The struggle between Liberty and Authority

[Wildcat]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/18/7-42-pack-of-cigs-115875-22119757/

 

Some surprising figures here.

 

Surprising, but there is a strong anti-smoking lobby, who use figures for campaigning purposes.

 

I doubt very much that reduced costs on the NHS and state pensions through smokers dying younger has been factorred in to their calculations.

[espadrille]

Of course it does, but it is society through our democratic institutions ultimately that determines the nature of how those decisions are made and what will and won't be supported in broad terms.

 

Whilst there is tax on cigarettes, the state should provide.

 

even though the tax may not be enough to cover the costs?

[Wildcat]

even though the tax may not be enough to cover the costs?

 

I very much doubt the tax doesn't cover the costs. If I recall corectly smokers die on average 7 years earlier than non-smokers. That is 7 years less pension and benefits to pay out probably somewhere in the region of £150,000 per person less. A 20 a day habit will contribute about £5 a day in tax. Assuming 40 years of smoking that will be around £70,000 in tax.

 

Smokers have therefore contributed around £220,000 in tax and savings for their habit that could be spent on their care additional to non-smokers.

 

Incidentally, they also subsidise other peoples pension plans, because they pay the same rate despite on average claiming less private pension.

 

These are approximate figures admittedly, but it shows the kind of scale of what each smoker invests in, in terms of equitable entitlement. The scale of them taking responsibility for their actions.

[Bulgarian]

But dont you think that the nhs has a duty also to the taxpayer to make the service it provides as efficient as possible and as such has to make tough decisions over who to treat and who not to treat?

 

So you would be happy with the NHS anouncing they won't treat any sports related injuries any more, after all they could have been avoided by simply not playing sport and are a waste of resources ?

[Tony]

The health and financial benefits to society of playing sports are far outweighed by any injuries that require treatment. It's a terrible point to argue about really.

 

Smoking on the other hand is just as clear cut from what I understand. Before the ban on smoking in public places the Chief Medical Officer commissioned a cost benefit analyses and from memory the outcomes was that a ban on smoking in public places would benefit the economy to the tune of something like £2.5bn pa.

 

So, treating sports injuries good. Treating smokers bad.

[taxman]

The health and financial benefits to society of playing sports are far outweighed by any injuries that require treatment. It's a terrible point to argue about really.

 

Smoking on the other hand is just as clear cut from what I understand. Before the ban on smoking in public places the Chief Medical Officer commissioned a cost benefit analyses and from memory the outcomes was that a ban on smoking in public places would benefit the economy to the tune of something like £2.5bn pa.

 

So, treating sports injuries good. Treating smokers bad.

 

So should people be encouraged to play sports? By the state? Or should it just be left up to the individual?

[Tony]

Of course the state should encourage a healthy population in all respects.

 

You can deliver your punchline now.

[taxman]

Of course the state should encourage a healthy population in all respects.

 

You can deliver your punchline now.

 

Here you go then. And I must say it's a particularly good photo of the clown prince Gove.