I totally agree that tobacco is a harmful substance. I'm not sure if I agree that a government should try to legislate citizens' habits.
It depends?
AFAIK healthcare in UK is tax funded, and smoking with its long list
of damages to the body, takes a portion of that taxpayer money which could be used on something underfunded, like mental healthcare.
This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.
I assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.
I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior.
Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?
It's going to make for an interesting future age verification problem; For a few years it'll be easy, because it's still only going to be asking people under say 25 for proof; but then in a few decades it's going to be people trying to figure out if there customer is over 40 say.
I dont think you can hide with smoking cigarettes almost anywhere, the stink is far too strong, characteristic abd outright repulsive. Also, you normally dont go to jail by using drugs... what a clueless comment
Cannabis is a way stronger smell and it is used everywhere regardless of the laws against it.
Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.
Nonsense. Did people already forget the prohibitionism? Did people already forget the war on drugs? I remember liberals were talking about drug decriminalisation 10 years ago, has everybody turned into a puritan nowadays? Also, very hypocritical argument when alcohol (and gambling) are very accepted in British culture. I'd like to see the numbers showing that the few people that still roll their own cigs at 15 pounds…
Kids vape now anyway, so it’s a vanishingly small proportion of people, who would be able to get their fix anyway via a far less harmful source.
Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.
Nonsense. Did people already forget the prohibitionism? Did people already forget the war on drugs? I remember liberals were talking about drug decriminalisation 10 years ago, has everybody turned into a puritan nowadays? Also, very hypocritical argument when alcohol (and gambling) are very accepted in British culture. I'd like to see the numbers showing that the few people that still roll their own cigs at 15 pounds…
Let's not forget this is a policy that Barry, 63, wouldn't be affected by - only young people (let's say it's Nicolas, 30 ans). Barry, 63 loves voting for parties that fuck other people and make their lives miserable, but not him.
I assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.
I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?
Society is by definition “forcing” people to carry the burden of other’s choices. You’re drawing an entirely arbitrary line at direct taxation. Why is it “fair”? Because society isn’t zero sum. We each give and take in different ways.
Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.
Raise taxes until it balances!
You assume that there is a balance point. There is an unlimited demand for healthcare. Additionally the more money you give to a failing system, the worse it gets. It’s a positive feedback loop.
This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.
Taxes as they currently exist are a bandaid on wealth inequality. Getting rid of rich people parasitism would be a better way to balance the budget than either right-libertarian principles or taxing commoners for their stress relief like tobacco.
Though judging by the amount milords in the article I suspect that is far ways off.