As a taxpayer I pick up the very significant bill from folks utilising their free choice to smoke.
No, actually you don't. The revenue raised on the taxation of cigarettes more than covers the cost.
I know a number of healthcare professionals who believe that the figure is spurious in any case. Assuming that the cost of treating smokers is incrementally attributable to smoking is statistically incorrect. As a friend who works in terminal care once said to me.
"Everyone will have a terminal condition - once. Whether you smoke or not this is true. You are likely to require teminal care. The cost of care is based upon the condition, how long you linger and other factors - but everyone dies of something"
So actually everyone will eventually die and many will need treatment or palliative care. Is this incrementally more for smoking? Perhaps, however the reduced life expectancy also represents a net saving in terms of pension, old age care etc.
So even if you ignore the fact that the tax on cigarettes covers the health provision required as a result of smoking, there is in fact no evidence that smokers represent a greater burden to the health service over the course of their lives. Sure many die of smoking related diseases, but non smokers die of something too and also ultimately require the same care.
There is a large argument that if everyone stopped smoking your income tax would rise substantially
This does not mean of course that smoking is a sensible thing to do, but it does debunk the "burden on the state" myth - smokers are no such thing - they are net contributors.
Red (who hasn't smoked for years for the record)
to his credit, he knew the score and he werent about to fail anybody.
