News on the BBC today says that "health campaigners are asking for more substantial rises in cigarette duty in this month's Budget" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159). The campaigners from "91 organisations" want the price to rise by "2 pence per cigarette" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159). Statistics from the NHS 'smoke free' website say that a "20-a-day smoker will spend more than £900 over the next 6-months" (http://smokefree.nhs.uk/). If the cost was to be raised by 5% (as being campaigned for) then that figure would rise by £45 over 6 months or £90 over a whole year, which is a significant increase for those who may be struggling to pay for it at current prices.
Is this the best way of stopping people smoking? A 5% rise in the cost ofeach cigarette is a big increase if you are smoking one/two/three packets per day and would definitely build up over the years. "Prof John Britton, director of the UKCTCS (UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies), said hitting smokers in the pocket was the best way to get them to stop" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159). By raising the costs of smoking it will hopefully force the people who are on the brink of quitting the ideal way of getting out, with regards to the rises of £45 over 6 months and £90 over the whole year (as an average), this could force people to give up.
There are fears that the smuggling rates of tobacco would go up if the prices of cigarettes goes up. But this doesn't seem to be a very good argument against raising the cost of smoking and the "chief executive of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) said; 'as ever the industry is clutching at straws with its ill-founded arguments'" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159).
I would argue; based on the BBC's viewpoint and the known effects of smoking that it would be beneficial to increase tax on smoking which would hopefully persuade some people to give up smoking or to get on a stop smoking course such as the NHS 'smoke free'. I disagree with Mr Simon Clark's statement for Forest "(Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco)" (www.forestonline.org/) who says that "ideally we'd like to see a reduction in duty” (http://tinyurl.com/6s7h26x). The issue here is that this would encourage more people to smoke, and may increase the likelihood of younger people smoking if it was cheaper or more easily accessible. Although levels of smoking have decreased in children and adults over the last 20 years as shown in the tables on thiese two websites (http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_108.pdf) and (http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_106.pdf).
A quote from Sir Ronald Harwood says; "tobacco is not an illegal substance yet the government is persecuting a minority. I think that's a disgrace in a social democracy" (http://www.forestonline.org/). I can see where he is coming from because if the government raises the price above what people can pay then they are effectively taking it away from people and that doesn't seem very democratic since it is their choice if they want to smoke and the government would be taking away that choice.
Is this the best way of stopping people smoking? A 5% rise in the cost ofeach cigarette is a big increase if you are smoking one/two/three packets per day and would definitely build up over the years. "Prof John Britton, director of the UKCTCS (UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies), said hitting smokers in the pocket was the best way to get them to stop" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159). By raising the costs of smoking it will hopefully force the people who are on the brink of quitting the ideal way of getting out, with regards to the rises of £45 over 6 months and £90 over the whole year (as an average), this could force people to give up.
There are fears that the smuggling rates of tobacco would go up if the prices of cigarettes goes up. But this doesn't seem to be a very good argument against raising the cost of smoking and the "chief executive of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) said; 'as ever the industry is clutching at straws with its ill-founded arguments'" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17237159).
I would argue; based on the BBC's viewpoint and the known effects of smoking that it would be beneficial to increase tax on smoking which would hopefully persuade some people to give up smoking or to get on a stop smoking course such as the NHS 'smoke free'. I disagree with Mr Simon Clark's statement for Forest "(Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco)" (www.forestonline.org/) who says that "ideally we'd like to see a reduction in duty” (http://tinyurl.com/6s7h26x). The issue here is that this would encourage more people to smoke, and may increase the likelihood of younger people smoking if it was cheaper or more easily accessible. Although levels of smoking have decreased in children and adults over the last 20 years as shown in the tables on thiese two websites (http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_108.pdf) and (http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_106.pdf).
A quote from Sir Ronald Harwood says; "tobacco is not an illegal substance yet the government is persecuting a minority. I think that's a disgrace in a social democracy" (http://www.forestonline.org/). I can see where he is coming from because if the government raises the price above what people can pay then they are effectively taking it away from people and that doesn't seem very democratic since it is their choice if they want to smoke and the government would be taking away that choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment