It’s always puzzled me how these financial figures (see KPBS story below) are arrived at — inferring that we’d SAVE that amount if only people didn’t smoke. If these people had not died from smoking-related illnesses, would they have lived forever? Or perhaps simply one night died in their sleep without prior illness or treatment?
Yes, they likely would have lived longer if they didn’t smoke, but from a COST standpoint, where’s the savings? Indeed, assuming they were covered by pensions and/or social security, would not they have cost society quite a lot more if they lived 5-10 years longer? Perhaps many of these folks would have ended up with Alzheimer’s disease, with the care (and pain) such a disease causes?
And then there’s the correlation between smoking and diseases. For instance, clearly smoking increases one’s chances of heart disease, but do we count VERY smoker’s death from heart disease as death from smoking? Is that logical? Or do we count only the EXTRA deaths from smoking-related heart disease (as good science would dictate — something that can be calculated using actuarial data)?
As I said, I’m puzzled about these numbers — presented without explanation. Don’t get me wrong — I’m no fan of smoking (far from it!). And I’m sure smokers on average require more medical care in their lifetime than nonsmokers. But if these numbers claim that ALL this cost would otherwise be avoided by not smoking, then that’s junk science.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/oct/21/california-coughs-18-billion-smoking-related-costs/
California Coughs Up $18 Billion In Smoking-Related Costs
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
By Kenny Goldberg
Despite California’s tobacco control program, smoking extracts a heavy toll in the state.
A new study from UC San Francisco offers some stark details on the impact of tobacco use in California.
The study reveals more than 34,000 Californians died from smoking-related causes in 2009, the latest figures available for the research. That includes deaths from cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses.
That amounts to more than one in seven deaths in the state caused by smoking.
Statewide, smoking took an $18 billion toll that year.
. . .
Go to the link to read the rest of the story.
Comments 3
Wow. Talk about junk science. Just doing some simple math proves how wrong this report is.
They claim one in seven California deaths is due to smoking. Google stats on how many Californians smoke and it is 15%. (Kentucky is highest with 30.2%).
Well, one in seven is 14.3%. So apparently everyone who smokes in CA dies from smoking. Plus a few more people from that dang second hand smoke.
Fat smokers save society the most money by dying early. Free burgers and cigarettes could solve the debt crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0
Bob, I believe the 1 in 7 is of people who die in California and the 15% is of people who live in California.
So both numbers are fractions of two differeent groups of people.
Group 1: people who die in CA (1 in 7 of them die from smoking)
Group 2: people who live in CA and smoke (15% of them smoke)