Press release from the BMA

I do believe that smokers pay rather a lot of tax.
Luckily, they're dying out. The country will be better off without them.

Maintaining the numbers of smokers has always depended on the fag companies advertising and sponsorship to show the glamour of emphysema, bronchitis and oral cancer so they can attract sufficient 11-year-old recruits to compensate for the large numbers of their customers that they kill.

I was delighted to see that the number of smoking schoolchildren has been dropping from 18% in 2001 to 5% in 2014.

Can anyone fail to be delighted?

Smoking in young people, Age 11-16, England, Source: NHS Digital

"But again it is difficult to work out quite how much of that is down to the 2007 legislation.
When you look at drinking rates, drug use or teenage pregnancy numbers, they tell a similar story.
There is a clear pattern - the young have changed the way they behave.
This consistent trend has not yet been properly explained. One of the few convincing theories centres on social media - the idea is that young people spend so much of their time online that it has replaced other vices."

Interestingly, the number of smokers among over-60's is only about 11%. Perhaps this is because so many of them have sadly not reached old age.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Whatever number of smokers there are, the country will always be in surplus after paying for their treatment.
This is not the case with self-inflicted injuries of people DIYing, playing sport, climbing hills etc.

You care about, defend and even deny the existence of benefit scroungers; however, as they do exist, you are presumably willing to pay for them; but you do not care about smokers who finance their own treatment.
It would appear that you just have a random list of those you care about and those you don't.

You do seem to be becoming as irrational as Himmy. Perhaps your endless ranting is having the same effect on you.

Perhaps in the future you both will need extensive psychiatric help or protective custody costing the country huge unnecessary expense.

You are both like the idiot in the pub talking to strangers about his weird views and who just will not shut up.
Cost versus income is debatable:
The cost to the public purse is higher

While smoking has a direct impact on the NHS, it can also be said to have an indirect impact on society more widely (for instance, fire services need to be called out to incidents caused by smoking and ill health can result in lost productivity at work). The think tank Policy Exchange made an attempt in 2010 at quantifying the wider costs, coming up with a £14 billion total (including the £2.7 billion estimate of NHS costs).

So is the Treasury clawing the money back?

£9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales.
Sponsored Links
In my experience I've seen both the good and bad with claimants.
For example, about 30 years ago I bumped into a girl I went to school with. She had 2 kids with her and she was a single mother who admitted to me that she wanted to get pregnant again to get a bigger house -

So did you the gentlemanly thing?

Sorry just trying to lighten up the thread.

People are living longer & the NHS cannot keep up with demand

they were talking about it on the Radio

any one born today or under 4 could well live to 100 ?? with all the health care etc that go's with it

Encouraging people to give up smoking , go to the gym , has in some respects caused problems for the NHS ?????
Yes, believe it or not -

Even those who have lead a seemingly perfectly healthy life will have to die of something.

If not just old age, then possibly still cancer or something else horrible.
Sponsored Links