Donate SIGN UP

free immortality courtesy of the government

Avatar Image
kinell | 10:35 Tue 28th Dec 2010 | News
20 Answers
should you so require one can now get a hand-out of free nicotine patches at many chemists

the estimate is that 100,000 individuals will live forever as a result

as smoking is still a legal activity and a matter of choice is this a costly folly of an exercise

ignoring the usual 'what about the tax revenue from smoking?'....

as we will all surely die,
the cost saving of the nhs etc now is massively compromised by the huge later cost of health care dealing with whatever eventually 'gets you' and particularly the aditional and massive mounting burden of pensions for those who choose to hang around well after their useful time

my mate the devils advocate would suggest the opposite path to be of benefit to the greater good.....

cut the rate of tobacco tax and start a program of free cigarette handouts

that way the money you relentlessly shovel into the state pension system will be worth at least something more than sod all for those who remain to draw it


1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by kinell. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
why stop with cigarettes? Just abolish the NHS altogether and let people go back to dying of childhood diseases up chimneys. This would save the government money and ensure that only the fittest survive, not sickly babies.

Of course, there's an argument that the purpose of the NHS isn't to make or save money at all, it's to keep people healthy; but that's un-Tory and should be ignored.
kinell.....good point.

Cigarette sales bring in large tax benefits to the Government and up until some 25years ago, these smokers would die if cardiovascular disease or lung cancer before hey were 65 years of age, thus saving huge amounts of state pensions. BUT, along comes the inconsiderate medical profession and develops drugs and surgical techniques to lengthen the life of these smokers and at the expense of the taxpayer.Luckily or otherwise, depending upon how one looks at it UK survival rates for cancer are poor compared with the rest of the EU countries.

<<<cut the rate of tobacco tax and start a program of free cigarette handouts<<
I agree, but that would involve a "no NHS treatment " for smokers and we have been down that road before.

Also, the " non smokers" would be disadvantaged by the social and medical hazards of "passive smoking"

Good idea kinell, but not a "vote winner"
Can we please stop propagating the myth that tobacco tax is a net gain, Sqad you surprise me.
sqd // Cigarette sales bring in large tax benefits to the Government //
Apart from the vast cost of treating smoking related diseases there are all the other side effects More people die in fire related domestic house than from any other cause and for those who don't die a very high proportion of the 210.000 burn cases in hospital are a result of cigarette fires.
G1....I am not.

My point was that any tax gain from cigarette sale is lost on the extra cost to the NHS on treatment and on extending lives well into pensionable age.

Why do I surprise you?

modeller...I dont understand your reply.
Add to the above the cost of the fire service , the police , the social services and the destuction of property . We are talking billions above the amount we get from the cigarette tax.
Cigarette fires - I can't remember the last time I heard a fire blamed on a cigarette.
modeller....I agree.........I was........disagreeing with kinell, although arguing that he did have a point.

I want smoking banned.
well sqad, you said it brings in large tax benefits. It doesn't sorry if I misundersood. As pointed out by modeller, the true cost of smoking far outways any tax revenue.
R1 I agree...........but my point was that it does bring in large tax benefits, but this is soon dissipated by the points that you have mentioned.

Perhaps I should have said "gross benefits" but little or no "net gain"
It seems a third of households contain a smoker and they are 35% more likely to have a fire. This is of course just one area where the indirect costs of smoking get ignored by those who still think tobacco revenue is an earner.
the "put it out - right out" campaign dates from three years ago.

are there any figures available that might demonstrate if it was effective?
-- answer removed --
Eddie we have already.

We tax cigarettes.
We tax alcohol.
The other drugs being illegal, who would we tax?..the dealer?..the user?....all this would go by the wayside as if we could identify them we could jail them.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Why do people take drugs ? t
because they make them feel better?
Why do people take drugs ? They know they are bad for them. When I was a child cigarettes were known as Coffin Nails and we all know the effect of excess drinking but it made no difference.
In my own family some would rather miss a meal than go without their cigarettes.
Drugs are addictive and and there is the social aspect . I use to carry cigarettes around with me so that I could hand them out and I was a non smoker.
The government extended the licencing hours to try to make us drink in a more measured manner like in France. It didn't work many still binge drink.
All drugs have this social and addictive aspect and making them easier to obtain may cut out some drug dealing but 60% of crimes are committed whilst under the influence of legal drugs so making more drugs legal is unlikely to make much difference. I knew 3 people who were dying from excess drugs and they told me if they had their time over again they would still do the same again.. as they enjoyed it.

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

free immortality courtesy of the government

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.