Should we pay for people to quit smoking?

[Gromit]

The NHS is to pay �163 for a course of drugs to encourage people to stop smoking. At the same time, they are denying funding of some drugs to treat Alzheimer's and cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2007/05/31/nhs31.xml

[Pippa68]

stokeace ~ surely the smoker is paying 'hard earned cash' into the NHS too?

[ruby27]

I imagine this thread must be representative of the debates that occurred during Victoria's reign about poor relief. One position being that poverty was a lifestyle choice and the deserving poor needed relief, but the non deserving, those who ended up in poverty through ignorance or the evils of drink didn't deserve anything. Whilst the other position debated that the relief of poverty wasn't a moral choice it was an imperative. Leaving morality aside, such as smokers have brought this evil on themselves, is it not more pragmatic and cost effective that less people smoke?

[stokeace]

i agree pippa68 but im sure they get far more out of the nhs when they invairably fall ill through smoking related diseases dont you think?

[Pippa68]

I'm not sure about that, stokeace. After all we have heard of cases where patients have been told to quit smoking before they have a vital operation.

I reckon in that case the �163 on a course of drugs that will help them stop is money well spent, after all getting a smoker who has been on the stuff for 40 odd years isn't going to be easy.

[lafrancaise]

This is just in reply to Bazile's question. Marlboro were found guilty of putting addictive stuff into their cigarettes so Marlboro smokers wouldn't move to another brand.

[prattler]

stokeace-i take it youre not a smoker or ever have been?that being said a lot of non-smokers have a bit of emotional intelligence and can empathise.its a bit like trying to talk about heroin addiction for me.i havent done it, but i can see how addiction works, etc.at the end of the day its the utilitarian party line that is taken within the NHS.what else can you do with scarce resources? i can kinda see your logic, but you are thinking within a very small box , surrounded by your own morals and personal opinions.unfortunately its a big world out there, despite you, and you HAVE to think outwith the box I'm afraid..

[prattler]

health today as far as health practitioners are concerned is all about preventative medicine-health promotion for one.bad habits this country has acquired over the years, including smoking and bad diets, fair enough, but lets try and not DICTATE to people how they should live , but educate them about healthier alternatives, with a non-judgemental attitude.I think it might take time , and a bit of resistance, and hey it wont be the last time ive heard of an obese dietician supposedly giving people health advice. but if someone eats some veg twice a week instead of not at all, thats a start!if someone wants to give up smoking, thats a start too, and 20 yrs down the line they might not have to pop blood pressure, angina tabs, or any other smoking-related medications for so years on end.its called HEALTH PROMOTION.why not think of it as a good thing? one person who wants to give up fags is a good thing.for them and for the health service.its not a matter of that self-inflicted crap, only pathological control freaks think like that.thankfully 99% of the population are sane.

[homerjfong]

i would say that smokers probably pay for their treatment in advance, given the amount of money the 'govern'ment get from them. very rarely hear a demand for treatment for the over-drinkers to be halted. we're where we are now and i'm sure a sizeable sum of current smokers started before the demonization of the habit. cost and the now social status of smoking, i think, maybe puts newbees from starting. given the danger involved with smoking, why have the various 'govern'ments let their people smoke themselves to death over the last fifty years? pure greed. which is worse? you KNOW people can't be trusted and neither, seemingly can pretty much ANY politican.