First point: taxation on cigarettes and alcohol exceeds the amount of money spent on treating smoking and drinking related illnesses. So drinkers and smokers are technically subsidising the rest (let's get that one in perspective). That the cash may not all be going to the NHS ain't the fault of those that pay it.
But ignore that completely, as actually it's irrelevant - there's plenty of dangerous things - that don't pay for their own treatment through taxation - that people do voluntarily. Should people be treated for injuries received whilst doing dangerous sports? i choose not to go snowboarding - should my taxes have to pay for someone who broke their leg doing it? And there's obviously plenty more examples - from extreme sports to suicide-attempts...
Or we could go the way of America and many other places and make it so that only the rich can afford to hurt themselves. i guess i just believe that a society that can afford trident submarines can damn well afford to provide basic health care for anyone who needs it - regardless of how they found themselves with such need.
When the question becomes "do we treat smokers for cancer or pay for education?" then we have a dilemma, and we can have this debate again... as long as the question is "do we treat smokers for cancer or fund our nuclear arsenal / bomb afghanistan / keep john prescott in new jaguars / build more unecessary bypasses / etc / etc?"... well, i'm always gonna come down on the side of the sick people there (and i pay plenty of taxes, hardly ever drink and don't do tobacco).
|
