3 ms·

Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.

by weego 6mo ago

HiroProtagonist 6mo ago
Could one make a similar argument for banning sugar?
- gbear605 6mo ago
  One could, but it would be a much harder sell politically. The pro-smoking voting block is much smaller than the tasty-food voting block.
- orf 6mo ago
  Sure, except sugar in itself isn’t bad. It’s products with excessive quantities of sugar. Various laws restrict those, including the promotion to children: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promo...
- zdragnar 6mo ago
  Of course. The government has bought and paid for your health. It is only by the gracious largess that we have been allowed sugar at all.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
sph 6mo ago
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 a pouch cost more to the NHS than all the alcoholics in Britain. Smoking ban is, as usual, Labour going for the low-hanging fruits to scrape the votes of the elderly that are likely to be swayed by these empty arguments, just like the Online Safety Act. One thing's for sure: Barry, 63, would not like if alcohol and gambling were regulated in any way. I'm not a smoker any more, hate the things and can't stand the smoke, but I sure am glad to have left that island of short-sighted yet heavy-handed politics.
- pclowes 6mo ago
  The Prohibition was actually very effective and reasonable. Especially considering the rampant alcoholism of the time. Also, Singapore seems to have conclusively won the war on drugs. I would not mind those policies in San Francisco.
  - stevenalowe 6mo ago
    Alcohol consumption increased and stronger beverages became more popular but sure it was effect and reasonable yeah
- fontain 6mo ago
  I like cigarettes. Cigarettes aren’t addictive. I’m pro drug decriminalisation and pro banning cigarettes. They’re not mutually exclusive.
- blipvert 6mo ago
  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. It’s a foul product that belongs in the past.
- amiga386 6mo ago
  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.
bombcar 6mo ago
Raise taxes until it balances!
- briandw 6mo ago
  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.
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    Cigarettes being $15m a cancer stick is more amusing to me than an outright ban.
amiga386 6mo ago
Life is not a balance sheet, Christie Malry. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-pdf-14499743609797 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-n... > Smoking-related illness is estimated to cost the NHS £2.6 billion a year https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/nhs-long-term-plan-will-help-problem-drinkers-and-smokers/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/nhs-long-term-plan-will-h... > Alcohol-related harm is estimated to cost the NHS in England £3.5 billion every year. If we look exclusively at numbers, prohibition would save money. If that's all we care about, try that out - oh, the Americans did, and it wrecked their country and filled it with gangsters, because no amount of trying to stop people drinking actually stopped people drinking, and normal people having to pretend they weren't going to drink, but secretly really really needing it and finding criminals to supply them with drink built out an entire parallel black economy and gave gangsters huge amounts of money and power. If we're looking at saving money, maybe just kill the long-term disabled and elderly? Easy win for saving money! That's all that matters, after all.
briandw 6mo ago
It’s also cheaper to euthanize people rather than treat them. It’s just logical.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
stevenalowe 5mo ago
It’s logical if you regard people as cattle

Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.

by weego 6mo ago

Smoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.

HiroProtagonist 6mo ago

Could one make a similar argument for banning sugar?

gbear605 6mo ago
One could, but it would be a much harder sell politically. The pro-smoking voting block is much smaller than the tasty-food voting block.
orf 6mo ago
Sure, except sugar in itself isn’t bad. It’s products with excessive quantities of sugar. Various laws restrict those, including the promotion to children: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promo...
zdragnar 6mo ago
Of course. The government has bought and paid for your health. It is only by the gracious largess that we have been allowed sugar at all.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

sph 6mo ago

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 a pouch cost more to the NHS than all the alcoholics in Britain. Smoking ban is, as usual, Labour going for the low-hanging fruits to scrape the votes of the elderly that are likely to be swayed by these empty arguments, just like the Online Safety Act. One thing's for sure: Barry, 63, would not like if alcohol and gambling were regulated in any way. I'm not a smoker any more, hate the things and can't stand the smoke, but I sure am glad to have left that island of short-sighted yet heavy-handed politics.

pclowes 6mo ago
The Prohibition was actually very effective and reasonable. Especially considering the rampant alcoholism of the time. Also, Singapore seems to have conclusively won the war on drugs. I would not mind those policies in San Francisco.
- stevenalowe 6mo ago
  Alcohol consumption increased and stronger beverages became more popular but sure it was effect and reasonable yeah
fontain 6mo ago
I like cigarettes. Cigarettes aren’t addictive. I’m pro drug decriminalisation and pro banning cigarettes. They’re not mutually exclusive.
blipvert 6mo ago
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. It’s a foul product that belongs in the past.
amiga386 6mo ago
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.

bombcar 6mo ago

Raise taxes until it balances!

briandw 6mo ago
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.
- bombcar 6mo ago
  Cigarettes being $15m a cancer stick is more amusing to me than an outright ban.

amiga386 6mo ago

Life is not a balance sheet, Christie Malry. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-pdf-14499743609797 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-n... > Smoking-related illness is estimated to cost the NHS £2.6 billion a year https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/nhs-long-term-plan-will-help-problem-drinkers-and-smokers/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/nhs-long-term-plan-will-h... > Alcohol-related harm is estimated to cost the NHS in England £3.5 billion every year. If we look exclusively at numbers, prohibition would save money. If that's all we care about, try that out - oh, the Americans did, and it wrecked their country and filled it with gangsters, because no amount of trying to stop people drinking actually stopped people drinking, and normal people having to pretend they weren't going to drink, but secretly really really needing it and finding criminals to supply them with drink built out an entire parallel black economy and gave gangsters huge amounts of money and power. If we're looking at saving money, maybe just kill the long-term disabled and elderly? Easy win for saving money! That's all that matters, after all.

briandw 6mo ago

It’s also cheaper to euthanize people rather than treat them. It’s just logical.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

stevenalowe 5mo ago

It’s logical if you regard people as cattle