating the fraction of age-related diseases attributed to premature death from smoking. It does though point out that the claimed fraction of NHS costs due to smoking has stayed almost the same (4.9% in 1991 v 5.5% in 2005) as NHS spending has risen threefold.
I particularly like that Dr Steven Allender of the University of Oxford (reportedly not such a shabby place) says, "if nobody smoked we would save £5bn".
Really? So none of those diseases under the "smoking-related" banner could have any other cause? Not one?! If nobody smoked there would be no "cardiovascular diseases" or "long-term lung conditions" at all?! That's marvellous!
Dr Allender really should know better ...
It just seems that it this is more propaganda than science, remember the Dutch study? Also to back myself here is a study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine from 1997.
“Revealed: Why healthy patients cost more to treat than smokers and the obese”
“Based on healthcare costs in Holland, where the study was conducted, a person of normal weight can expect their medical bills from the age of 20 to total £210,000 over the course of their lifetime, while an obese person's costs will be £187,000. Smokers, whose life expectancy is the shortest of the three, cost the least, at £165,000, the researchers from the National Institute for Public Health and Environment calculated.”
NEJM
"Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=512333&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartComments
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052
Interesting Peter but does seem a chicken and egg scenario. Are the charities producing the figures that the government wants them to or to justify their own existence? By providing the results of such 'research' does it not force the government to provide more funding for preventative measures thus further justifying the need for these quangos and charities?
I have stopped donating to charities except a local hospice and a search and rescue unit because I know these people do not waste their money on admin staff and surveys. Unfortunately attitudes like mine may well impact on reputable charities but it is impossible to know which charities waste their money and those who use it for the purposes for which it was donated.
I am not an expert on charities Michael, all I know is the feedback I get from my wife from time to time. I do know for instance that there are about half a dozen of the biggest charities in the UK, including the "dreaded few" who have so much money, mainly donated through government agencies, that they need never actually go out and canvas for their income. These "big" charities spend less than 10% of their income on actual charity work, the rest goes on administration and wages etc.
The other charities, (the mid groups) like which my wife works for, have to work damn hard just in order to survive, and they also have to prove that their spending is just the opposite of the big 6. This is why they try their best to keep in with government and bend to government will.
It also helps government to be seen associating with these charities, sort of "look at us, aren't we good" scenario. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
When my wife told me a few weeks ago that she was going to Downing Street to meet Gordon Brown, I was appalled, "I hope you tell him what you really think of him" I said, to which she told me that she would love to, but at the end of the day, her charity needs the money, and unfortunately, he is still holding the purse strings.
I remember reading the Dutch study to which Dave referred. A major difference was that it considered both costs and savings due to smoking, and included some measure of old-age care costs. Allender's study considers only costs to the NHS. I've read it and it reads like an academic paper rather than ASH-type propaganda. I'm sure Allender would argue that he was attempting to put a cost on the proportion of smoking related diseases which are due to smoking (just to clarify - only a proportion of each smoking related disease is attributed to smoking), and not to estimate the far greater saving to the taxpayer from premature death among smokers. I think this is rather disingenuous and to me it doesn't make sense to claim that £5 billion pounds a year would be saved if we all gave up smoking.
A member of the House of Lords was asked how many people had died from smoking. He said that he could not give a figure, as when anybody died of a 'smoking related illness' it was assumed that smoking killed him/her. The same must apply when a smoker goes for treatment, if it is a 'smoking related illness', then it is due to smoking.
Of course, there are also other unreported savings related to smoking which could be rolled out if they try to boost their figures with the same.
OK, if we're going to factor in other costs, how about factoring other savings, being primarily the £12 billion in state pensions that smokers don't claim because they die younger (bullet point 3 here)?
"the war on tobacco"
Terminology is all nowadays Simon, don't talk about 'tobacco' or 'smokers', call us 'people who smoke'. Personalise us, give us the humanity that these arsewipes are determined to deprive us of.
Peter's statement with regard to his wife's charity has confirmed to me what I always suspected about funding for all these charities and that is, you tow the party line and give them the research they want to see or hear, otherwise your out.
A friend of mine was hired to do a report for an american multinational and during his research found out certain things that appaled him about the corporation that employed him to do the research against another corporation that was after the same contract.
When my friend didnt produce the report they wanted to see, as he couldnt bring himself to lie, not alone was he fired without being fully paid for his work but was also threatened.
I stopped donating to charities three years ago because I dont know where that money is really going.
Sadly I have also stopped giving money to the homeless who beg on the street since the Romanian scammers moved in and started using begging as a business.
What this so-called 'research' has done is to take roughly the percentage of smokers that exist and turn it into the 1 in 5 fatalities. A method they use all the time.In other words EVERYONE who smokes will die. Wow what a revelation. Of course of a smoke-related illness, which cannot be proved, and much more importantly, is not true.
The majority of smokers live above the average age, so what exactly are they saying? That they want massive numbers of dementia afflicted people 'just existing in homes' while NOT receiving the £10 billion that they now receive from tobacco.
None of this garbage makes sense, and makes a mockerey of the charity status, and those responsible should pay.
The greatest cause of lung cancer is the end stage of terminal cancer. Every cancer will metastasise from breast to lung, from liver to lung from bowel to lung etc.etc. This gives cancer of the lung the highest cause of death in non smokers and smokers. The medical mafia do not document the primary cancer because that proves that cancer cures have failed From Delia
Interesting, Delia and sounds about right for this load of liars - after all, look at the way they twist the figures with the 'wonderful NHS Stop Smoking business, in cohorts with big pharma and the next to useless NRT. If they can blow their trumpet at this being a great success when in fact it is a 98.4% (I believe) failure, then I guess they could sell sand to the Arabs!
Thanks Dick.
Dave A submits further fine work above - at a rough guess, we can assume that corp tax, PAYE, Business Rates and so on must at least be double the tobacco duties alone, which gives us about £12 billion in total (so his figure looks 'about right'), plus another £12 billion on top for old age pension savings.