Does Smoking Help Support This Country?

Question

Given that over £8.1 Billion is raised through taxation on smoking, Shouldnt we cut them some slack? where does all this tax go? schools, hospitals et.....

oh yes and cost (net) of smoking to the NHS is 1.5 Billion

these are all goverment printed figures so what would happen if this revenue wasnt there?

cost on the NHS = http://www.ash.org.uk/html/cessation/primarycare.html

Revenue Raised By Smoking = http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/060320.html

£7.5 billion is alot of money

For F*cks sake read the post before anymore post about costing the NHS money! IT DOES NOT THE FACTS ARE THERE

Answer 1

Finally someone has pointed out the truth of the matter - smokers pay for their own treatment. Oh and the government spend about 300 million on telling us fags are bad for us. Most countries tax the fags, but britain takes the piss.
I understand ou are not advocating smoking, I smoke and i wish i wasnt hooked, - you are pointing out the unfair villification of smokers as a drain on resources.
Many people think it is fair to make smokers pay for any treatment for smoking related illness as they mistakenly believe that smokers are a drain on the nhs.
You have pointed out to them that this is not the case.
Well done!
Smoking kills, but so does pollution, cars, trains, murderers, aids, breathing.....
The biggest drug dealers are governments - they peddle a drug that is highly addictive but doesnt affect your ability to do work. It will kill you in its form as a smokable item, thus saving them paying out pensions. It should be illegal, but the amount of revenue it generates puts prohibition out of the question.

Lets start a campaign! lol!

Answer 2

Darn skippy! Tobacco is a big money industry...lots of jobs. Then of course, there are the outrageous taxes.

You know, the government did better reducing smoking through campaigns like 'just say no' than they did with raising taxes. If the price of cigarettes becomes too outrageous, then a black market will be created and smoking will target the young again.

Oh, here's my favorite. The state of Washington was talking about how smoking needed to be reduced so they raised the taxes to a ridiculous amount and guess what the extra money was used for?!?!?! Education...no, not non-smoking education campaigns...public schools. They created a little catch-22 for themselves...if the taxes have an impact on reducing smoking, then that would be less money for schools...but if people keep smoking...more money. Which do you think they want more? Less smokers or more money? And how much of that extra tax money do you think actually got to the schools?!?!?!

The government's best way to combat smoking is mass education programs that they've used in the past as well as the strict laws on selling to minors. Most people start smoking in their teens-very few start as adults...so if they target the young in their campaigns, they will have great success. Meanwhile, smokers cessation programs can cater to those already smoking...but I don't think the government should pay for those...just provide incentives for organizations to have cessation programs and to help those who cannot afford them.

So yes, tobacco benefits this country economically...but smoking can be reduced without affecting the economy if it's done right. Taxes are not the right way to go.

Answer 3

I also believe that if the government has what it says it wants and all smokers to stop the NHS would grind to a halt, who else pays such huge taxes and where do you think most of the money goes, also if you are a smoker in many doctors practises and hospitals you get victimised and penalised and don't get as good treatment as you would if you were a non smoker. So I decided
to really screw the system, I became a non smoker too after 35 years of smoking and now I go to my local practise every 3 weeks or so and get hundreds of pounds of substitute nicotine products all on the NHS, thus claiming back what I paid for all those years, I have been a non smoker for 9 months now but am still on the nicotine replacement therapy.
Doesn't this piss off all the true non, never smokers out there!

Answer 4

Yes, all taxation helps - there price of all tobacco products in
the UK is extremely high. The "smoking banning" campaign
is directed as a political move, supposedly to protect the non
smokers who become "passive smokers" because of the
pollution. However I think that the Government would like
the whole country addicted since this would be their largest
income. I do not know exactly where this money ends up
but common sense this taxation should be direct
to the NHS, research and in to a lesser degree, education.

Answer 5

I do not know about britain but in the USA this is how it goes
direct cost of smoking related illnesses $14-15 Billion
indirect cost of smoking another $15-16 Billion
total cost of smoking on health care 30 BILLION
that is not taking into consideration that there is loss of revenue generated by those affected, trash collection, impact on the enviroment, impact on future generations (second hand smoke) impact on the productive land to produce "good" crops and many other subtle problems, all araising from smoke
all these figures are from COPD/lung related problems, this do not take into consideration that smoking in reality has an impact on other systems, namely increased heart attacks, strokes, cancers of other parts of the body, decreased bony mass, incresed back pain (huge loss of revenue and high cost of insurance)
well we could talk all day but bottom line is
nno do not cut them any slack, they are costing YOU money

Answer 6

Its the reason it has not been made illegal - lets be honest if the government wanted smoking stamped out all together, ban it, make it illegal to be in possession of cigarettes - no they just ban it from everywhere (so it looks like they want to stop smokers). I hope everybody packs up smoking - see how your tax will go up then. And why not ban alcohol, it costs a lot more in revenue than smoking, more people die of drink related illness or misfortune caused through alocohol than people smoking - maybe most of the cabinet like a little tipple.

Answer 7

Yea but then you have to put into count the health insurance cost that smoking has made for all the health problems that it cost people like asthma and lung cancer. I am not sure of the figures but I am pretty sure its more then 7.5 billion since smoking increase chance of asthma in children (2nd hand smoke) and lung cancer it is not a good trade off and not to include the amount of people who die from it.

Answer 8

I agree that we do make a lot of money on cig's, but what if we didn't have to pay for all the smoking related illnesses every year? (e.x....lung cancer, emphizema...asthma) or injuries, like a house catching on fire because someone feel asleep with a cig? I think that we're spending more on that stuff every year then we could ever be making from cig taxes...I mean, smoking-related illnesses are the number one or two cause of death right now in America.

Answer 9

i have smoked for over 20 years and never been ill with anything smoking related or otherwise only time i have had to see a doctor is after industrial accidents any chance of a refund on all the taxes i have paid over the years (no way they have my hard earned cash and are keeping it ) just goes to show how much we get ripped off every year

Answer 10

Yes smoking revenues do contribute but just goes to show what one's own health is worth when there may be a stage where 7.5 Billion is not going to be enough to save you.