BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:48 GMT 01:48 UK

On condition that motorists bear the full costs of their pollution of the atmosphere, including diminished lung capacitiy, brain damage, lower educational performance and threats to their safety directed at the young and vulnerable - if this is fully met by the vehicle drivers, THEN the cost to health services of this detrimental activity may begin to be met. In my area the University Hospital would not have been BUILT without tobacco revenues. Smokers are not about to pay their tax TWICE! OK?

[Hypocon]

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:43 GMT 01:43 UK

I wonder why everybody always puts a price on anything and everything.

Is a monetary value the only value that we understand, here, in Britain?

I even remember reading an article that estimated the average value and cost of a person, throughout their whole life. Yes, it was monetary!

Peter, Ulverston

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:40 GMT 01:40 UK

Smokers die younger, and generally more quickly. Surely that's ideal, in terms of cost, for the rest of us. The last thing we can afford is everyone living for 30 years after retiring, with all the associated costs of old age, and the plethora of diseases, and conditions, lasting decades.

Steve, London

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:38 GMT 01:38 UK

As tempting as it is to abide by the mantra of allowing others to reap what they sow, this is far from realistic. Were this approach to be considered then not only would the system be open to exploitation, but the foundations of our democracy would indirectly be at risk.

[quixotic_realist], London

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:37 GMT 01:37 UK

Q: Why has the government never banned smoking, especially, if it is, genuinely, so costly?

A: Because it has always known that it makes a huge net gain from smokers (losses through NHS and gains through tobacco taxes)

PS I do not smoke.

Peter, Ulverston

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:35 GMT 01:35 UK

The NHS should continue to pay the cost of smokers treatment. An extremely high percentage of the cost of cigarettes is tax, this has been justified in the past as the government recouping money from smokers to pay their disproprtionate use of medical care. A smoker smoking 1 pack a day pays an additional +/- 1600 pounds per year in tax. I am not a smoker but I feel to further financially punish smokers is ludicrous. Also if we do this, should we not increase tax on anyone who uses alcohol?

David, Perth

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:33 GMT 01:33 UK

I would be happy, as a smoker, to pay for any smoking-related diseases that I may get if it means that I do not have to pay for other self-inflicted diseases or injuries treated on the NHS (I would include everything from careless car accidents to obesity), other people's children and their schooling or any other service that I do not need or use.
In the long run it would cost me far less than any treatment if I were to only pay tax for things that I need

Sandra, Nottingham

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:31 GMT 01:31 UK

Clearly, many people do not wish to pay for the treatment of other people's smoking-related, obesity-related, drug-related, alcohol-related, or other lifestyle-related "illnesses".

Fair enough.

Myself, I would be prepared to pay for these. But not before the relevant contribution, taken from me through my taxes, has been refunded to me.

I refuse to pay twice!

Peter, Ulverston

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:31 GMT 01:31 UK

Smoking is a past problem....the new & real problem is obesity...afterall; everyone eats and it would appear that many now eat far too much.

Geoff, St John's; Canada

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:31 GMT 01:31 UK

After today's reports of dangers of particulates produced in vehicle exhaust fumes, do we even know if the alleged £5bn cost is all attributable to smoking? The £10bn paid by smokers in tax is.

Johnny Boy

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:28 GMT 01:28 UK

Smokers actually likely cost less on average than non-smokers, seeing as they're less likely to reach old age, where non-smokers will be more likely to need looking after by the NHS. Not to mention the phenomenal amounts of tax most smokers pay anyway.

If smokers should pay for their own treatment on smoking-related diseases, why not obese people for diseases linked with obesity? That's an avoidable risk factor just the same.

Phil, Hants

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:28 GMT 01:28 UK

The tax on cigarettes is supposed to cover the health related costs of illness caused by smoking. So in effect, smokers have already pre-paid for the health cover they will need later in life.

To improve the situation more effectively, cigarettes need to be banned for good.. I can say that as a smoker myself.

In case that does not happen, then cigarette companies should be forced to remove all the added poisonous chemicals that cause the addiction in the first place.

Oldie, Warwick Qld Australia

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:26 GMT 01:26 UK

It seems logical just to add a suitable tax to all tabacco products to cove as much of the cost a possible-why should people who have nothing to do with smoking pay when its quite clearly someone else's fault? Whether it be higher duty or a direct tax on each cigarette it seems pretty obvious that the smokers should pay...

Jonathan, London

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:25 GMT 01:25 UK

What we need is a Smokers Health Tax added to every packet of cigarettes (in addition to current tax). Then any treatment required as a result of smoking should be paid for out of this one pot and not a penny more. That way smokers will be directly paying for their own health care when they give themselves lung cancer. There are no secrets about the effects any more. You smoke = you pay. That's what I would do.

Kate, London

Added: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009, 24:23 GMT 01:23 UK

Taxpayers pay tax into the public purse. That is analgous to an insurance premium, in the private context.

Therefore, people should be able to claim against it, when things go wrong.

But, in the private context, if you are a high risk, you pay a higher premium.

Therefore, there is a good argument that, if you cause self-inflicted harm, you should not receive a benefit, unless you pay an enhanced premium for doing the stupid pre-meditated thing (eg smoking, drinking, drug-taking,binging)

Peter, Ulverston