On Apr 8, 10:28*am,
q (Cassandra) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Philip Pines

wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...guide-to-cance...

Lung cancer patients die quickly, don't claim pensions, or need
several years in old folks homes.

Same old cliched mantra.

First lung cancer is only one of a whole spectrum of smoking related
conditions most of which demand lengthy extensive medical treatments
and procedures.

Even a victim of lung cancer does not die easily. It may take several
years of palliative care to ease him and possibly delay and inevitable
end.

Smokers save the tax payer a fortune while contributing massive
amounts in taxes themselves.

Another cliche!

All governments have taxation policy which primarily boils down to
what proportion of the national cake they will take in tax. How they
apportion that take is a matter of policy detail. Of course they take
it through a mixture of direct, indirect and corporate taxes. They
have unlimited taxation powers. So, if revenue from one particular
source declines the it is a simple matter to move the burden
elsewhere. Whatever the case the overall burden reamins exactly the
same.

In fact the argument can be turned on its head. If governments via the
NHS did not spend so much on addressing the effects of smoking then
that would release resources to be spent elsewhere or even be returned
to poeple's pockets.

The latter is a vague hope I know!