Estimated cost of smoking hits peak absurdity

Thirteen months ago I noted that:

According to ASH the cost of smoking to society has risen to £17 billion a year, a scarcely believable increase of £5 billion since they last got their abacus out in 2018.

See: Partisan pressure group says smoking costs society £17bn a year.

Forest's reaction to what I described as 'ASH's tortured calculations' was summed up in two words - ‘absurd’ and ‘contrived’.

Incredibly, despite the Office for National Statistics reporting that smoking rates in the UK have fallen to their lowest level (13.3%) since records began, a new report commissioned by ASH now argues that:

The total cost of smoking to the UK economy in 2022 is estimated to be just over £173 billion.

This absurdly inflated figure is broken down as follows:

1. Productivity costs. These total just under £31 billion. The largest single component is reduced output due to expenditure on tobacco products compared to other goods and services, amounting to just under £14 billion. Reduced employment for smokers compared to non-smokers, and reduced earnings for working smokers compared to non-smokers, both account for between £7 billion and £8 billion of reduced productivity.

2. Service costs. These total just over £18.6 billion. The additional cost of informal care in the social sector is the largest single component of service costs at just over £9 billion, followed by the cost of additional unmet need for social care services at just over £5.7 billion, and the cost of smoking to the NHS at £2.2 billion.

3. Cost of early deaths from smoking. This is the largest single component of costs at just under £124 billion.

I've read the report and what stands out for me is the monotonous use of the words 'estimates', 'estimating' and 'estimated'.

It reminds me of something the late Lord Harris, chairman of Forest from 1987 to 2006, wrote almost 20 years ago in relation to the estimated risks of passive smoking:

If laymen dare to question any of these guesstimates and projections the sophisticated statisticians take refuge behind their computers which have been heavily programmed to incorporate a variety of elaborate assumptions and statistical techniques.

And since researchers have discovered that the bigger the reported risk the better the chance of attracting funding and getting their results published (known in the trade as ‘publication bias’), they have exerted much ingenuity, as we shall see, in what is known as ‘data dredging’ – that is, torturing the statistics until they confess!

Naturally, this new 'analysis' was published ahead of next month's Budget so you won't be surprised by ASH's spin on it – Chancellor urged to make Big Tobacco pay for the massive burden it puts on public finances.

Chris Snowdon has written an excellent article – How much does smoking cost Britain? – that takes a more forensic scalpel to the issue. If I have one small quibble it’s when he writes:

The ‘societal cost’ figure of £173 billion is designed to make it look as if it is everybody’s business, but it is so obviously suspect that ASH haven’t been using it in their PR. Instead, they have focused on a claim from the same report that smoking imposes a net cost on taxpayers of £9.5 billion.

The £173 billion figure may not be front and centre but it’s there all right. You’ll find it in the news release promoting the report:

The analysis by Howard Reed of Landman Economics for ASH is based on the latest evidence on the costs of smoking to the UK economy, society and public finances. It shows that the burden smoking puts on the NHS (£2.2 billion) and social care (£1.3 billion) is only a small part of the £21 billion total cost to the public purse. The biggest burden, £17 billion, is due to reductions in taxes and increases in benefits as a result of the sickness, disability and premature death caused by smoking. Smoking doesn’t just harm public finances, it also damages the wider economy at a total cost of £173 billion in 2022.

From an estimate of £12 billion in 2018 to £173 billion in 2022. Who could possibly question that?

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

It astounds me that anyone believes this rubbish. It is so outrageous that it can only have one aim - a campaign designed to incite hatred against smokers among the public who is falsely made to believe that people who smoke are costing them money at a time when we are all struggling with the cost of living and the NHS is dying on its feet.

It also aims to instil fear and a "something must be done" attitude among low calibre, stupid, naive and prejudicial MPs in Government to take even more money from smokers to fund the pockets, salaries and downright dishonesty of lobby groups that commission such outrageous reports for financial gain themselves.

The real aim it would seem is to divert attention from how much these useless groups actually cost the tax payer and society generally which is far, far more than smokers if you look at the billions of public money chucked at them.

Shameful.