http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8437908.stm



I'd love to know how they work out those figures, especially the quit attempts

It's quite simple. You look at the medical conditions that smoking is known to promote. You then look at the prevalence of those conditions in smokers compared to their prevalence among non smokers. The difference can logically be associated with smoking (assuming your sample size is large enough). The cost of treating that portion can be called the 'outgoing' of smoking. You take the income to the exchequer in duty from smokers off that, and the number you have left is the cost of smoking to the country. It's approximate of course but - again, assuming your sample size is large - it's within statistical error of being correct.

I don't know how they work out the data around quit attempts given a lot of that isn't documented anywhere. I suspect that's be questionnaire based research among smokers, which is rather less reliable.

Jon

But what if there are other factors where you couldn't say for definite, I think it would corrupt the figures quite a bit, though maybe those numbers aren't included... Sorry, I'm just really distrustful of figures at the best of times

Yes but according to:
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

It generates £1.8 BILLION generated in tax

I think thats a net profit for the government, they want people to smoke as it makes them more money!

...er your looking at the wrong column thats the VAT revenue and not the total tax take (VAT + Excise) which is ~£10 billion.

let me have a fag then i will have a look at the figures …

Smoking costs the NHS nothing in reality, it contributes several billion more than it takes out.

This cannot be said for eaters and drinkers, if the Governments are determined to cut smoking out all together they have to decide where all that funding will come from.

Smokers currently fund non-smokers treatment, what will happen when this is gone?

Isn't that everyone in the country?
So should the government encourage smoking to prop up the NHS then?

A lot of people favour the American system of insurance, which leaves the jobless and low paid in a very bad situation.

"Fair" is a strange word. Most people agree that the system needs to be "fair", but very few people agree on what "fair" actually means. Should everyone be treated the same, or should your treatment depend on how responsible you've been? Perhaps jobless smokers should be left to rot while professional non-smokers get free transplants?

I quite like the idea of everyone carrying a "Karma" card. Anyone can give or take points, much like on some forums. Arseholes would end up with no karma credit and automatically be recycled for spare parts, where as nice caring but quite possibly poor folks would be treated like royalty.

I wasn't

It was the fact that the VAT takings ALONE are ~9 times the cost that the NHS has for dealing with smokers treatment.

can i light up another fag now …

That cost estimate was for Scotland, the estimated cost for the UK is ~£5 billion (source), this of course ignores the loss of revenue through counterfeit and smuggled tobacco (£2.1-3.7 billion).

But that still leaves a healthy ~£5 billion profit for the government.

can i light up 2 fags, both together, instead please

apart from my so called humour
when will people learn, once prohibition of one kind or another is established then it is not hard for other 'things' to be listed as prohibited as prohibition has been excepted and established …



remember prohibition affects all, directly or indirectly, you may not realise that at the time even if you are not involved …

Yes, the country depends on you doing it!

Personally I want more people to smoke and those who do to smoke more

Thats more tax being paid by them and hopefully less by me