Would the NHS be on its knees if everyone stopped smoking?

Question

smoking costs the NHS in scotland £140 million a year.
21% of people smoke in scotland (about 1'500'000 people) This means
If the 21% all smoke an average of 10 cigarettes a day which would cost them about £2.20- they are paying £1.50 of this as tax - then they will be paying £2'250'000 a DAY to the government- the majority of which goes straight to NHS funding. This means that the government is making almost 9 BILLION pounds a year from smokers in Scotland......dont you think they are paying their own health costs as well as contributing to others?????????

Answer 1

The NHS is on it's knees now isn't it?

Properly managed, the NHS would thrive with or without smoking, but I think you have a valid point.

As well as the points you raise, the tobacco industry creates jobs. People pay tax on their earnings, so the govt gets even more money from smoking.

However, how much does it cost to treat the illnesses associated with smoking? How much does it cost to treat the passive smoker? I don't know although I'd be surprised if the cost was as much as the amount smoking has raised.

The government is trying to deflect blame away from themselves and on to smokers for the failing NHS, knowing full well that people won't give up smoking on their say-so. Meanwhile they can give the impression that they care about the British public.

Answer 2

No. But then your figure for smoking costing the NHS £140 million a year is misleading. Smoking actually costs about 18 times more- £140 million is for disease directly caused by smoking, but smokers are much mroe likely to get almost every kind of disease there is. ALso, children of smokers are sicker, needing more from the NHS. Smokers take longer to recover from operations, suffer more infections, more pregnancy complications, more infertility, and are more likely to remain in hospital long term. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, there might be a bit of a shortage in the NHS for a while, but the government would find the money from other sources (they spend lots of mony on stop smoking services and advertising, so there's a big fat chunk or revenue released) but eventually it would more than pay for itself.

Answer 3

firstly not all that money goes to the NHS in the first place, think how much the NHS cost to run per year. Last figure I heard was 50 billion in the uk we pay more in tax to the NHS that any other government dept. Think about the cost of doctors GPs can earn £100,000, surgeons consultants nurse keeping hospitals open and average operation can cost between 20,000 -40,000 and all the illnesses that cigarettes cause heart disease cancer, bronchitis, impotence and secondary illnesses caused by lack of activity by people who smoke yes a lot of money is raised in taxes but to run the nhs to offer a good service costs the NHS a lot more smoking cost the NHS a lot more than is raised.

Answer 4

Not at all.

How do you know the majority of taxes from cigarettes goes to the NHS? Who KNOWS where our taxes go but I can guarantee that the MAJORITY does NOT go into the NHS!

If everyone gave up smoking, there'd be less people to treat! There's a HUGE whole variety of conditions attributed to smoking. It would take the strain OFF the NHS therefore providing a BETTER service.

Answer 5

While it's true that smokers pay for more than they cost they still don't pay that much. No, our fuel is 5 times the price that the American's pay and most of that money goes to the NHS too.

Answer 6

Tha NHS is already on it's knees
I recently had a VERY horrible stay in an archaic, outdated hospital
It's about time the government started keeping some of it's promises. Send Tony to a NHS Hospital for a week and see how he likes it

Answer 7

No. It would still be in the bad shape that it's in today.

I doubt much of the tax that is raised by cigarettes finds its way to the NHS. Probably why the NHS is failing.

Taxes are not attributed in that way, for example Road Tax is not spent on roads.

Answer 8

as a nurse the nhs will probably fall on its knees regardless. as i none smoker i have been affected by other peoples smoke . it costs a lot an awfull lot to treat smokers and non smokers alike.
smoking will never be completely banned because as you say whe government gets too much tax from it. but if there were less smokers there would be less smoking related disease such as cancer, diabetes, strokes, blood clots ,heart ,disease , bone problems,miscarridge, premature births, but to name a few and with this the nhs may have more money to deal with the other complications in life dont you agree!

Answer 9

Smoking must cost the health service far more, with all the related illnesses it causes. I think people who can afford to pay private should anyway. I was a nurse and could suggest many ways to cut enormous costs in the health service, I left nursing recently because I was in danger of being fired for being too outspoken!! I think I might write a book.

Answer 10

If we had no babies, we'd save a fortune, too. If we weren't underweight, overweight, did enough quiet exercise - nothing that involves rollerskates, bicycles, horses, or anything dangerous like that, we'd save even more money. If we didn't resuscitate the elderly or ill, if we didn't give prem babies a chance, if we left the deaf and blind untreated, we'd save even more. If we accepted our infertility willingly, didn't take drugs, drink too much - hey - we'd save an absolute fortune!
So of course smokers are subsidising us - that's why it's not illegal.
However, as a non-smoker, smoke affects my asthma and makes my life unpleasant. I think you should pay for that.