Jump to content
NEurope
Raining_again

Getting paid to stop smoking - controversy?

Recommended Posts

Skipped the thread in order to not get tied up in any arguments;

 

I smoke, and I disagree with this idea entirely. If people wish to give up, they need to do so because they want to give up, not because money, of all things that are evil in this world, is supposed to be their motivator. No.

 

However! I have no idea what this story is. For all I know, the story equates to "people who wish to give up smoking get free nicotine patches", in which case, yeah, sure, free stuff to help kick the habit is fine.

 

Yeah. I think a link to some sort of article relating to this 'news' would be handy before we start just stabbing the chimneys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversation with my sister yesterday.

 

How much rent is this place?

 

£400

 

Council tax?

 

£100

 

How much do you have left at the end of each month, approximately, after all bills.

 

Usually about £100-£200

 

Oh okay.

 

-------------

 

Later that evening.

 

How many are you on?

 

20 a day.

 

.......So...you waste three quarters of your spare money on cigarettes?

 

Completely beyond me. I just can't get my head around it. Do people want cancer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could give you the economics if you want Pookiablo. Going to give it to you even if you don't.

 

- Smoking is an example of a demerit good, i.e a good that causes significant external costs to a third party. Without government intervention, these costs aren't paid for because the consumers and producers of cigarettes do not take into account the external costs that occur because of the consumption or production of this good. In this case, the negative externalities here arise because smoking inflicts monetary costs to the NHS, and cause the health of others to worsen. This could lead to losses in working days and therefore people would be less able to contribute to GDP.

 

-There are many ways to tackle this market failure - currently tax is being imposed on cigarettes which has a limited effect, because demand for cigarettes is inelastic due to their addictive nature. However it does reduce demand for them slightly, and the tax revenue the government gains through this can be used to hypothecate (hypothecate meaning they can use the money to reduce external costs in other areas). Some of this revenue might be used in what they are doing here - in this case it's probably best to call the NHS money give-aways 'consumer subsidies'. This obviously has the desired effect of reducing demand and the over consumption of the demerit good in question.

 

Quantity demanded should fall, supply would contract, and there would be an increase in price of cigarettes. So you can see why the government are doing it, because it reduces the undesirable effects you have in a free market.

 

Or they could just not sell them in the first place? Then they wouldn't have to bother with any of this and I don't have to watch friends I care about slowly kill themselves because they can't sort their own problems out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a dipshit.

I think it's just his over-exaggerated sense of humour. Although there is a strong link between class and smoking.

 

This...is an awful idea. It's up there with EMA and unemployment benefits in my eyes. Cigarettes should be outright banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the exact economics on it but might it not be cheaper to pay people to quit than have to pay for extensive medical treatment later in life for smoking related illnesses?

 

Of course, justifying that would mean everyone they paid quitting forever and not going back to smoking once they get paid, which will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the exact economics on it but might it not be cheaper to pay people to quit than have to pay for extensive medical treatment later in life for smoking related illnesses?

 

Of course, justifying that would mean everyone they paid quitting forever and not going back to smoking once they get paid, which will never happen.

I don't know, I think they probably make more in tax than they fork out in medical costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, I think they probably make more in tax than they fork out in medical costs.

 

maybe. Strains the system too though, kind of like Friday night A&E rushes from alcohol.

 

Obviously impossible to say without having the figures. Interesting question though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Dan says, there are more costs associated with smoking than just burden on the NHS when it gets to the cancer stage.

 

A lot of my work is about showing that a particular illness has a high cost when treatment isn't sufficient (therefore justifying drug costs).

Costs include (direct and indirect) loads of stuff: doctor consultations, stays in hospital, any drug treatments, whether a caregiver (pro or non-pro; a non-pro incurring further "cost" to society) is required, walking aids, adaptations to home, car adaptations, workplace adaptations, worktime adjustments, any losses or adjustments to employment, social impediment.

 

The cost of smoking isn't just the face to face stuff when they get sick, it's all the other stuff that is incurred as part of someone being slightly sicker that also mounts up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or they could just not sell them in the first place? Then they wouldn't have to bother with any of this and I don't have to watch friends I care about slowly kill themselves because they can't sort their own problems out.

It's all well and good but that doesn't work with free market economy.

 

It would force firms to relocate, there'd be a loss of jobs, because let's face it, the tobacco industry is massive. You'd have a massive uproar, you might see a large amount of people emigrating and the people left here are left experiencing the harmful effects of withdrawal symptoms.

 

It would be nice if cigarettes had never existed, but they do, nothing will stop the fact they are smoked. If it is made illegal there are further costs in enforcing it because as with all drugs, people are willing to break the law to lay their hands on them.

 

Cutting 6 billl-yun from our economy could put the recovery at risk, and I don't believe that is the right thing to do.

Edited by dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that smokers should be given money to quit.

 

My sister is a long term smoker, I think about 13/14 and she's 24 this year. She's tried to quit before, she struggles for money and has very nearly been in prison for her financial debt.

 

My mother died of cancer and my sister was old enough to witness it. I don't and never will pretend to know why my sister smokes. I guess its a habit, something she needs on her day to day. I would love for her to quit, but I don't think she should get money to stop.

 

Nor do I think she 'deserves to die', what a horrible and ridiculous thing to say! That person has friends, families, a job, a pet(s) and it's awful to think that just because a person smokes it automatically pushes them into the disgusting pile.

 

Argh that upsets me so much.

 

Anyway, yeah I don't support it. -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancer therapy is very expensive because it usually involves:

 

Seeing a specialist (if you went privately that would be a LOT of money in itself)

 

The cost of treatment - chemotherapy is expensive - a lot more than just a prescription over the counter.

 

Home visits from doctors and nurses (at least once weekly, and daily if it gets to terminal stages with VERY expensive drugs being administered through a syringe driver) or checkups every whenever if you are one of the lucky ones to survive.

 

and provisions of things like home oxygen for lung cancer etc

 

So yes it is very expensive..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find retarded is that it comes from our tax money. I don't smoke but if I did I'd just be like "yeah, put that back on my tax bill mate Dave".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I find retarded is that it comes from our tax money. I don't smoke but if I did I'd just be like "yeah, put that back on my tax bill mate Dave".

 

as opposed to the chemotherapy or oxygen support coming out of your taxes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowel cancer is the biggest western cancer, so we'll have to give rewards to people who maintain a healthy diet next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as opposed to the chemotherapy or oxygen support coming out of your taxes...

 

My point is that that if I was going to get some monetary gain it'd probably make more sense to just deduct it from your tax for being less of a potential strain on the system. Of course that'd probably require an overhaul of the entire system so that all the people who aren't liabilities get charged less on tax...

 

I don't know why I think sometimes, all my thoughts end up coming out brown anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So essentially we should all pay different rates of tax, decided by filling out a tick-box form of things we're happy to see our money go to. I don't drive so I don't need roads resurfaced, and I don't live in manchester so I hardly see why any of my money should go to their schools or libraries or streetlights ET FUCKING C.

 

Yeah, stupid argument on my part, I know. But this thread is full of factless truths so I thought I'd contribute to the heap that, hopefully, eventually weighs enough to trip this thread right offa the first page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So essentially we should all pay different rates of tax, decided by filling out a tick-box form of things we're happy to see our money go to. I don't drive so I don't need roads resurfaced, and I don't live in manchester so I hardly see why any of my money should go to their schools or libraries or streetlights ET FUCKING C.

 

Yeah, stupid argument on my part, I know. But this thread is full of factless truths so I thought I'd contribute to the heap that, hopefully, eventually weighs enough to trip this thread right offa the first page.

 

In an ideal world.

Oh snap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So essentially we should all pay different rates of tax, decided by filling out a tick-box form of things we're happy to see our money go to. I don't drive so I don't need roads resurfaced, and I don't live in manchester so I hardly see why any of my money should go to their schools or libraries or streetlights ET FUCKING C.

 

Yeah, stupid argument on my part, I know. But this thread is full of factless truths so I thought I'd contribute to the heap that, hopefully, eventually weighs enough to trip this thread right offa the first page.

 

Well presumably the taxes you pay go to your local council...but I may be wrong. Always how I imagined it but can't say I gave it that much thought.

 

But while we're at it. I don't drive. I doubt I ever will. Can the money that would go to road repair be used for my train fare instead? :p

 

Although I did raise one truth you can't refute James. Smoking is smelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not drive but when you buy food from the shops that food was carried by lorries that use the roads.

 

And when you have a heart attack from all that smoking it'll be those roads the ambulance uses to carry you to hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may not drive but when you buy food from the shops that food was carried by lorries that use the roads.

 

And when you have a heart attack from all that smoking it'll be those roads the ambulance uses to carry you to hospital.

 

I presumed we all knew we were being silly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just typing out loud and not paying attention, as usual.

 

Tbh, I don't get why junk food isn't (heavily) taxed.

 

 

 

 

And fat people, while we're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may not drive but when you buy food from the shops that food was carried by lorries that use the roads.

 

And when you have a heart attack from all that smoking it'll be those roads the ambulance uses to carry you to hospital.

 

I go to a supermarket that ships exclusively in 4 x 4 lorries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cancer therapy is very expensive because it usually involves:

 

Seeing a specialist (if you went privately that would be a LOT of money in itself)

 

The cost of treatment - chemotherapy is expensive - a lot more than just a prescription over the counter.

 

Home visits from doctors and nurses (at least once weekly, and daily if it gets to terminal stages with VERY expensive drugs being administered through a syringe driver) or checkups every whenever if you are one of the lucky ones to survive.

 

and provisions of things like home oxygen for lung cancer etc

 

So yes it is very expensive..

I think the main point is not that it isn't expensive for an individual with cancer. It's that each smoker ends up buying several packets of cigarettes, each taxed to hell, and that most never get cancer or require such expensive forms of therapy. Thus, they continue to generate more profit from taxes than they lose through treatment, no doubt.

 

Of course, it places burden in other areas and is terrible for your health. Sometimes government should do things counter-profit for the good of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the main point is not that it isn't expensive for an individual with cancer. It's that each smoker ends up buying several packets of cigarettes, each taxed to hell, and that most never get cancer or require such expensive forms of therapy. Thus, they continue to generate more profit from taxes than they lose through treatment, no doubt.

 

Of course, it places burden in other areas and is terrible for your health. Sometimes government should do things counter-profit for the good of the people.

 

Some cancer meds can be into the thousands per syringe.

 

and the costs of consultants and nurses aren't something you see normally unless you pay privately (most consultants charge into the 100s for a 15 minute apt) of which you would see numerous times under cancer care.

 

--

 

the most crucial part is the critical risk the NHS is under, and will be for years to come.

 

The whole problem with this society is the laziness we've created for ourselves.. ready meals, cars and all the other lazy things..

 

I think overweight people aren't as clear cut.. some people can be genuinely overweight because of illnesses.. Junk food should and could be taxed , but i don't think its necessarily fair to have your taxes based off a reading on the scales.

 

And you could tax for mobile phone use, but that's getting into crazy stuff

 

Essentially the idea is to tax based on the impact one would have on public services... well in that case I'd be in debt to the government :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×