Smokers - Waste of Tax Payers Money?
 

Are Smokers a waste of Tax Payers money?
Should our tax's be spent on them, and their addictions?
Is it right that for years, people's money has been spent on them, due to illneses inflicted out of choice? *


Do you agree, or disagree?
Discuss!

(NHS refusing to operate on smokers)

* Correction - Thanks Retroman

P.S - Not my opioions exactually - Just some starter points.

I agree to a certain level. I fink that to much money is wasted on smokers addictions when there are much more worthier causes this money can be put towards. for example cancer research etc.

The tax is so high for cigarettes, smokers sort of pay for themselves anyway.

Same as obese people :wink: who in fact are in hospital more and need special facilities to acommadate their needs

The NHS is for everyone, regardless of their self-inflicted illnesses. And I agree with you to some extent. But does that mean that people who attempt suicide shouldn't be treated? Or people who don't use a condom/sexual protection should be entitled to abortion/treatment against STIs?

The list goes on - but people are stupid sometimes, and it's the NHS's duty to treat them :tongue:

Tax money being used for self inflicted conditions?
It's the equivalent of us having to pay to help someone who voluntarily chopped their hand off, it's just plain ridiculous. Or someone running around sitting on drawing pins with blood on them and catching AIDS.

As for the above poster, this isn't an argument about whether people should be treated. This is about tax money being used for that treatment. Im sure I don't want my money being spent on people who catch STD's by sleeping around.

Ive never understood smoking...
Most people start at a young age, purely because their friends are doing it, and as far as im aware they get no major benefits from it, and many problems because of it. So where the logic in smoking lies im really not sure.

Nevermind the financial side of things, all that money wasted for no reason at all.

You're potentially cutting years off your life. Which you might not care about now, but when you die at 70 and think you could have had another 5-10years+ on this planet, you'll soon regret it.

Why should we pay for people that are killing themselves and others around them?

Unless you start smoking then I'm sure you'll never understand it and even though it's common sense that smoking isn't good for you, I still don't think anyone can pass judgement or say ''smoking is for no reason'' etc when you don't smoke and don't know the resons behind it.

Back on topic though and I agree with everyone else, alcohol is another one ... what about people who mess their liver up due to alocohol? Also, what about Friday and Saturday nights when the hospitals are full of drunks who have either took a turn for the worse or have gotten into a fight? All the other patients who need to be seen have to wait because people can't handle their ale and get into fights? The same could be said for so many more things that have been stated above and yet, smoking is the one that people always seem to bring up and is apparantly the worse. Oh and what I said about the drunks on a Fri and Sat night, that was just an example, not my opinion, even though it is true, the NHS is there for everyone whether it's self-inflicted or not.

It's not always THAT straightforward and do you feel the same about all the other conditions such as alcohol, attempted suicide etc?

So just how much money does the government make from the taxation of tobacco?

Now it seems they're going to make even more with the fines that will be issued to people smoking indoors. Making money from taxing cigarettes, then making more money from fining the people who are smoking. This ban has nothing to do with health, its all about money. They’re using health as an excuse to fine addicts.

If the government were really bothered about people smoking they would ban the sale of tobacco products all together. but no, WHY? … because they would lose too much money, and think about this…if everyone gave up smoking where would the government regain all that money made from tax on cigarettes from…YOU! It’s swings and rounderbouts with no winners apart from the government.

Talking about the cost on the NHS and the emergency services then what about alcohol/drugs? fights, destruction of property, domestic violence, robbery, the list is endless. Plus it can be just as bad for you health wise. Let alone people who do sports and injure themselves, does anyone complain about paying their taxes …no! but I’m sure if it was on the news and in the papers long enough there would be many who would jump on that bandwagon too.

I started smoking 30 yrs ago and yes, I’m addicted to nicotine which is why I still smoke, I’m not stupid enough to think I smoke because I enjoy it…although I think I do because the evil weed has a hold on me and tells me I enjoy it. I am one of many who wish I had never started and have tried to stop with success….yet! I don’t smoke in the house, I don’t smoke in the car, I don’t smoke in the street unless desperate and then there is no where to put them out so that’s another fine!

Moaning about smoking has become a way of life and if one person says something all the anti smokers jump on the bandwagon…I for one am sick of it! if I want to smoke, I will, if I want to give up, I will, I don’t need every Tom Dick and Harry ramming their opinions down my throat every day! It’s my choice be it right or wrong!

The way I look at it is that drugs and alcohol give people almost instant benefits in their eyes, such as relaxing, feeling confident, more energetic etc.

Whereas the only thing ive ever heard from a smoker that sounds remotely beneficial is that "it calms my nerves" which sounds to me as a result of the addiction. Also Wobblywoo seems to back that up with being a smoker who smokes because he's addicted, not that he enjoys/gets anything out of it.

Unless someone is willing to educate me on what they get out of smoking, then id be more than willing to read. Whatever it is must be relatively minor, and can't be worth all the negative sides that come with it.

As for feeling the same about alcohol and attempted suicide, im sure he does feel the same. We're not talking about "should these people get help?" but rather "should our money be spent on them?"

I have no responsibility to help someone who has an alcohol addiction, or a troubled life that lead to attempted suicide. Not one penny from me should have any obligation to go towards those people.

[/quote]

The way I look at it is that drugs and alcohol give people almost instant benefits in their eyes, such as relaxing, feeling confident, more energetic etc.

Whereas the only thing ive ever heard from a smoker that sounds remotely beneficial is that "it calms my nerves" which sounds to me as a result of the addiction. Also Wobblywoo seems to back that up with being a smoker who smokes because he's addicted, not that he enjoys/gets anything out of it.

Unless someone is willing to educate me on what they get out of smoking, then id be more than willing to read. Whatever it is must be relatively minor, and can't be worth all the negative sides that come with it.

As for feeling the same about alcohol and attempted suicide, Im sure he does feel the same. We're not talking about "should these people get help?" but rather "should our money be spent on them?"

I have no responsibility to help someone who has an alcohol addiction, or a troubled life that lead to attempted suicide. Not one penny from me should have any obligation to go towards those people. [/quote]


Ok, education time, from my point of view anyway. The benefits you mention that come from alcohol and drugs are similar to feelings a smoker may get, definitely the relaxing and more energetic, (because they have had their fix and not worrying about it) I wouldn’t say confidence though. Concentration is a big one for some smokers, without that nicotine hit concentration goes out the window.

But the same as for the person who drinks or takes drugs, these good feelings are false, although they are very real at the time. It’s a feeling that wears of as soon as the drug is stopped for a period of time. (Although not everyone who drinks or smokes is addicted) With most smokers it is purely the drug nicotine that gives them feel good factor.

What a smoker thinks or feels they get out of smoking is by no means minor to the smoker, and the addiction is so strong it can outweigh the negative side affects.

We put up with people looking down their noses at us on a daily basis, what right have they! Do they lead perfect lives? Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and its dam hard to give up!

You say “I have no responsibility to help someone who has an alcohol addiction, or a troubled life that lead to attempted suicide. Not one penny from me should have any obligation to go towards those people. “

So would your feeling change on this if a family member was an alcoholic, or got so low they attempted to take their own life?....I do hope not but never say never! Life can have cruel twists and turns, things are not so black and white.

Totally agree with you, wobblywoo. People are too quick to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon, and as much as I can't stand smoke around me, the thought that a smoker shouldn't be entitled to the same rights to a free health service as the rest of the country is absurd.

Suppose you play a sport, one that I don't like, and you get injured - should my money help pay for your medical treatment ?

You are involved in a car crash, the police report says YOU were at fault - should my taxpayer money go toward paying for your medical treatment and for those YOU injured ?

The choice of sport is yours - why should I pay ?
Your choices caused an accident - why should I pay ?

Please stay on topic...
This is about tax money going towards complete strangers with self inflicted conditions. Not "would you help your mum out if she got lung cancer or kidney failure?" or whatever you're trying to say.

Of course I would be more than willing to contribute my own money towards a family member. I wouldn't expect complete strangers to have to pay for my family member if that family member required money for problems caused by themselves.

Choosing a sport to play doesn't come with guaranteed health implications, and even if it did, it's not an addictive substance so I could give it up in an instant. Nobody gets involved in football for example, knowing full well they'll get addicted and end up with a broken leg from playing too much.

The choice was to play an innocent game of football, not abuse a substance that affects your health. So that injury is just as random an occurance as me tripping over in the street and cutting my leg open, it would be a complete accident and no fault of my own.

That's like saying "you chose to walk down a dark street, knowing there's a possibility you might not be safe but will most likely be ok, but you were stabbed. Should I have to pay for your treatment because YOU chose to walk down that street?"

Just because I chose the street, doesn't mean I had it coming.
Whereas choosing to smoke, something that everyone is aware causes you direct harm, is choosing something you know will affect you and carrying on regardless.

You're basically comparing ACCIDENTS in sports, to CHOOSING health diminishing substances...and trying to link them by saying I CHOSE the sport which lead to the accident. It would only work as a comparison if I CHOSE for the accident to happen, which would make it a non accident and transform it into my fault, which would make me undeserving of tax payers money in my eyes.

Same with the wreckless driving, if it's my fault then I don't deserve tax payers money for my irresponsibility and lack of thought for other drivers on the road. Just the same as people who choose to sit around being lazy, whilst claiming job seekers allowance are highly frowned upon.

Illnesses like HIV/AIDS are only self-inflicted to an extent. You could choose to have unprotected sex and if you get HIV/AIDS, sucks for you, but say you were raped and got HIV/AIDS, it wasn't your choise, was it?

I think that the NHS is only liable to a certain extent for people who have chosen to smoke or the obese. As much as I don't want my money going to that, would you rather than your money be spent on the military which in turns fights wars and kills people?

It works as a comparison because people choose to smoke.

Cigs are not heroin, it takes some persistence for the addiction to really kick in.

You say none of your money should be spent on smokers,
well I say starting smoking is a choice

You say it only works as a comparision if you "CHOSE for the accident to happen", that is a facetious argument in the context of your opinion about where your money should or should not go regarding health care.

The accident would not have happened had you chosen not to play the sport

the lung cancer / emphysemia / etc etc / would not have happened had someone chose not to smoke.

A lot of things in this world cause harm - you decided you do not want to fund medical aid for certain of them.

In the context of your original argument my point works as a valid comparison

You don't want to pay for smokers health care because of the choices they made to start - the injures according to you are self - inflicted

their choice / their risk

I don't want to pay for the injuries caused by playing sports because of the choices they made to start - so the injuries by the criteria you use are most certainly self inflicted

their choice / their risk

I used to be a smoker (and had a recent blip) and cant believe some of the things being said here.

As a taxpayer in the higher tax bracket I am taxed on what I earn and when I smoked I was heavily taxed on the cigarettes I smoked. 89% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the treasury in this counrty. So when I was a smoker I MORE than paid for my right to recieve NHS treatment. Smokers actually put far more in than they take out. In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases.

So when slating smokers think about what they pay into the system before assuming that they are a drain on resources

My entire point was orientating around the fact that smokers know that allowing themselves to smoke and become addicted will have guaranteed health implications...whether they be major or minor.

People choosing to play sports don't face guaranteed injuries, and the injuries are often caused because of other people involved. They're also choosing to play an innocent sport that has almost no chance of causing any life risking problems, so if something really bad was to happen...they really weren't to know, and it was no fault of their own.

When a smoker faces health implications, im sure they know their smoking addiction is purely to blame, and they always knew it could happen.

In short, I think there's a difference between choosing an innocent hobby to take up, and facing unfortunate circumstances of an accident and needing treatment...compared with taking a life harming substance.

If you can't see that, then my words are wasted on you.

You're basically saying that if I chose to work in a factory, and accidentally get my arm caught in the machine, it's my fault for working there...I should have been a nursery teacher instead =/ which is just plain madness. You can't just go around saying that the job/hobby/location the person chose means they chose to be injured.

Whereas people choosing to smoke, are in reality, pretty much choosing to have bad health. Whether it be anything from your breathing and tar filled lungs, to full on cancer...everyone who takes up smoking knows they'll suffer to some extent.

I see lots of ex sportsmen and women with lifelong medical problems caused by their participation in sports, and we know enough to know that some of their injuries were, as you put it, guaranteed.

There are plenty of stories of people smoking from aged 12 til say 90, [that is a generalisation to give you the drift] and dying peacefully in their sleep. I am not denying the obvious health risks of smoking but am pointing out the flaw in your argument. Every smoker is NOT guaranteed a slow painful death with the added inconsideration of it being at your expense


There are plenty of sportsmen and women who suffer lifelong heath problems as a result of playing sport and they all get medical treatment. They suffer those problems because they choose to play a sport, and a lot of them don't have the common courtesy to die painfully at your expense like you believe smokers do - instead they hang on costing me more and more of my money



Anyone who plays football knows they will suffer to some extent
Anyone who plays rubgy knows they will suffer to some extent
etc etc

What we are talking about here is choice, some people choose to start to smoke, there are many reasons for it, image [for some reason] is a big one, and amongst the young the biggest is peer pressure.

they made a bad choice, fair enough.

But your argument that you should not have your money used to treat them shoudl they fall ill, falls on its face when faced with the realities of life.

We do not deny health care based on a persons lifestyle choices and nor should we ever. Your opinion that your money should not be used to treat them, as it is their own self inflicted injury is pure self centric greed, especially as the personal cost to you for the treatment of all those damned smokers is actually less that the societal benefits you have reaped from the tax they pay on their tabs - strange I don't see you arguing you should pay back the difference.


What will you advocate next ?
Deny medical treatment from those who choose to do dangerous jobs ?

I wonder if you drink - I don't see you moaning about your money being used to treat alcohol related illness, and its secondary cause and effect, which actually outstrips spending on smoking related illness. i.e. costs you more of your money

Smokers don't tend to go home after a pack of twenty and slap the wife and kids around - sending them off to A&E or adding to social services workload and hence spending more and more of your money.



Yes I am a former smoker,
I started aged 16 and quit at 24 after an accident and I spent 8 months in hospital where it was difficult to have a crafty tab.

One or twice a year I do occasionally partake of the noxious weed, usually when drunk and am triggered off by other smokers conspiring to add me the bill you have to pay.

I don't see how that can be true...
If someone looks after themselves and maintains a decent fitness level, whilst generally avoiding accidents then it can't possibly be guaranteed. Playing sports, keeping fit and training to some would be a major recommendation...helping to keep healthy and perhaps even lead to a longer life. The same could never be said about smoking.

Oh I see, let me trace back my words and bring up the sentence where I said "smokers are guaranteed slow painful deaths" ...I seem to be having rather a lot of trouble finding it.

As far as I was aware we were talking about medical treatment, not restricted to those on their death beds. Im sure many a smoker lives until a decent age, but without smoking it's almost completely safe to say they would have lived longer, and they most likely had some form of health implication caused by smoking by that age...even if it was only a negative effect on their breathing.

I doubt 80 years worth of tar build up is ignored by anyone's body.

I think we've already gone over this point...
If someone decides to take up a constructive sport, a hobby or profession that involves keeping fit and using skill, but for some reason that beneficial choice they made to bring something worthwhile into their lives whilst using a talent goes wrong, then I wouldn't be displeased knowing that any of my tax money went towards helping that persons injury/illness caused from that choice, and possibly putting them back on track for leading a healthy life doing what they enjoy.

If someone chooses to smoke, something that isn't beneficial in any way, shape or form...but is actually the complete opposite, then I wouldn't be happy if my tax money went towards trying to rectify the negative implications of their awful choice in life.

Not to mention the fact it can have effects on other people, and people actually die from passive smoking, or have their own health implications, purely because of someone elses choice. Yet another reason why sports and smoking make awful comparisons from your point of view.

Nobody KNOWS they'll suffer playing sports, as looking after yourself and just generally avoiding someone causing you an injury means you're usually going to end up untouched. Some people are unlucky enough to suffer from a violent tackle or similar, but it was the other persons choice that lead to the injury..as is the case with most sport related injuries. You aren't to blame in a sport with multiple people, when one of those people makes a choice that ends up being your downfall.

Smoking is restricted all down to the one person.

And id never ask anyone to deny people health care, so I hope you're making a general statement and not a remark directed towards me..because id never deny anyone health care who needs it.

As for greed, I would be more than happy knowing my money went towards people I think are deserving. But people who cause their own minsfortunates are owed no favours by me, and should either have to finance their own treatment, seek the aid of family/friends, or depend on the governments own money, non tax related.

There's far too many irresponsible people out there, who deliberately invite danger into their lives for unjustifiable reasons, through the use of drugs for example...and not a penny of my well earned money should be aimed anywhere near there general direction.

It's the equivalent of a paedophile ending up in jail, suffering for his wrongful choices, or a robbery or assault being performed, and that person expecting me to pay their bail...it's vitrually the exact same.

Granted, smoking isn't against the law, but I don't think anybody could ever say it's the right choice. The only reason it isn't against the law is because of the fact its effects are usually so long drawn over time and subtle...that and the enormous profit it generates.

Please don't make me out to be a villain for arguments sake, nobody is or will be saying that people should be denied medical treatment in this topic.

They should take out insurance, or make sure the job can cater for their injuries etc, should anything happen. They know the dangers they face, and if they're responsible enough to make a choice that involves danger, they should be responsible enough to keep themselves covered. It's in their best interests.

*Moans about his money being used to treat alcohol related illnesses* - there we go =]

And I wouldn't expect any member of the general british public to use their tax money towards my treatment, if I was needing that treatment for the abuse of alcohol.

I also wouldn't expect the same if I let myself get into such a drunken state that I didn't have enough control over myself to prevent getting into some form of accident that I wouldn't have gotten in if I was sober.

That would be all well and good if I defended the spending of tax money on alcohol related problems. But since I didn't, i'll ignore it. You're ranting on about situations/things that were never introduced by me...you're practically arguing with yourself at this point.

I'm not surprised there are so many different opinions on this subject, and as someone who smoked for a long period I am only too aware of the stupidity of it. In fact I gave up recently, using the new Champix drug (mainly paid for by the Nhs) which directly affects the brain and made quitting far more simple than earlier efforts.

I asked my local shopkeeper how much he loses from my quitting and he told me that he only got 30 p per packet. It's probably a fair assumption that the companies make about the same. So with 13 million uk smokers averaging about a packet per day this would leave the government with a take of about £2000,000,000 (£2 billion)per annum !!

There is no justification for the tax other than the cost to the health service, and we shouldn't overlook that most of these costs are currently being spent on those smokers who are now over about 50, 60 and 70 years old.

In the earlier part of the 20th century smoking was actually advertised as being good for your health, with such claims as the soothing of an itchy throat or cough. Then in the 70's it was advertised as being cool to smoke with such adverts as the all Amercan Cowboy and words like 'welcome to marlboro country' so I tend to blame the governments more than the smokers.

Now of course it's all different and the true facts read very badly.
8 out of ten non smokers live past 70 but only 5 out of ten smokers do.
17,000 children under 5 years old are admitted to hospital each year because of their parents smoking.

At this present moment I am well in credit in that I have spent thousands on this tax and had very little back as yet. Yikes, that worries me and I hope I can keep it that way.

I really don't want to argue this one way or the other apart from pointing out that there is a difference between smokers from the middle to late century compared to now. Perhaps they should reflect the tax directly to costs that the statistics now show. However if they do that I still think that the tax may well be more than the cost because the reality is most of it actually goes on our defence budget and such things, though I am happy to be corrected on that.??

Edit: The tax revenue from smoking is in fact a whopping £7 billion. My apologies to sunny_01 for not picking that up in her post.

Does anyone know, or even care, that the NHS spend more than twice as much treating obesity related diseases than they do treating smoking related diseases? Do you think we should refuse to treat people who eat too much junk food?

Do people realise that smokers pay tax which contributes to the NHS?

I work with a semi-professional rugby player. During rugby season, not one week goes by when he doesn't come in to work with some minor injury. He has had his nose broken three times while playing rugby. It's his choice to play - do you think we should not treat him? Should his team-mate not have been treated when he broke his leg?

Should we refuse to treat firefighters - because after all they know that they could well be injured doing their job?

Should we refuse to treat people who drink too much?

Honestly, I can't believe what some people on this thread are saying:bored:

Oh - and just for the record, I don't smoke. I do however, love this quote by Bill Hicks:

"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your ********* mouth."

It baffles me as to why people keep insisting on saying the words "refuse treatment"

This topic is about tax payers money being used for the treatment, not about whether that person deserves treatment.

And I disagree with tax payers money being used on the obese, as much as I do with smokers...unless they're obese for reasons out of their control.

If smokers pay for themselves, and it's an undeniable fact...then that's all well and good. But ive honestly no idea where each and every one of my pennies actually ends up, and im sure some have gone to places id rather they didn't.

Of course he should be treated, and he also is deserving of tax payers money for that treatment...in my eyes that is. Though it seems Spacebandit would disagree.

Only people who put themselves in danger for justifiable reasons should be entitled to tax payers money to treat their injuries etc...im sure a firefighter would class as justified.

Again, nobody should be refused. These constant questions from multiple people on "should someone be treated?" are unneccesary, as ive said before...we're talking about tax payers money contributing to that treatment. So if the question was "Should we refuse tax money contributing to the treatment of people who drink too much?" - then id say yes.

That's verging on pathetic...
Anyone on the planet could use that line as a reason to excuse wrongful choices/bad things they've done in their lives etc.

It could be used by paedophiles, killers, robbers, wife beaters, right down to liars, cheaters, bullies, drug users and people who insist on smoking around non smokers etc.

"You have a problem with what ive done? well look at all the awful things going on, it makes what ive done look insignificant, so shut up!"

Just ridiculous.

No, it isn't ridiculous. He made a valid point. I think it's ridiculous to draw a parallel between a smoker saying that and a paedophile or wife beater saying that.

The point is that the majority of people who need hospital treatment need it because of some lifestyle choice - whether it's because they play a dangerous sport, smoke, drink, do a dangerous job, whatever. You think tax payers money should not pay for treatment for any of these people? Do you think that basically, we should only ever use taxpayers money to treat people who fall ill through no fault of their own? And how would we determine that?

Just tried to add this to my last post, but my computer won't let me edit it, so I'll put it here. Smoking is totally legal (just about). It's utterly ridiculous to say that taxpayers money should not be used to treat someone who does something which is completely legal and for which they pay tax anyway.