Stephen Tonkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Well you are actually wrong there -
>
> What's this? Deceptive economics? I refer to what
> the NHS gets from taxation on tobacco and you post
> sites that tell us what HMGov gets from it and you
> hope I won't notice the sleight of hand? I'm
> beginning to wonder how I contrive to give the
> impression that I am that stupid!
>

I didn't suggest you where stupid Stephen. We are talking about smoking - and if "HMGov" didn't get the tax from cigarettes they would have to cut the money from somewhere. Whatever your opinion on where they should spend their (our) cash, the fact remains that smokers contribute more in taxes than they cost in terms of smoking related diseases (even ignoring the building pensions crisis).

Sure its kind of crazy we damage ourselves pointlessly. When I moved over here from Africa I hated smoking. As a kid trying to fit in with something I seemed to be missing about the society - I decided that I may learn something about what I was missing by joining them. I've come to realise that much of what I considered to be knowledge of things I didn't understand - is in fact ego-shells that are self created as a kind of protection mechanism. Its just a pity that those with the ego-shells are effectively the leaders of our society in terms that young people see.



> Let's look at the actuality (data sources in
> parentheses):
>
> Total HM GOv expenditure (2005 budget): £519
> billion
> Total health expenditure (2005 budget): £ 90bn --
> 17.3% of total
>
> HMG income fromr excise duty and VAT on tobacco
> (FOREST): £7bn (ASH) £8bn
> Cost to NHS of smoking (FOREST & ASH): £1.5bn
>
> 17.3% of £8bn (i.e. the NHS share) is over £100
> million less than the cost to the NHS of
> smoking-related disease.

You're talking about the percentage of income the goverment chooses to give to the NHS, rather than the financial cost of smoking to people who don't smoke. The fact is that smokers are net contributers to UK society if you are just talking the economic aspects of smoking.

Smoking is a bad thing. Its a pointless waste of life and health and resources. I'm in agreement with you there. There's no need to nit pick all the details.



>
> However, were smoking-related diseases to
> disappear, it would be political suicide to remove
> from the NHS its proportion of tobacco taxation.
> The expenditure on treatment of the self-inflicted
> health effects of smoking would be diverted to
> treating the diseases, etc. that are currently
> untreated because of NHS budget restrictions.
>

Yes thats true. But it could also be argued that people live too long now - with NHS wards filled up with people being barely kept alive and often in pain (emotional let alone physical). The people that look after them are generally amazing - and deserve to be rewarded more financially than they are. But these things are not always about money - many who become nurses could, to use an extreme example - become prostitutes. They would earn much more - but where they are they help people at the edge and thats something they store away in themselves. This world can never be one where everyone gets what they deserve - its not meant to be.

Life is such a precious thing. And when its people close to you, you want them to live as long as possible. But real life on earth ends in death. If only we weren't all so afraid of death - we may not transfer our fear so much onto situations that require clear thinking. Loving thinking. Hard feet, soft heart.

To be honest, I reckon the argument against smoking should not be that you die early. We all die to the body eventually. The argument should be that you become a slave to something that does nothing good for you in any way whatsoever.

Simon