My new neighbour is selling tobacco from his house.

fl4pj4ck

cigarette smuggling is anywhere near as bad as the theft, robberies, burglaries, instances of violence and mania that are associated with meth addicts. Cigarette smugglers are generally just defrauding the exchequer

you lost me there. so smuggling (e.g. stealing from exchequer) is ok, but theft (i.e. stealing from... exchequer) is ok?

Nino Brown

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's pretty amazing.

Smokers have shorter illnesses than nonsmokers? Seriously? You think the ways you can die from tobacco are quick???

Really?

??

He's right, likewise for obese people, they don't live as long, so they end up costing less. Dying from lung cancer in a year or 2 might seem long, but pension and healthcare costs for 20 years plus ends up costing a lot more.

Here's news report from the UK, I saw similar results for a study in the US before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html

OP I'd report them, just do it confidentially. They're not exactly scarface, but if what they're doing is inconveniencing you, then don't put up with it.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

The "added healthcare costs" argument around smoking is really a non-runner. Smokers in general are far less of a burden on the exchequer because they die younger (fewer pension payments) and have shorter illnesses (less burden on HSE) than non-smokers.

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's pretty amazing.

Smokers have shorter illnesses than nonsmokers? Seriously? You think the ways you can die from tobacco are quick???

Really?

No, not really. Smoking is not just associated with early death, but with a variety of lingering, expensive-to-treat and often disabling conditions - emphysema, for example. Plus, smokers have significantly higher rates of dementia than non-smokers. The extra health costs associated with smoking are considerable, not to mention lost productivity costs (which of cousre for the most part do not fall on the exchequer, but are real societal costs nonetheless). These vastly exceed the pension savings which admittedly do result.

hullaballoo

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's pretty amazing.

Smokers have shorter illnesses than nonsmokers? Seriously? You think the ways you can die from tobacco are quick???

Really?

??

Yes, the terminal illnesses linked with smoking have very short diagnosis-to-death times. Cardiovascular disease, strokes, lung cancer, CPOD, blood clots etc. kill people quickly by comparison to other non-tobacco-related terminal diseases. Some of the above often mean instant death without people ever requiring treatment.

fl4pj4ck wrote: »

you lost me there. so smuggling (e.g. stealing from exchequer) is ok, but theft (i.e. stealing from... exchequer) is ok?

Theft from the person (i.e., you, me, any other person randomly targeted by a junkie) is more detrimental to the fabric of society than defrauding Revenue. As I said, both are serious but one causes more societal damage, which is what we're having this entertaining discussion about.

matt-dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, the terminal illnesses linked with smoking have very short diagnosis-to-death times. Cardiovascular disease, strokes, lung cancer, CPOD, blood clots etc. kill people quickly by comparison to other non-tobacco-related terminal diseases. Some of the above often mean instant death without people ever requiring treatment.


Theft from the person (i.e., you, me, any other person randomly targeted by a junkie) is more detrimental to the fabric of society than defrauding Revenue. As I said, both are serious but one causes more societal damage, which is what we're having this entertaining discussion about.

Take diabetes for example, my ol fella's monthly prescription costs the government over €1000.

He's been diabetic for 20 years!

That's nearly 250k!!!!!

JohnnyChimpo

hullaballoo wrote: »

The "added healthcare costs" argument around smoking is really a non-runner. Smokers in general are far less of a burden on the exchequer because they die younger (fewer pension payments) and have shorter illnesses (less burden on HSE) than non-smokers.

This strict utilitarian viewpoint of smoking cessation has been floating around since the 1980s, and it's yet to convince a lot of people so far for several reasons:

Firstly, it's no doubt that this whole strand of research is going to be highly politicised, I doubt the NHS is keen to fund studies promoting tobacco usage. On the macro level research is political. Therefore, this topic is under-researched and under-published.

Secondly, economic estimates such as these are highly reductive, and necessarily exclude any number of intangible variables related to quality of life and workplace productivity. It's not totally clear that pension savings due to smoker mortality outweigh the Exchequer costs of lost productive man-hours.

Cohen and Barton's 1998 mini-review on this whole topic in Thorax (1998) would in fact argue the exact opposite of this point.

Thirdly, (and speaking as a cancer researcher myself), "years to death:pack years smoked" is not a constant ratio, and is certain to increase dramatically over time as new therapies, combination therapies, surgical techniques, and active surveillance methodologies are employed to prolong patient survival. This will totally skew any estimates based on current actuarial data.#


TL;DR - if you think smokers are saving the Exchequer money, you're ignoring the realities of workplace economics and scientific and medical progress, and you're basing your analysis on either a paucity of actual research, or more likely something you heard your mate say down the pub.

hullaballoo

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

This strict utilitarian viewpoint of smoking cessation has been floating around since the 1980s, and it's yet to convince a lot of people so far for several reasons:

Firstly, it's no doubt that this whole strand of research is going to be highly politicised, I doubt the NHS is keen to fund studies promoting tobacco usage. On the macro level research is political. Therefore, this topic is under-researched and under-published.

Secondly, economic estimates such as these are highly reductive, and necessarily exclude any number of intangible variables related to quality of life and workplace productivity. It's not totally clear that pension savings due to smoker mortality outweigh the Exchequer costs of lost productive man-hours.

Cohen and Barton's 1998 mini-review on this whole topic in Thorax (1998) would in fact argue the exact opposite of this point.

Thirdly, (and speaking as a cancer researcher myself), "years to death:pack years smoked" is not a constant ratio, and is certain to increase dramatically over time as new therapies, combination therapies, surgical techniques, and active surveillance methodologies are employed to prolong patient survival. This will totally skew any estimates based on current actuarial data.

All you have said is that there is really no argument to be made around whether smokers are more or less of a burden on the exchequer than non-smokers. There is insufficient evidence either way because, as you point out, no one will pay for objective research to be done. Health policy dictates that smoking is bad for smokers. Social policy dictates that smoking has a negative impact on individuals and society. No government in a democratic system could justify carrying out the research to see whether it's cheaper to get people to smoke for obvious reasons.

In my own roundabout way, that's what I was getting at. I was just posting from the point of view of the opposite lobby to show the fallacy in the other post. Hyperbole, I think they call it.

I thought it might have been obvious from my comments about putting a cigarette in a baby's mouth.

mathepac

smee again wrote: »

... Meth causes far more problems to society as addicts resort to crime to feed their habit.

Indeed. They may set up house next door to you and start selling smuggled tobacco products to fund their meth habit because illegal tobacco is very profitable.

According to a BBC telly programme smuggled fags land in the UK from China at a cost of £0.09 for a packet and at that price, if you smoke them, the tobacco is the least of your worries. They've been found to contain arsenic, rat-poison, plastic, weed-killer and other health-enhancing substances.

The chances are OP's neighbour is killing off the local smokers quicker than Inda Kinny, Angela Merkel and the former head of the Bank of Ireland combined. Merkel and Kinny are writing a book together about the losses illegal tobacco causes. It's to be entitled "Angela's Ashes Part 2: Revenge of the Smugglers" available at all good undertakers.

Santa Cruz

When you ring in say that there's people selling from your house as well. Then both of ye will be searched and the other neighbour gets the blame and probably kneecapped

Eyepatch

The fact that this is a "new" neighbour, is significant. If he thinks he has a "safe haven", where he can continue his business, the longer you leave it the more difficult it will be to get this issue dealt with. There will be more money at stake, the longer it goes on. The fact the nobody has the courage to report him, will give him the false impression that he is free to develop this business at will. Certainly, it will be much more difficult to deal with, the longer it goes on, and the more developed the business is.

ardle1

♪♫ what ever you♪♫do say♪♫nothing,when you♪♫talk about you♪♫know what♪♫for if you know♪♫who should hear you♪♫you know what♪♫you'll get♪♫they'll take you♪♫off to you know♪♫where♪♫for you wouldn't know♪♫how long♪♫so for you know♪♫who's sake♪♫don't let anyone♪♫hear you singing♪♫THIS SONG.

godwin

Leilak wrote: »

know someone who reported their neighbour for something similar and their life wasn't worth living yer man flipped

I don't care about some blow in selling ****e on an estate here I grew up and where my whole extended family lives , he's lucky to be getting a slap on the wrists , not a rap on the beak.