I recently saw one of those adverts on television advertising free NHS help to people who wish to quit smoking. Although I am all for people to stop smoking if they have the willpower to, but doesn't the money from smoking go to the NHS?
Of course people have reasons to either stop or continue smoking, it's entirely up to the individual if they wish to stop or not.

If lots of stopped smoking then the NHS loses money.
If people continue to smoke and do get health related problems with smoking, isn't that creating a higher need for the NHS?

I just want to hear people's thoughts on this :)

I think that people who smoke should have a one off on the NHS (So one smoking related disease from it...) Then after that they should be charged.. -shrugs- I think smoking and drinking related diseases are such a big strain on the NHS that after a while it's taking the piss, e.g. if a person comes in thrice for the same kind of smoking related problem, and they've been advised to stop smoking because of said problem, yet they continue so the problem comes back.

But I suppose it's all freedom of choice, so we shouldn't deny people health care because they smoke etc... but yeah. I dunno I'm sure it all works, I just.. yeah. Lol. I dunno I'm sure I wouldn't actually want this in real life, it's just my thoughts. :P

I think there is a sort of uneasy balance between the two scenarios.

If people buy tobacco they are taxed highly for it and this offsets the cost of treating their smoking-related illnesses in hospitals. I don't know the figures so can't say whether the NHS or the smoker is better off. If fewer people buy tobacco and pay tax on it, fewer people will succumb to smoking-related illnesses and so less money would be needed by the NHS. Or so the formula goes.

I don't see any problem in the NHS helping people to quit smoking because the money input and demand for medical treatment should equilibriate itself, in theory.

I think that the money that the government makes from taxes on tobacco might make up for additional costs to the NHS, yes. Also, I just thought... if smoking lowers your life expectancy, then people won't be knocking around after they've retired for as long, so less money will be paid out in state pensions and such. Maybe the shorter lives will cut the work for the NHS back down, too... because there will be less old people needing medical help.

I understand the thing with having people pay if they're in there repeatedly, but I'd say the same thing about HORSEPEOPLE. Folks who ride about the joint on horses and keep falling off, after they've broken one arm I'd say "either buy a car or pay for your own arms from now on" in the same way as people who drink and that. I don't have anything in particular against horse people, it was just an example. :P I could equally have said... umm... shotputters(?). Besides, I don't really think that we should charge extra like that for horse people, I'm saying that we shouldn't for them or for drinkers/smokers etc.

Foxy's comment about Horsepeople got me thinking...

We are charging drinkers and smokers extra because of the added tax they have to pay when buying these products, but we aren't for horsepeople and shotputters, even though all of these groups may need extra medical attention because of their lifestyle choices. I know if you carry on down this route you get to the point where any illness/injury that is connected with lifestyle choices, however tenuous, should be paid extra for. We have drawn the line at charging drinkers and smokers extra but why have we drawn it here?

Probably because the drugs don't benefit society really, or any entertainment value wider than x, and also because they are so much more dangerous to the health? (Just my suggestion/opinion)

Mmhm, I say I haven't got anything against horsepeople, but I HAVE looked into it in the past... and, compared to the use of the drug "ecstasy", horse-riding causes more road accidents, more injuries and more deaths each year. It IS a big cost to the NHS, in the same was as smoking and drinking, other things which people do for pleasure. Actually, smoking and drinking are sort of addictive, too, so it's more difficult to stop than horsing. The horsepeople could stop straight away, knowing the potential consequences and costs, but they don't.

Wow, I'm starting to think that maybe I DO have something against them. :P

Lol, there are some interesting points here. I think that at the moment there is a balance between smoking and the money for the NHS. I just wanted to see where this discussion goes :)

It went straight to horses, 'twould appear, m'dear.

It went straight to horses, 'twould appear, m'dear.
I blame Sorsie for that because if you search "cartoon sorsie" in Google, it suggests "cartoon horse" :p.

I went to the doc's today, and as a smoker, casually asked about the best way to give up smoking. I find it slightly alleviates the doctor's disdain at me being a smoker in the first place... Anyhoo - I was advised to avoid NRT, particularly the gums, as there may now be evidence of it causing oral cancer.

I also doubt that the majority of tobacco tax goes to the NHS, and it is probably spread around other areas. On the other side, I wonder how many 'smoking related illnesses' are specifically caused by smoking. If someone smoked for 3 years in their teens and develops lung cancer at the age of 60, is that a 'smoking related illness'?

I also doubt that the majority of tobacco tax goes to the NHS, and it is probably spread around other areas.
I think tax of this sort goes to the big pot in the Treasury and then the Chancellor dishes out sums to public sector services such as the NHS, based on need rather than directly correlated to the amount of tobacco tax paid. I don't know the figures so you could be right or it could be the other way around, in that tobacco tax plus some extra goes towards treating patients with diseases caused by smoking.

On the other side, I wonder how many 'smoking related illnesses' are specifically caused by smoking. If someone smoked for 3 years in their teens and develops lung cancer at the age of 60, is that a 'smoking related illness'?
We can't know for sure whether smoking was the cause of the disease, which is probably why tobacco tax doesn't go directly to treating patients with diseases that may have been caused by smoking.

If lots of stopped smoking then the NHS loses money.
If people continue to smoke and do get health related problems with smoking, isn't that creating a higher need for the NHS?

I think, this is like saying people who get sick create a higher need for doctors, and therefore no one should find a cure for anything because treating sick people is better for doctors than finding a solution that prevents the problem.

While the government does make money from taxes, it is also their responsibility to ensure that they are looking after the welfare of their people, and in the end, healthier people make a better workforce than sick ones.

I wasn't aware of the fact that the tax money on cigarettes went towards the NHS, but it's good that it does I guess. At least that way smokers are kinda paying for their own treatment. How much of it goes to the NHS is a different matter.

As for smokers, I personally dislike, possibly even hate to discuss much about it. I can't understand why someone would smoke to begin with. Although thankfully, none of my immediate family members have lung cancer or other smoking related illnesses, the thought of it and the idea of it is really depressing. I'm sure I've mentioned it before but it's something that really gets me down. It's like a reflex reaction to smokers. I struggle to have sympathy for smokers with smoking related illnesses, especially if they'd made no effort to quit beforehand. I know it sounds mean but that's probably the only 'mean' thing about me. It's not like I'm glad people are ill but I think it can be avoided, especially when they know what it can do to you.

On a more personal level, my nephew who is 14 and who is more like a little brother to me, admitted on Friday that he not only tried cigarettes but he also tried spliff at the end of last year. As much as I felt like killing him I couldn't because he opened up to us and it was his choice. If we lectured him and started yelling he wouldn't have opened up again so we had to be careful.

I think it's depressing that people start smoking from a young age, whether it's to fit in, be popular or a bad habit you picked up off family members. In any case it could affect someone for life. Thankfully my nephew hated the taste of it, but what if he liked it? I'm sure our family's thoughts on the matter would be entirely different to what they are now. And if he was my child, I definitely wouldn't have let him go back to school on Monday. An educational environment shouldn't have nasty temptations like that.

(Oh and that wasn't Friday's RC about bad news... we found that out after)

I think, this is like saying people who get sick create a higher need for doctors, and therefore no one should find a cure for anything because treating sick people is better for doctors than finding a solution that prevents the problem.

While the government does make money from taxes, it is also their responsibility to ensure that they are looking after the welfare of their people, and in the end, healthier people make a better workforce than sick ones.

I agree with you storm that the government and indeed the NHS have to look after the welfare of the people, but I wasn't implying that we should stop looking for cures to these diseases.
When people are unwell, 9 times out of 10 they can't help getting ill, it just happens.

... but I wasn't implying that we shouldn't stop looking for cures to these diseases.

double negative... i.e. We should stop looking... :razz:

When people are unwell, 9 times out of 10 they can't help getting ill, it just happens.

Smoking, and thus increasing the likelihood of one getting cancer, is to me the same as eating unhealthy fatty fast food and increasing the risk of a heart attack, or messing with your body's sugar cycle and increasing the risk of becoming diabetic. People do make themselves more prone to illness. Nobody's taxing fast food or candy though despite them being clearly unhealthy. Becoming ill is has quite a lot to do with one's lifestyle, and smoking, eating fast food, skipping breakfast are all less than ideal choices.

I think *AJ* loves me...

Talking to the doctor today, he said that to quit smoking I should go 'cold turkey' because NRT options like nicotine gum could lead to oral cancer... what a comforting thought and a real push towards quitting that was...

Lol Ches... Tbh, I never got the idea of NRT, dunno why. It's possible to go cold turkey so why not? I'm mean it's not like going off heroin... is it? :S And anyway, smoking can cause oral cancer too.

Good on you for wanting to quit though. Hope it goes well :)

I figure as I have stopped drinking, (one month so far without a beverage) (apart from this weekend, which will probably be messy) then stopping smoking will be a piece of cake anyway because I prefer my beer muchly, and as I'm not getting drunk, my smoking has dwindled a bit anyway. Just seems odd that having advocated NRT forever, now NHS are saying its a no no.

Nobody's taxing fast food or candy though despite them being clearly unhealthy. Becoming ill is has quite a lot to do with one's lifestyle, and smoking, eating fast food, skipping breakfast are all less than ideal choices.
That's what I was saying earlier. The government has chosen to tax alcohol and tobacco but not other unhealthy foods/practices... why is this? Alcohol and cigarettes do have their addictive elements too, but this is even more reason not to tax them as it would be harder for people to give these up, despite knowing the possible health consequences, compared to eating fatty foods, which are relatively less addictive.

I think, this is like saying people who get sick create a higher need for doctors, and therefore no one should find a cure for anything because treating sick people is better for doctors than finding a solution that prevents the problem.
Maybe I'm being cynical and this is going off topic (but hey, this is the Off Topic section), but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Selling more medicines means more profit, whereas there is no money made from prevention. It may mean that the workforce is more prone to illness but very often people still go into work despite being ill in fear of losing their job or not getting that promotion.

That's what I was saying earlier. The government has chosen to tax alcohol and tobacco but not other unhealthy foods/practices... why is this? Alcohol and cigarettes do have their addictive elements too, but this is even more reason not to tax them as it would be harder for people to give these up, despite knowing the possible health consequences, compared to eating fatty foods, which are relatively less addictive.

Hm, I'm not sure lowering the tax rate for addictive substances is a good strategy, although I do realize that if something is addictive and also has a high tax attached, the people addicted to the substance will not only have a health crisis but also a financial one. However, it really is up to the person to overcome their addiction. I don't think it's impossible to overcome smoking: it just takes will power; and some people can find it in themselves to overcome their habit, and some people give up or don't care. If they give up or don't care and go bankrupt, then it really is their problem, IMO.

In an ideal situation smoking would be wiped out completely, but of course, this isn't going to happen - too many people profit from the industry to let it slide - so I would think that if smoking's going to stay, it should at least be made less unhealthy. I don't know - like low fat cake - lower nicotine or something, but anti-smoking campaigns won't wipe out the industry, so they may as well try to figure out how to decrease the damage people will inflict on themselves anyway.


Maybe I'm being cynical and this is going off topic (but hey, this is the Off Topic section), but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Selling more medicines means more profit, whereas there is no money made from prevention.

It's true though. Pharmaceutical companies don't invest in finding cures for lesser known diseases because they'll have a smaller profit margin than for diseases that are 'popular'.

There is already lower nicotine cigarettes (that's why the same brand are different colours, Well I'm pretty sure that's why you get like malboro lights etc, they're lower in stuff... -shrugs)
But yeah, nicotine is addictive, that's why there is NRT. So that you can get rid of the smoking which includes lots of other harmful substances such as tar etc, but carry on with the addictive substance so you'll be giving up less in one go. If that makes sense. Nicotine messes with your brain chemicals so you can become dependent so it is harder to give up nicotine than alcohol, but there is also other issues there with peer pressure etc. Anyways. I'm rambling off on points, but there were some points up there I'd just thought I'd add on and I'm going to go into too much psychology if I ramble on. :)
But as said NRT is bad because it can cause oral cancer. xD Hmm.

I believe the government want money. So nothing will change. :)

You know the funny thing is, I like the smell of cigarette smoke but I don't like smoking itself. I've tried smoking (no peer pressure, I don't have friends who force me into doing things nor do I feel the need to conform) but I found it quite a drag (no pun intended) to have to remember that I was holding a ciggie and to inhale, exhale, tap, not drop it... and what's with the whole holding it between two fingers thing anyway. Highly uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

I think that the main reason that tobacco is taxed higher than such as fatty foods (some of which DO have additional taxes... crisps and that for example) is that smoking tobacco has negative externalities for third parties... if someone sits on a park bench and stuffs twenty cakes into their big clack then that's unhealthy, but the person sitting next to them won't be harmed. I'm fairly sure that passive smoking is one of the major reasons for higher taxes on cigarettes. With the smoking ban in confined public places the problem is lessened, but still.

Lol They would be harmed if the bench breaks. xD

Haha. :P Yeah, I was also thinking about stray cherries and that flying about the joint, but as long as the other person is wearing protective eyewear and the bench is stable, all should be well. Also, eating the twenty cakes wouldn't necessarily be harmful anyway, as long as there were a variety of cakes (a chocolate gateau, a lemon drizzle cake etc) as eating a variety of desserts at each sitting is recommended by most GP's to maintain a balanced diet.

My thoughts on this are simple, someone said in an earlier post about the taxes from ciggies and alcohol going in to a big pot to pay for other thinhs like the nhs ect.
Well i think its more likely spent on the MP,S huge exspenses its all over the news right now, how they have taken the royal wee wee out of our money and spent it on bath plugs and bloody tv,s.
I think the nhs is there to help everyone regardless of being a smoker drinker or whatever.
We all have the same rights, look at it this way people get cancer and heart problems and have never been a smoker or a drinker ever,,,,,.
So what do we do about them let them suffer in silence for having a smokeing related illness, or as someone above said let them pay for medical care NOWAY I SAY.
Since the nhs was formed people have had either smoke related illnesses or even work ones like abestos poisening ect, did we ask the companys who let the workers get abestos dieses to pay the medical bills no we never.
Sorry to seem abrupt here but it always seems to be smokers and drinkers who get the flak for health care issues and the money it costs, drug addicts take as much resorces dont they??.
Or overweight people having gastric bands done on the nhs, couldent we tell them to just go and diet ect, and exercise.
Its a subject that can go on and on forever, yes smokers risk there lives but so many others risk lives every day also.
Do we think of the emergency services who risk there lives daily being attacked ect we pay for them as well the goverment dosent give an extra pot for them its all tax payers money.

I don't mean to restrict it to just Smokers and Drinkers. My point on letting them pay, would also extend to obesity etc. What I meant by my point, is if people have been told that they need to stop smoking because otherwise they will get said issue again, by their GP. So like, they know that they're likely to get this disease, the doctor has advised that they shouldn't because otherwise it's very likely, YET, they still continue to do so, then I believe they should pay for it. -shrugs- But that wouldn't ever happen because there are so many loopholes as have been pointed out. But people like this take up hospital time which could have been easily prevented, especially since they were advised before hand.

But like I've said. I'm on the fence. -shrugs-

So this is kinda random... dont know too much about the brits tax and all... but not a big fan of smoking, especially when girls do it... i mean kissing them is kinda like licking an ashtray....

and on the subject of the thread... i know people quite a few people that have gone cold turkey and made it, some that have made it using the nicotine patches, and some that have had bad side effects from the nicotine patch things. Personally I believe that the taxes collected on cigarettes should be used in something other than prevention programs, say health care, education, and if you really want to get people to stop smoking just jack up the tax rate. that will 1. make it a lot harder to start, especially for younger children. and 2. make it a lot easier to quit, as your budget will be heavily burdened....

i dont know if that made any sense at all, but thats alright.

Easiest way to get people to quit would be to ban the sale of tobacco. It's such a killer, and costs billions of moneys to cover the health detriment caused by it, but they're still perfectly acceptable to sell. Hiking up tax would just cause many people to go without other things to pay for an addiction.

They already hiked up the tax. :P

Easiest way to get people to quit would be to ban the sale of tobacco. It's such a killer, and costs billions of moneys to cover the health detriment caused by it, but they're still perfectly acceptable to sell. Hiking up tax would just cause many people to go without other things to pay for an addiction.

Ban it and the government will have to deal with black market sales of tobacco in addition to the health problems. One more problem, not one less!

I agree with ches im a smoker and id still love to see ciggies banned, i know its killing me slowly and people around me to.
But storm has a point to, the black market wouldbe rife with ciggies and the problems that go with contriband would be bad.

I firmly disagree with banning something just because unhealthy, or because people "shouldn't" do it. I strongly believe that people, not their government, should be able to make decisions for themselves. If people want to smoke and destroy their lungs, then I think they have the right to do that.
I am not talking about the fact that the government has to pay for that choice, nor how it spends the money received from taxes, I am focusing on the notion of banning.

Personally, I find banning in cases like this to be ineffective and absurd.

Should we ban food because people get fat? (obviously not.) Should we just ban alcohol because it'd be easier for alcoholics to quit? (it's not going to happen.) Should we ban TV shows with cursing because they're obscene? (no.) etc.

Take a look at marijuana in the US - it doesn't work. It's illegal and people have absolutely no problem getting it. If marijuana were to be legalized, the government would be able to regulate it and make a huge amount of money from taxing it. (I know pot and cigarettes aren't the same thing, but the situations are somewhat analogous.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism <-- my philosophy.

okay.. yeah. lol. nice topic.

I firmly disagree with banning something just because unhealthy, or because people "shouldn't" do it. I strongly believe that people, not their government, should be able to make decisions for themselves. If people want to smoke and destroy their lungs, then I think they have the right to do that.

Well, the UK government banned smoking in public places. Is it the right of smokers to affect non-smokers through passive smoking too?

Banning something because it's unhealthy or people shouldn't do it is not an entirely ineffective or dumb policy... it just has its limitations about how it can be applied.

The government isn't doing it to show everyone who's the boss, it's just trying to take care of it's people.

Should we ban food because people get fat? (obviously not.) Should we just ban alcohol because it'd be easier for alcoholics to quit? (it's not going to happen.) Should we ban TV shows with cursing because they're obscene? (no.) etc.

I think your examples are a bit redundant though. Food is essential for survival; alcohol in small quantities is a relaxant; swear words were discussed in some other thread and Vik explained beautifully why they're essential.

I don't know of any advantages for smoking. So that makes it a candidate for banning in my book, but I wouldn't vote outright banning the best strategy this time.

The government isn't doing it to show everyone who's the boss, it's just trying to take care of it's people.

Your opinion. :) Ahh. This is another topic though.

Yeah, it is (my opinion).

I'm not saying food, or alcohol, or obscene words should be banned; I was using them as examples to demonstrate the principle that while although something MAY be bad for you that doesn't mean that it should be done away with.
I was commenting solely on the act of BANNING cigarettes, I wasn't saying that I'd be okay with someone blowing smoke rings in my face and making me pay for their unhealthy choice (via medical care) - because (going along with my libertarian principles) I do have a HUGE problem with those things.

Very good post.
But you say cigarettes in your book have no benefits to people so in effect its banning would be good, yet you also said alcohol in small doses is a relaxcent, so it has some uses to us ect.
My point here is some people use cigarettes as a relaxcent like some do alcohol isnt this the same thing.
Yet i do agree with ciggies being bad for us i smoke and as i said earlier i know its killing me slowly, i just wanted to point out that drink and ciggies both relax each to there own poision.

I am a smoker too and have made attempts in the past to give up smoking. It seriously is a really hard addiction to overcome and I take my hat off to anyone who can beat it. Budden has made a very good point here.

I don't drink (with the odd exception at Christmas). This is purely because I don't like it and find that I can have just as good a time without drinking alcohol. I accept that passive smoking is very dangerous and am now pleased that our government banned smoking in public places, as let's face it - everywhere does smell cleaner and fresher!

Now then... the NHS. I accept that smokers have only themselves to blame if they do get ill - but smoking is an addiction - plain and simple.

Drug addicts place greater pressure on NHS resources (for example - a serious drug addict may have mental health problems brought on by their addiction and could require hospitilisation; their children may be on the 'At Risk' register and be put into care - and believe me, this is not cheap; some drug addicts offend in order to pay for their habit - increasing pressure on the police and prison services). So, on the whole - I think that yes, whilst smokers do put pressure on the NHS - there are other 'minorities' who actually place more.

We are the easy target. I am an educated person who pays her taxes, has her own home and car but whose only vice is a cigarette.

Very good post.
But you say cigarettes in your book have no benefits to people so in effect its banning would be good, yet you also said alcohol in small doses is a relaxcent, so it has some uses to us ect.
My point here is some people use cigarettes as a relaxcent like some do alcohol isnt this the same thing.
Yet i do agree with ciggies being bad for us i smoke and as i said earlier i know its killing me slowly, i just wanted to point out that drink and ciggies both relax each to there own poision.

In terms of cigarettes being relaxants, I would cite latency to withdrawal as something to consider. A person's latency to withdrawal is longest after their first ever cigarette. The more frequently one smokes, the shorter one's latency to withdrawal is [1] (http://www.jfponline.com/pdf/5612/5612JFP_Article1.pdf). So are you smoking to avoid withdrawal and 'maintain' the level of relaxation you have now, or are you smoking to 'increase' relaxation? I would argue it's the first.

If it's the first, then to me that is not a relaxant.

[1] Hooked from the first cigarette (http://www.jfponline.com/pdf/5612/5612JFP_Article1.pdf)

The above is what i ried to get across lol, TF worded it much better hehe.
Storm i hear what your saying in you last post, i cant really say i know much in depth about what you said but im sure you know what your talking about.
But ciggies do relax most smokers to a degree, it is as TF said an addiction like many others.