Tobacco Could Kill 1 Billion by 2100

[The Grim Squeaker]

Tobacco Could Kill 1 Billion by 2100

By EDITH M. LEDERER

NEW YORK (AP) -- The World Health Organization warned in a new report Thursday that the "tobacco epidemic" is growing and could claim 1 billion lives by the end of the century unless governments dramatically step up efforts to curb smoking.

In its first comprehensive report on tobacco use in 179 countries, the U.N.s health agency said governments around the world collect more than $200 billion in tobacco taxes every year but spend less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that revenue on tobacco control, it said.

"We hold in our hands the solution to the global tobacco epidemic that threatens the lives of 1 billion men, women and children during this century," WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said in an introduction to the report.

The WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2008 calls on all countries to dramatically increase efforts to prevent young people from beginning to smoke, help smokers quit and protect nonsmokers from exposure to second hand smoke.

It urges governments to adopt six "tobacco control policies" - raise taxes and prices of tobacco; ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; protect people from second hand smoke; warn people about the dangers of tobacco; help those who want to quit smoking; and monitor tobacco use to understand and reverse the epidemic.

Chan announced the report Thursday at a news conference with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, helped fund it with a $2 million grant. The report examines the tobacco policies of 179 countries for the first time, Bloomberg said.

According to the report, nearly two-thirds of the world's smokers live in 10 countries: China, which accounts for nearly 30 percent, India with about 10 percent, Indonesia, Russia, the United States, Japan, Brazil, Bangladesh, Germany and Turkey.

It forecast that more than 80 percent of tobacco-related deaths will be in low- and middle-income countries by 2030.

Dr. Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative, said WHO estimates 5.4 million smoking-related deaths a year, rising to more than 8 million a year by 2030 if nothing is done. That adds up to 175 million between 2005 and 2030. Beyond that, he said, deaths will continue to rise and statistical projections put the death toll at near 1 billion by the end of the century.

Tobacco use is growing fastest in low-income countries, the report said, "due to steady population growth coupled with tobacco industry targeting, ensuring that millions of people become fatally addicted each year."

It warned that "the shift of the tobacco epidemic to the developing world will lead to unprecedented levels of disease and early death in countries where population growth and the potential for increased tobacco use are highest and where health care services are least available."

According to the report, 74 countries still allow smoking in health care institutions and about the same number allow smoking in schools. More than half the countries, with two-thirds of the world's population, allow smoking in government offices and workplaces, and only 20 of 179 countries have complete bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

"The tobacco epidemic is growing - it is shifting toward developing countries, with tobacco use growing fastest in low-income countries," Chan said.

For the tobacco industry to survive, and keep existing customers hooked and attract new customers, "it spends tens of billions of dollars a year on advertising, promotion and sponsorship," WHO said.

Michael Pfeil, vice president for communications for Lausanne, Switzerland-based Philip Morris International, said the company advocates "for tough, fair, cohesive regulation of the industry" and believes many countries need to do more. The company has operations in 160 countries.

He said regulations Philip Morris supports mirror some core provisions of the U.N. anti-smoking treaty that came into force last year. These include mandatory health warnings, restrictions on advertising including bans in some media, and minimum age laws for smoking, he said.

"We're going to continue to spend money," Pfeil said in a telephone interview. "I think we have a duty as a commercial entity to continue to grow our business, but ... our interest is in marketing to adult smokers who are smoking competitive products."

David Howard, spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, the second-largest cigarette manufacturer in the U.S., said the company is responsible in its advertising and warns consumers of the risk of smoking.

"The best course of action for any tobacco consumer concerned about their health is to quit," he said.

In the words of the great "Nick Naylor": I front an organization that kills 1,200 people a day. A "delightful" underestimate

[Zablorg]

Part of me frankly doesn't give a damn. If someone is stupid enough to do such a stupid activity with decent knowledge of the consequences, then I honestly don't care what happens to them. Also, population control ftw.

Then again, I'm not sure about how many people take it up with literally no knowledge of the consequences, and wouldn't bother to quit just because they don't see why they should bother. I think the education thing should fly, yeah.

[General Zod]

Part of me frankly doesn't give a damn. If someone is stupid enough to do such a stupid activity with decent knowledge of the consequences, then I honestly don't care what happens to them. Also, population control ftw.

Then again, I'm not sure about how many people take it up with literally no knowledge of the consequences, and wouldn't bother to quit just because they don't see why they should bother. I think the education thing should fly, yeah.

The problem with tobacco is that it's not just the smoker who gets hurt. Second-hand smoke is almost as damaging. Plus you have the nasty side-effect of smoke infusing rooms and furniture to leave a stink that you just can't get rid of.

[Erik von Nein]

The problem with tobacco is that it's not just the smoker who gets hurt. Second-hand smoke is almost as damaging. Plus you have the nasty side-effect of smoke infusing rooms and furniture to leave a stink that you just can't get rid of.

Oh, never mind that. They'll die from the first puff of smoke they get. You know, instead of spending several slow and fairly painful years dying, totally not being a huge drain on whatever respective healthcare system they have. No, see, this is the perfect solution to population problems.

100 years from now.

I wonder if these numbers take into account the growing problems with climate change, worsening economy, und so weiter. There might not even be enough people 98 years from now for there to be a billion people to die from just tobacco alone. Or, because tobacco's a relatively cheap drug, there could be a billion new addicts in the next decade.

[His Divine Shadow]

I was thinking, most of these people aren't gonna have the chance to die from cancer.

[FSTargetDrone]

The problem with tobacco is that it's not just the smoker who gets hurt. Second-hand smoke is almost as damaging. Plus you have the nasty side-effect of smoke infusing rooms and furniture to leave a stink that you just can't get rid of.

Not to mention the costs of treating such people that are borne by everyone. Treatment that might never otherwise be necessary (and paid for) if people didn't smoke.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess a proposal where tobacco companies would get to bear the entire costs of smoker population healthcare would be a great thing; it would cut down demand, raise the price and also compensate the mass of addicts from the drug-dealer's pocket.

Too bad that'd never happen.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Recently there was some government(Ministry of Health) sponsored study in the Netherlands which rated people different groups in the way they cost the health system.
Smokers are the cheapest group, fat people are more expensive and slim non-smokers are the most expensive group.
That for example fat people are the most expensive up the the ago of 56 does not create the same costs for the health care system then people which live long and get the countless age related sicknesses.
It's just health system costs, it ignores stuff like taxes on smokes and that people which die early get less pension payments. However on the other side it also ignores the economic losses because smokers and fat people have more work related accidents(I did not know that,funky).
Maybe smokers and stuff are indeed cheaper for goverments, at least in this one eurocommie country.

[Julhelm]

The whole antipathy against tobacco these days is only because there are interests who'd rather see the tobacco fields grow biofuel, such as corn ethanol and other scams like that.

[Julhelm]

To be more specific:

Governments make far too much revenue on the taxes slapped onto tobacco and these are by now high enough (along with alcohol taxes) that smokers and alcoholics have essentially paid their own healthcare costs with taxes many times over by the time they land in the ER.

So there really has to be a deeper reason why all of a sudden governments now turn on such a golden cash cow. Probably because they've figured out biofuel can be taxed even more and gain more revenue.

[K. A. Pital]

Governments make far too much revenue on the taxes slapped onto tobacco and these are by now high enough (along with alcohol taxes) that smokers and alcoholics have essentially paid their own healthcare costs with taxes many times over by the time they land in the ER.

I'd like to see some numerical data behind that.

[FSTargetDrone]

Governments make far too much revenue on the taxes slapped onto tobacco and these are by now high enough (along with alcohol taxes) that smokers and alcoholics have essentially paid their own healthcare costs with taxes many times over by the time they land in the ER.

So there really has to be a deeper reason why all of a sudden governments now turn on such a golden cash cow. Probably because they've figured out biofuel can be taxed even more and gain more revenue.

How about we look at some numbers from the CDC related to the costs incurred by smoking in the USA from 1995-1999 (the most recent I can find):

During 1995--1999, the average annual mortality-related productivity losses attributable to smoking for adults were $81.9 billion. In 1998, smoking-attributable personal health-care medical expenditures were $75.5 billion. For each of the approximately 46.5 million adult smokers in 1999, these costs represent $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. Smoking-attributable neonatal expenditures were $366 million in 1996, or $704 per maternal smoker ($8 per adult smoker). Maternal smoking accounted for 2.3% of total neonatal medical expenditures in 1996. The economic costs of smoking totaled $3,391 per smoker per year.

And:

Cigarette smoking continues to be the principal cause of premature death in the United States and imposes substantial costs on society. For each of the approximately 22 billion packs sold in the U.S. in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking, and $3.73 in productivity losses were incurred, for a total cost of $7.18 per pack. These costs provide a strong rationale for increasing funding for comprehensive tobacco-use interventions to the levels recommended by CDC. In California, decreases in smoking prevalence have resulted in reduced lung cancer and heart disease death rates. These results offer evidence of the potential benefits of expanding comprehensive tobacco-control programs in an effort to reduce current smoking prevalence by 50% by 2010.

Clearly, with those numbers, the taxes on cigarettes aren't high enough.

[Julhelm]

Well, I'm not in the US so I wouldn't know about that.

Swedish tobacco taxation

From this we can make out that the tax alone on cigarettes is now 39.2% of the market price.

Now, some math follows:

Average cost of one pack of ciggs: 4,5€

Let's say our average smoker smokes one pack a day. That's 1642,5€ going up in smoke each year. Now, statistics say our smoker is not likely to develop lungcancer while under the age of 45, so let's say he gets hit on his 45th birthday. Assuming he has begun the habit in his teens like most people do, he will by now have smoked for a whooping 57487€! That's more than half a million spent only on tobacco. Now deduct the tax from this sum and we end up with the figure of 22535€ or something like that.

Now this is just for one person.

[HemlockGrey]

During my daily quest for knowledge and enlightenment I came across this study by the New England Journal of Medicine. The summation is that smokers actually save society money because they have much shorter lifespans. Since they die early they avoid all the expensive later-on-in-life diseases associated with the elderly.