I think 37p in one swoop is too much, I don't and never have smoked but I like being around people who do, it doesn't bother me in the slightest and I have heard of many lung cancer cases and deaths from it too that have been non-smokers.
I am aware there is debate as to passive smoking being harmful to non-smokers however.

Any Govt though would be in big hole if all the smokers stopped smoking at all,it's just smokers and cigarettes are easy targets for Governments.
Also, as to the NHS treating smokers ailments, watch how many staff from Consultants right down through the staffing scale smoke, it would really amaze people.

So true joeysteele, my mum was a nurse both in a regular hosptial and in a psychiatric one, I did work experience in both and almost all of the staff went out to 'count the bricks' (have a fag) as they called it...

Going off topic slightly I remember her telling me at the time that the doctor/ nurse profession had the highest amount of alcoholics/drug addicts than any other profession, apart from acting bizzarely enough

The government do subsidise agricultural production but they do not have the money to just 'make healthy food cheaper'.
They do not have the control over food prices, the free market does. It really has nothing to do with the government and the fact you say they should just make it cheaper is laughable because it is not like they possess a magic wand and can just change the prices of goods.
The whole idea of the market economy is that people who cannot afford goods get excluded from purchasing them. If one want the 'healthier more expensive' goods, one has to earn more money. It is a pretty good scheme in honesty, it can give one the incentive to work.

They are however considering a 'fat-tax' where by food goods with above a certain level of saturated fat will have extra tax implemented. This is because they do care about the disgustingly high obesity levels in the UK in comparison with the rest of Europe. Fatty food has a relatively elastic demand due to the high number of substitutes or alternatives so the tax will end up not generating a huge amount of revenue but more so reducing the weight issues. So the healthier food may well become the cheaper kind in the future.

Someone ring Joseph Rowntree quick!...;)

Yeah, fantastic scheme. Cause the less well off even more problems than they have already, lets add health problems to the list. I get ya. Great :D

Well this would be all well and good if it works out like this. However the way I imagine just adding a fat-tax will work out is that everything else stays the same, fatty foods go up, leaving low income families(who currently buy this fatty crap because its all they can afford) struggling to buy anything :S

No because the economy doesn't work like that. The reason prices are rising; inflation, is because incomes are rising. It will all work it self out soon enough and we will find that prices are very cheap. However if you actually work out how much food is got from this fatty rubbish in comparison to healthier food it is not very different. It just seems different as generally the unhealthier stuff is nearer to a meal than fresh food is. It is more people being lazy and not being bothered to make the most out of fresh ingredients and wasting a lot of it.

I think lancaster must the skinniest place in the UK coz i've only seen like 3 people here who i'd class as obese

Stuff it im growing my own... i have a huge garden and more than enough room for veg and chickens. All I have to do is watch a few re-runs of the 70s sitcom 'The Good Life' and im sorted! :D

I would actually seriously do this is I had a proper garden/allotment :laugh:

My grandad used to grow all his own veg and it tastes a lot better than the stuff you get from the shops too.

I would love to be able to do that, but unfortunately I'm allergic to all forms of gardening..

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

LOL. OK.

I think I will leave this now. Your ignorance is astounding.

Thus endeth the socio-economic debate....

How do you work that one out?

People who work hard and have worked hard at their education generally get higher paid jobs. Education up to 18 is offered free in this country and you will find that generally people on lower incomes did not commit to schooling and got worse qualifications. It is most of the time their own doing. It is not like you (plural) are just selected to be on a low income and did nothing to cause that and did nothing to change that. Yes people may be in too deep to change their qualifications etc but it is down to them as an individual.

Pretty simple, people who do not take education seriously find it hard to get a well paid job. Their fault, especially when education is offered free thanks to the tax payers.

Wow charlie...someones done a right number on you kid :(

I think that is a very narrow minded view as there are lots of people in situations which are not their own fault and not necessarily from a lack of education.

I don't even know where to start with the incorrectness of this post..

Examples?

People who have lost their jobs due to the state of the current climate, people who have become ill and cannot work, people with learning difficulties..... I am sure I could think of many more.

First one fair enough, but in-time that is likely to correct itself. The others may be not from own doing but in both cases they can receive benefits, yes maybe not to the degree they would want but that is just a unfortunate truth. Anyway that forms a hugely minor sector of the population and doesn't really change the fact I was making. I will however state a rephrasement and I will say healthy people on low incomes.

Plus most people on low incomes obtain cars, satellite television and lots of other goods that are considered wants rather than needs. They have not a leg to stand on to complain about not being able to afford food until they give up the majority of goods considered 'luxury'. We were given legs for a reason but the majority of people drive everywhere.

Do you have facts and figures or is that supposition?

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.