Quote:

Change takes courage and in Greece change is everywhere. Reform, revolution, restructuring, call it what you will, the country is in the grip of massive transformation, spurred mostly by the realisation that without it cash-strapped Athens was heading for economic collapse. But change is also painful, and of all the changes currently being enacted in a society historically resistant to reform, the government's campaign to stub out the nation's proclivity for a puff is proving to be more inflammatory than predicted. Last month's state-sponsored attempt to get Greeks to stop smoking – with the enforcement of an unprecedented blanket ban on cigarettes in all public places – was never going to be easy. To date, Europe's heaviest smokers have snubbed at least eight such efforts. The latest bid, more trenchant than any before, was aimed not only at improving the nation's health but arresting the lacerating effect the habit has had on the country's health system at a time when hospitals can barely afford needles, surgical gloves and other basic essentials. As I wrote in these columns at the launch of the campaign with 40% of the population "declared smokers" it is conservatively estimated that nicotine addiction costs the state over €2bn(£1.8bn) a year. For the prime minister, George Papandreou, an avid non-smoker who to the surprise of many has managed to stop cadres from lighting up in the central offices of his Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok), the ban was also a primary first step to making Greeks more health conscious and, in so doing, "revolutionising attitudes." In some small way it was hoped the ban could help clean up Greece's image, re-establish its shattered credibility less than four months after the IMF and EU agreed to emergency loans to stave off bankruptcy. All of which might explain why smoking has become such a hot issue – not just for entrepreneurs and the patrons of cafes who, despite draconian penalties, still insist on lighting up, but for officialdom at large. When in the course of testing the ban last month I wrote that I, too, had violated the law, flagrantly defying the prohibition at a soiree given by a government minister in a downtown bar, the protests were vivid and loud. For many the piece amounted to crass stereotyping of the country as a third-world state unable to apply the rule of law. Greeks, perhaps more than ever before, are ultra sensitive about the way they are portrayed by the western press. The government, unquestionably the most cosmopolitan of modern times with the US-born Papandreou an internationalist par excellence, is acutely image conscious. After inheriting a carcass of a Greek economy in the wake of five scandal-ridden years of conservative rule, the reform-minded socialists have borne the brunt of excoriating criticism from fellow EU states with Germany leading the charge that Athens had lied and cheated its way into the hallowed euro zone. Not infrequently, Greeks have been portrayed as jingle-jangle Zorbas, undeserving of EU membership. The drastic steps that Papandreou's modernising government has taken to allay the crisis – with draconian cuts of wages, pensions and benefits in the public sector – have gradually helped shift the anachronistic perception of Greeks as lazy, happy-go-lucky Levantines. But the sacrifices have also stoked the nation's innate anti-authoritarianism – an instinctive rebelliousness that authorities may not like but have encountered repeatedly in recent months. The announcement this week by Greek bar and restaurant owners that they will be putting ashtrays back on tables – citing the prohibition's disastrous effect on business at a time of deep recession – should not take officialdom by surprise. Nor should coverage of the development be interpreted as below-the-belt criticism. Rather, the collective snub is yet another example that the Greeks are not going to take this crisis and the hard-hitting changes that it has spawned, lying down.

Greece's smokers stoke up rebellion | Helena Smith | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I've been wondering about the cost of smoking to the health system lately. So it costs 2bn? Compared to what? Those of their compatriots who've drunk the elixir of eternal youth and will never cost the health system a penny? People who quietly have heart attacks the day before they were due to retire? A guy who gets Alzheimers at 80 and needs round-the-clock care until he dies aged 96? How much exactly does the healthcare of an equal-sized segment of the non-smoking population cost?

Presumably you save on pensions. You also have to take into account the fact that the cost of healthcare rises with time as technology improves. Surely, then it's far cheaper to treat them for smoking-related illnesses now than it will be to treat them for general decreptidue in the future?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Surely, then it's far cheaper to treat them for smoking-related illnesses now than it will be to treat them for general decreptidue in the future?

The key actuarial calculation.

You need to estimate the money you save from their likely early death compared to the cost of treating them when they get sick.

It's rather pointless to speculate about those 2 items - Normally, actuarians, with access to enough data, do a good job of presenting the picture of "as is" and "as was". They suck nearly as much as the rest of us when it comes to "as will be"...

Thus, presuming the calculations have been made, I'd take the results as read.

I've seen analysis of the cost & near-future benefits of people stopping smoking. However, after 5 mins with Google, I cannot find a study comparing that to the increased costs of people living longer. I think I've heard that it was positive i.e. ideally, you actually want people to smoke - and thus die earlier ; even with the extra cancer treatments etc thrown in...

In the Greek case, though, you also have the question of the timing of cash outflows. Paying x in the next 3-5 years due to extra cancers might be less worse than paying 2x in 15-20 years time when those healthy people will enter end-of-life intensive care: The Greek gvt has immediate cash flow issues that, it might hope, will be solved by the time healthy end-of-lifers become a drag...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.