
"I may be being a little naive, but if smoking is banned outright, as some seem to wish, certainly the NHS may benifit from some reduced costs, but how will the government replace the lost millions of pounds it takes from smokers at the present time in the form of tobacco duty?. Will it be re-couped in higher Income tax, Fuel Duty, VAT etc. We must all be prepared for higher bills, because there is no one else to pay but ourselves."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1625154?thread=1854719
Approaching the concern of smoking with a hypothetical ban, the poster far more concerned with a question of taxation than civil liberty thhe poster highlights the fact that if a ban were to occur, naturally the government would ultimately 'recoup' its losses in terms of hieghtening already inflated taxes. Surely, it would be in the nations interest to tolerate smokers and smoking in favour of further taxes. Obviously we are all fully aware of the dangers, so is it not a personal choice to indulge in smoking. As i precariously drift between the balance of the smokers and anti-smokers I argue the debate around smoking is a trivial debate. The infrigment of civil liberty is a two edged sword, don't affect a non-smokers health, and don't patronise a smoker and his choice to smoke freely. However in the long run, I think we can collectively agree more wasted taxes are a much greater evil than 'cancer' sticks.
No comments:
Post a Comment