Cyclists.... idiots!!!

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Your letter really made me laugh. If I was a doctor I would offer those fat lazy drivers remedial treatment such as cycling or refuse NHS treatment-
they could have a bike on the NHS![/quote]

Glad I've been of amusement! I actually read up somewhere (think it was the bbc website) that the government were thinking along those lines of denying NHS treatment to regular smokers and obese people who do not want to help themselves. They know the dangers, are consistently warned by their doctors and yet make themselves ill only to make NHS waiting lists longer, denying other people who've gotten ill through no fault of their own treatment.

It seems a tough stand but I think they have a point.

[Sam Slater]

Yes, sorry about that. Was just trying to show that we all pay taxes for other peoples benefit, so singling out nuisance cyclists isn't so cut & dried.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Oh and Sam - that oft-cited "smokers are a drain on the NHS" argument is bogus, given that they put far more into the dour Scotsman's coffers via tobacco tax than they take out for their NHS treatment.[/quote]

I'm not too sure that's right Eric. I'd think you'd have to pay 40 years worth of tobacco tax -20 a day- to get about a weeks worth of cancer treatment. It's fucking expensive. Not to mention the minority of non-smokers who need treatment through passive smoking.

[Blackhand2010]

You do actually know how much revenue is brought into the public coffers by tax on fags, don't you?
And if that revenue stream stopped tomorrow, how much more income tax you'd be paying?
I'm not a smoker myself, and have lost family members because of it, but we live in a free society (well, kind of) and this kind of facistic attitude shown by some regarding other peoples vices, is intolerable.
As for cyclists, I've worked in motor insurance for years, and can tell you that the majority of accidents involving a cyclist, are caused by the cyclist. And yes, they should be at the very least, made to have insurance.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You do actually know how much revenue is brought into the public coffers by tax on fags, don't you?[/quote]

No, but I doubt it covers the medical bills smoking related disease causes.

[Blackhand2010]

Then I would suggest you check out:

And I quote: " Tobacco taxation amounts to ?10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is ?1.7 billion."

Those figures from an organisation thats whole point is to stamp out tobacco use.

[Sam Slater]

They're just quoting the direct spending of tobacco related diseases. What about people who smoke -where it affects the lungs- to where they find it harder to exercise, get fat, then use the NHS to cure their ill health due to obesity -and it's related complications. Smoking -in an indirect way- causes complications that aren't directly related to tobacco use, but indirectly, and wouldn't fall under the tobacco related diseases in surveys.

Then there's the 10.7 billion tax income, but does it state how much of this the NHS gets? Sure the NHS may spend only 1.7 billion on tobacco related disease, but maybe that's because that's all that's available? You cannot make the whole 17.5% of the VAT available to the NHS.

If smokers contributed so much to the economy then the government wouldn't be trying to eradicate it. Money talks after all.

[mike johnson]

OK.
In the US keep in mind there is no national health, so the point doesnt really apply taxwise.