.adverse reaction to *prescribed drugs..IS
killing one..in 10 hospitalized for adverse reaction[1/100..hOSPITAL-admissions]

[as well..find-out..about..ttn*..[as..'the numbers needed to treat
number...[where the number..that need to take..a given subsidized medication..to achieve just one cure..that reveals most..of the heavily...lobbied for subsidy[subsidized drugs]
only work..in 1 in one hundred cases]

ie 100...need to take..the drug
for..one cure

anyhow back to
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2F7pmproject.com.au%2F&ei=TC6eTe3uDMODcN-zofEB&usg=AFQjCNGRT5IxM8tSfsbb8nImZQpbzjJa-Q&sig2=VPpKs4hZcVt6sO1ZU5AV7g

.rocks-on..''the medical cost of smoking..[669 million]
and how much the INCREASE was taking in..[6 Billion]..''

and rocks/on replied blah..blah blah
social costs =31 billion

to which the rat faced host replied
oh 31 billion for medical costs

IE HE WAS SPINNING A LIE

CANT YOU LOT
TELL SOMEONE IS SELLING us all..SPIN?

since when is social cost =medical cost?
social cost is AT BEST a guess

just as CAUSE of death..
CANNOT be 'smoking'...

[ie if you die..of cancer..WRITE..cause,,of death=cancer
if you die..of heart atack..WRITE..COD=heart attack]..not 'smoking'

CAUSE of death
cannot be....the ACT..of smoking

yes i know..you hate smoking
BUT.WHY..THE LIES/why the spin?
to get a new tax
and vilify harmless smokers HURTING NO-one

drunks do more damage
auto's do more damage
why is prostitution and gambling just fine and dandy

but smokers are vile and evil
must be taxed into quitting

but lets face facts..many hate smokers
here is a chance to hate others
and to be in the in crowd

its all built..on fear and lies

ya really think they can prove
that little sick girl...was a smoker
or that her sickness WAS..from someone smoking?

ya think that eye/with the hooks
went blind from smoking?..
ya really believe those black toes..is from smoking[not frostbite]

ya really believe that those teeth went crooked and rotted from smoke
or from softdrink or fructose acids...and them TB blisters on their lips..was that smoking related
or to generate fear

why would libs and govt buy shares in something they want to tax
to shut up complaint..have a say on the boardroom..to kill us without ANY representation by govt or 'big tobacco'

please think
is smoke..the worst thing
or just..the easiest to..generate hate or fear.!

Well come to our author hope you stay around.
You will not know it but we talk about this very often.
No need to ask for a light, some will provide it.
A contributor to these pages, indeed this thread was subject of a bitterness rarely seen,because of her views on smoking.
One Under God stands firmly6 on his view smoking does not kill and all the science is crap.
I think we should tax it our of existence,we currently are trying just that.
In my defense I once was a walking ash tray.
Buying [ordered in advance] on pay day[fortnightly] three packets of pipe tobacco 4 cartons of ten, 25 in each cigarets and 4 packs of roll your own.
My lunch box always had more tobacco than food in it.
Had I not got Q Fever I would have been dead and self embalmed 25 years ago.

One under god, whether you want to continue smoking, with your head firmly placed under the ground, is totally up to you.

I don't need scientists to prove anything about the effects of smoking on people because I could see it for myself, on all the respiratory wards I have worked on.

Do yourself and those around you a favour, and give it up.
Even if you foolishly think they don't hurt you, the stink of a regular smoker should be enough!

belly
you said last TIME..15,000 deaths
but the lawyers use..the word ATTRIBUTED
ie not/the true-cause of death as such..but deaths ATTRIBUTABLE to smoking..IF..smoking was the sole cause..of dying.

how is it attributable..is..by deeming smoking to cause..SOME/ cancer some..heart-attack..some..emphysema and some..frost bite..IN RATS..MICE..[OR A FAVORED/BECAUSE IT GET.. TUMORS]..Guinea pigs..

once..you can..claim..causation/let the spin begin..SAID..to be caused by smoking..thus any deaths FROM THE SAME
are ATTRIBUTABLE to smoking..

its funny how we swallow the spin
we heard lawyers colluded to hide the facts
BUT ARNT ALLOWED TO SEE THE FACTS..its a clever catch 22

how do we KNOW ..they got the facts?
they could have ..made this whole thing up..!
just to get their mates a nice tax cash cake..

you know most politicization's...ARE or WERE lawyers
over half ya govt members WERE LAWYERS..the self same lawyers that are now DEEMING tobacco to kill..and getting a nice new tax out of us..by guilt UNSUPPORTABLE by the facts

i dont know any sick smokers
how many you know of?

but aint it funny how they go into hospital
and die within days

aint it funy how we get a tax
then get new guilt..from adverts ..WE PAYED for

our tax started IMMEDIATELY
but the miners TAX will never be
whats the difference?

25 million of adverts?

to be continued
there is a lot more ..
im going to be saying on this

those who trust lawyers
put their trust on fools

GIVE US FACTS
give autopsy reports
but we dont do autopsies
they would expose WE BEEN LIED TO

I NEVER SMOKED IN YOUR FACE
i dont complain about your stinking car or your perfume
to callup on smoking in busses is living in the past..get real

as for me not paying my way
i dont visit docters..have paid my medicare levie
have paid my tax on my smokes...
and dont complain about you getting its use..mainly to ridicule me

dont make up numbers
20 percent of all aborigonal deaths is the latest claim
GIVE YOUR PROOF..[as no autopisies are conducted..its a GUESSTIMATE]
based on hate/spin..and to make your point

Belly, I understand your point about wanting to "tax smoking out of existence" but it is not that simple. If cigarettes were $100 a pack it would simply encourage a black market, which does already exist in Australia, with cheap Asian cigarettes being sold under the counter. The laws of supply and demand don't apply to a product like cigarettes, double the price does not see demand halved, it may be reduced but not by anywhere near a half.

surprised that nobody seemed at all sceptical of the figure.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/4311009/Ministrys-figures-need-analysis
Here's how they derived the figure -number reckoning revealed courtesy of an Official Information Act request and extensive correspondence with the ministry.

After sorting the population by age, gender, income, ethnicity and smoking status, they then compared the costs of providing health services to smokers..as compared to nonsmokers for each group.

The excess costs of the smoking group were tallied up to produce the $1.9b figure.

But there are two very big problems..with this way of estimating costs.

think..of smoking as bringing forward..end-of-life costs.

Smokers die earlier than nonsmokers.
do..We know that.?..for fact/or spin?
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com.au/search/label/smoking
And the costs to the health budget..of somebody who is dying are rather higher than the costs..of somebody who is healthy.

But everybody dies sometime..and most of us will incur end-of-life costs that will be paid..for by the public health system.

Suppose that a smoker will die..at age 65 and a nonsmoker..will die at 70.[at best..its about..4TO 5 YEARS/DIFFERENCE]..TRY..Comparing 65-year-old smokers to 65-year-old nonsmokers and calling the difference the cost of smoking..then rather biases upwards the measured costs of smoking.[there..is no difference]

We ought to be comparing the health costs of a smoker..dying at age 65 with the health costs..of a nonsmoker dying at age 75.

And, perversely, the deadlier cigarettes are,..the greater will be this bias...The younger smokers are when they die of smoking-related illnesses,..the greater will be the measured cost difference between smokers and non-smokers because a smaller proportion..of comparable nonsmokers would be incurring..end-of-life costs.

The figures assume that in the absence of smoking, smokers would never have imposed end-of-life costs on the health system...But for their smoking, all smokers in this scenario would have died of a sudden,..and cheap,..heart attack and would only have had average health costs up to that point...That's clearly nonsense,..but the $1.9b figure only makes sense if it's true.

note these are..nz numbers
HERE..our real costs..FOR SMOKERS HOSPITALIZATIONS=889..MILLION
even well under the nz boosted....[SOCIAL/COST NUMBERS..its criminal

govts..lIE..FOR MONEY.
lie down with DOGS..YA GET FLEAS/FLEECED..[IN TIME THEY come for your cash.]..

no TAXATION..WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/no-you-cant-tax-your-way-to-happiness.html