Originally Posted by Frank Dux
well the reason the smoking is becoming big in debates, is because the NHS National Health is giving free healthcare to the smokers who need a lot of care. basically it is eating up all the funds and since in the UK all citizens have free healthcare there is not enough money to go around so it is easier to stop the smoking eralier or make them basically pay and use that money for the NHS.
I suspect that the NHS figures about health costs of smokers are as bogus as research condemning tobacco as a great health threat. I know for a fact that in the states smokers cost the public less in social security expenditures and pay far more in taxes then they consume with same being true for private insurance costs. If anyone wants to they can read J. Sullum's "For Your Own Good" to get the detailed cites and the Colby stuff I mention here confirms as much although without the depth of support.
It seems to me that on a basic level the issue is an ethical one. Namely, given that all European nations have public health one simply doesn't have the option of not paying the state for health services. That being the case it seems absurd to deny public goods and services to those that engage in any legal activity.
If we are to presume that the state can force payment for public goods and services while denying the taxpayer benefits based upon personal, legal life style choices then one is in essence giving the state free reign to regulate any personal behavior likely to increase the cost of public services. If we take such thinking to itís logical conclusion I see totalitarianism as the outcome. For example, given the threat of lethargy to oneís health the state should be able to decree how long one should be able to watch TV or be online. Like wise the government should be able to ban fatty foods or limit oneís caloric intake and limit alcohol consumption. If one read up on the life expectancy of homosexuals and the associated costs of treating aliments commonly associated with such behavior one can logically come to the conclusion that the state should be able to ban various forms of sexual behavior on the basis of NHS expenses.
Obvious the scenario I described will not come to pass for the simple reason that such a consistent policy would be logically constant rather then the product of lobbying by powerful cliques of cultural bolsheviks which is what drives the Western world these days.
I hope of course this inane proposal does not gain force of law but seeing the authoritarian nature of the UK these days I woulsn't be shocked to hear it became government policy.