Made round to go around
Don’t they just love telling us how much things cost?
Here they spout about smoking costing Ireland several billion a year. Obesity is up there as well, probably with another few billion. The WHO of course have to be king of the castle so they reckon smoking costs the world economy a trillion dollars a year. This is their latest tactic to try to shock us to the core and give up living altogether in despair.
But what do they mean by “costs”?
I suppose they are trying to give the impression that that money just disappears into a black hole somewhere, and if smoking / obesity / alcoholism didn’t suck it all up that somehow there would be a few trillion dollars doing all sorts of wonderful things like feeding the world and sending people to Mars. But it doesn’t work that way, does it?
So where does this money actually go?
They are somewhat vague about this and presumably hope we all think it goes into the back pockets of Big Tobacco or Big Sugar or even Big Drink. Let’s have a look at an imaginary situation:
Joe Blogs is a worker in a factory and enjoys the odd cigarette and a few spoons of sugar and a dollop of Vodka on his cereal. One day he is hit by a bicycle and his leg is broken. Naturally he is carted off to hospital. On admission he is marked down as a smoker [or sugar eater or alcoholic] and the injury is therefore smoking related [or sugar / alcohol related].
A doctor examines the leg and adds a whopping fee onto the hospital bill. The hospital is in the meantime charging several hundred a night to keep poor Joe in Third World conditions. All this is of course racked up to “smoking related costs”. But where does this money go? Presumably the doctor is going to spend it on food, clothing and a mansion in Marbella. Now if he spends it on food and clothing [and a few bob for the missus] then the money is still in the economy. It is now being used to employ food retailers, clothing manufacturers and plastic surgeons for the wife’s boob job. If however he spends it in Marbella then technically it has left this economy and into the Spanish one. We make up for that by overcharging Spanish tourists so there is no net loss. Similarly the hospital is employing nurses and tons of foreigners and they also are spending their money on food clothing and possibly drugs [who knows, these days?] all of which keeps others in employment [even drug dealers have to live, don’tcha know?].
So none of the money is ultimately leaving the economy: it just circulates around the place. The only time it stops circulating is when some cunt sticks it under his mattress for a rainy day.
So when you look at things in this light, smoking, drinking and eating contribute massive amounts to the economy [probably somewhere in the region of a trillion a year?] and should therefore be thanked for their valliant efforts to keep trade and industry alive and running. Apart from pubs and shops, look at the factories pumping out cigarettes, sugar, confectionery and booze. Look at the people who service those enterprises. Look at the farmers growing tobacco, sugar cane or hops. Even look at the number of doctors, nurses and surgeons who’d be out of a job if there were no “smoking related” illnesses. The list is endless.
I definitely think smokers, drinkers and fatties are the heroes of society.
Without them, the economy would be fucked.
All the young ‘uns on here won’t remember this, but I remember asking myself a similar question many, many years ago when we were instructed – “for our own good” and, of course, to “save the NHS £xxx per year” (can’t remember the quoted figure now) – to use seatbelts in our cars, whether we wanted to or not, and under the threat of a big fine if we didn’t. It was, of course, several decades ago now, but I distinctly remember that although these big figures were thrown about with gay abandon in the run-up to the legislation (to garner “public support”), once it was safely enshrined in law I saw no headlines screaming with joy at all the wonderful facilities which NHS patients could now enjoy, thanks to all those hundreds of thousands of pounds which the service was now, supposedly, “saving.” There was little improvement in either facilities or care; the NHS remained, mysteriously, still chronically short of cash; people still faced hours-long waits in A&E; waiting lists remained stubbornly long; and doctors and nurses still harped on endlessly about how stressed and overworked and under-valued they were. Even back then, the NHS, it seemed, was always “in crisis” and “at breaking point” and “overloaded,” just like it is now, despite the fact that the new whizzy seatbelt laws had been promised to give us an NHS simply awash with cash (well, not quite, but certainly with a good deal more money at their disposal). Even I am too young to remember it, but I’ll bet there were people before me who asked the same question about the crash-helmet laws passed some years earlier, and using the same justifications, no doubt.
I seem to recollect reading somewhere that crash helmets are only effective in slow speed impacts, and that at anything over 30 mph, although they may protect the skull, they offer no protection from the G-forces that the brain is subjected to, which tends to result in severe disability (like Michael Schumacher who is now not much more than a vegetable after his skiing accident, despite the helmet). I would hazard a guess that crash helmets have considerably increased the costs to the NHS of motorcyclist’s accidents, as people who would otherwise have died instantly now require a lifetime of expensive care.
Your recollection is correct. I can vouch for it being a long time Harley rider who experienced those years where mandatory helmets (known as “brain buckets” in the US to us riders) were being debated on a state per state basis. So from experience with motorcycle helmets at least, helmets are effective at 30 mph or less since most motorcycle accidents happen below 30 mph. Above 30 mph you might as well not wear anything if you hit something head on. Anyway, it was a damn nuisance when riding from one state to another having to carry a helmet just in case one state had mandatory helmet laws and another didn’t