Paul Galloway wrote:
>
> About time the government put it's money where it's mouth is on smoking. Or
> is the tobacco revenue too addictive to give up :-)
> Truth is both deserve support and are worthwhile.
>
A question.
When I was in Belfast at the Royal I was told that HMG had done a study
a while back that determined that a really effective anti-smoking
campaign would have two results:
1) A damaging loss of tobacco tax revenue and
2) since tobacco generally kills relatively quickly and young, a large
increase in demand on social services and NHS by longer lived elderly.
Conclusion - people should not be subjected to an excessively
paternalistic governmental anti-smoking campaign. ;-)
Since I've not seen a citation on this and my source (who was *not* at
the Royal) though well versed in health policy, had a somewhat cynical
attitude towards HMG, I have regarded the story with some skepticism. Am
I looking at a medical version of the 'urban myth' or does someone have
an idea as to whether such a study exists?
Phil
4 Bailey Hill Road
Natick, MA, 01760, USA
[log in to unmask]
(508) 650-9097 - voice
(508) 650-9152 - fax
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|