# 66

Posted: 11/11/2009 15:30

Well said Jamie.

# 65

Posted: 11/11/2009 00:00

I'd does'nt matter if the goverment put another 2 euro on a packet of cigerattes. People will still smoke and if they can get them on the black market, they will.Whats going to happen if the police catch them, a fine. How many people are in prison, for more serious offendises, like murder, rape, gbh, knife attacks, the police can't even catch these people and when they do, what do they get maybe  a few years, out in 6 months. are they really going to send people who buy 200 smokes on the black market to prison. All goverment in the last 50 years that I been alive have made  money on the back of smokers. My Uncle Willy who was 94 years and smoked 40 to 60 cigs a day went into a nurseing home last january and never came home and the only thing he complained about, he could not have a smoke, only when family came  to visit would he have a cig. I beleive this goverment by banning smoking in public places have been the caused of this recession, pubs have closed, all types of eating places have closed. As for the anti smoking brigade, there is nothing worse than people who have given up and preaching to people.

# 64

Posted: 09/11/2009 12:04

Do the people that want the price to go up more than €2 not realise that all people will do is buy illegally imported cigarettes? The government reckons 25% of cigarettes in the country are illegally imported because our price is so high. The reason there is no chance in hell of them going up €2 or more is because they'll know they'll actually lose out on money to the exchequer. Don't for a second think that the government have peoples health as a priority.

# 63

Posted: 31/10/2009 00:17

No it should not be increased by two euro. People will still smoke untill each person wants to give up themselfs. I know people who have never been sick untill they stop smoking and now they are getting everything that that is going. And if its is put up by two euro the black market will get worse. Ok The goverment had a good result this week,over 15 million but how many got through. This goverment has ripped us of for years in taxs on cigs, if you go on holiday even to Spain its half the price compared to Ireland.

# 62

Posted: 23/10/2009 09:43

Two euro is far too much for our greedy money grabbers. It has been shown that increasing the price of cigarettes does NOT stop people smoking..yet they are still doing it - why? Because they dont care about our health, that is just a scapegoat for squeezing more money off people.

People can make their own decisions re smoking, they know the dangers.

# 61

Posted: 17/10/2009 14:02

Two euro is not enough.  As an x smoker with asthma I am totally anti  smoking.  They did the damage to me when I was young and I am now suffering the consequences. I know there are people who will condemn me for what I say but I was a smoker and loved the weed. It has nothing to do with saving money it is the damage to one's health that I am thinking of. Keep trying to give them up and you will all be so glad you did.

# 60

Posted: 10/08/2009 14:16

Chris

I agree that sex-ed should be compulsary and no parent should be permitted to keep a child from its class any more than they cna keep a child from maths class. However, what about a woman who got HPV as a result of being raped? Wwhat aboiut a woman who contracted it from her husband or life partner, who about a woman who got it as a result of instruments not beignb sterilised properly following a smear test?? YES, it does happen. Wwoyld you condemn those women to death due to poverty? What about the men from whom they contracted it, do they recieve a similar death sentence in your Sharia-like medical world. Regardless of what you think of smoking, the fact remains that it is entirely legal but the fact also remains that is is a contributary factor tol illness - not the sole cause and not even you can attempt to define what proportion of which illnes was caused by what factor in each and every case.

# 59

Posted: 10/08/2009 11:25

Chris

Hi Buzz, well done on staying off them this week so far. Badger, I agree entirely as fregards preventative healthcare but we cannot prevent everything no matter how much the the mini-gods in healthcare think we can. If people smoke themselves to lung cancer or eat themselves into obesity, you don't want to pay for their care when they get complications. But such an Orwellian approach leads to the ultimate conclusion of not treating those who get heart attacks due to high stress jobs, not treating women who get cervical cancer due to HPV, not treating those with dental problems due to eating sweets, that is not medicine, it is TWISTED. If you have any knowledge of psychology you surely will know that smoking liem aloholism is an ADDICTION and as such is an illness.Furthermore, siunce when are those whoi are drunk in A&E actually put on detox programmes??? SO - you would prefer sonmeone who is ill or injured to stay at home, sick and in pain?> What a DERANGED view of medicine.

# 58

Posted: 10/08/2009 10:39

If they have the money for drink, then they have the money to pay for their wasteful use of healthcare funds

Badger, if someone has the money for healthcare (and I believe you are in fact working under your own assumptions here) that does not gaurantee that they will pay for their own healthcare, nor does it put them under an obligation to pay.

While I agree with your ideas pertaining to sex ed (sending the information home in a booklet if absenteeism is an issue) I think you are being a little idealistic yet again. Also, as such measures are not currently in place, then my question to you still stands - would you financially discriminate against someone by making them pay for their own healthcare when it is a real possibility that they simply missed out on the information being provided?

You say "if they can pay for their own healthcare then they can smoke away" - the fact remains that smokers can and will smoke. Tobacco tax is huge, and were smokers to quit tomorrow, the serious shortfall in tax would be noticed. You of course, would probably be happy if smokers were to continue paying high tax on their products AND foot the bill for all health problems.

To be honest, I find your self righteousness and arrogance tiring at this stage. Do you ensure that you always look after your health? Have you never had unprotected sex? Do you follow a macrobiotic diet? Do you limit yourself to the correct amount of units of alcohol daily? Do you exercise, watch your cholesterol, stress levels? Have you been tested for possible inherited disorders which may kick in later in life and taken appropriate steps to avoid such illnesses? Do you see what I mean? Of course nobody is disputing that smoking can cause cancer, but so can a lot of other factors, and unless you are God then you cannot say without a doubt that you KNOW why people become ill. Get off your high horse and take your head out of the clouds. Your blame mentality is helping nobody.

# 57

Posted: 07/08/2009 15:49

Buzz, drunkards turn up in Emergency Rooms and vomit all over the place and shout and scream and commit acts of violence against staff and patients. After they are detoxed, most of them go back to drinking again. If they have the money for drink, then they have the money to pay for their wasteful use of healthcare funds. If they prefer to stay at home instead of turning up to the E.D. in a drunk and disorderly state I would be delighted. Other patients in the E.D. will also be glad, as will the taxpayer.

Sex education should be taught more than once a year. I thinkl it should be taught at least once a month. If a girl is at home sick for a lesson, the information should be sent to her in workbook form to be marked as homework. If she has ultra-conservative parents who want to keep her ignorant about STDs and endanger her life, then there should be a law whereby sex education is mandatory and such parents can be fined 5% of their annual income for non-compliance. The fine money would be thrown back into the sex education pot. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I don't care if smokers thin they are intelligent for smoking when they know this cause lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease and impotence but I am not in favour of paying for their expensive lifestyle choices. If they pay for their own healthcare then I say they can smoke away.

# 56

Posted: 07/08/2009 15:35

Anonymous you said: "BADGER - WAKE UP CALL - We ALREADY pay for some of the costs of our healthcare - it's called taxation (income tax and VAT) and on top of that Half of us pay for private health insurance to ensure we get the care we need in a timely manner. Given that we are paying TWICE to get what which is a basic human entitlement, what makes you imagine you have the right to deny that to anyone?"

My response is : I agree with you. It is ridiculous that people have to pay income tax, a health levy and on top of that have to pay for their own health insurance. THis is highly wasteful. I want to see a better system of funding for healthcare where people are educated and financially induced to prevent disease and illness. The vast majority of healthcare spending goes on heart disease, COPD lung cancer, diabetes and stroke which can all be greatly reduced by a greater emphasis on preventative healthcare. The current system is set up to try to cure people once they have already had a stroke when 30% of such people will die within a year. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and such an approach would slash healthcare spending and allow the crippling taxes and health insurabce costs to plummet. If people smoke themselves to lung cancer or eat themselves into obesity, I don't want to pay for their care when they get complications.

# 55

Posted: 04/08/2009 14:11

Hi Chris yes my partner did have health problems in the past (not self induced might I add ha ha). I had a few there at the weekend but none so far today. To be honest I know what I have to do to come off them completely....come off the drink! I dont drink that much, maybe 2 or 3 cans on a Friday or Saturday night, but this is when I have my moment of weakness so I will just have to give up the drink! Am noticing a bit of a difference alright, taking out less money so that is something!

# 54

Posted: 04/08/2009 14:07

Buzz, i said that people who have injuries from drunken brawls and people who contract STDs (of which HPV is one) should have to pay some of the costs of their medical care...I never said that they shouldn't be treated.

First off Badger, that is incorrect. You said:

Anybody who is drunk and disorderly in the Emergency Room should have to pay the full cost of their care and should also be fined 5% of their annual income, even if they are on the dole.

Now I think we all know that forcing someone to pay 100% of their medical fees and 5% of their annual income will indirectly result in them not being treated because simply, they will not opt for treatment (especially those on the dole). Your little Hitler views are idealistic and overly simplistic to say the least. Such a scheme WILL result in the "phasing out" of those whom you deem to be unworthy of treatment. If you thought them worthy, then you wouldn't come up with such crass and lucdicrous ideas such as fines.

I am also interested in your views on how we would establish who actually benefitted from Sex Ed to standards such that HPV is a real concern for them... A woman who you THINK, again according to your simplistic deductions, benefited from education pertaining to HPV transmission could have been been off sick at the time, may have had ultra conservative parents who chose to remove her from sex ed classes etc...would you see these women persecuted? I have already put this question to you perhaps you could answer it this time?

At the end of the day, not everyone is in a position to contribute large chunks towards their treatment, and so your cunning plan WILL without doubt, result in specific sectors of society being unable to avail of treatment because they simply cannot afford it. Whether you like it or not, you ARE making a distinction between rich and poor.

It has been pinted out before that the revenue generated from tobacco tax is huge and offsets more of the health costs than are offset in the treatment of other potentially "self inflicted" diseases such as diabetes, heart disease etc. What is your stance on those illnesses?

Finally, not all smokers are foolish or weak. Such sweeping assumptions based on your own prejudice are meaningless. There are clever people who smoke, and there are clever people who do not smoke. Just as there are clever people who would chose to, essentially, eat themselves to death. As far as I am aware, no clinical studies have been carried out to map the correlation between actual IQ and addiciton patterns, so your statements are simply unsubstantiated opinions.

# 53

Posted: 04/08/2009 14:06

bADGER - WAKE UP CALL - We ALREADY pay for some of the costs of our healthcare - it's called taxation (income tax and VAT) and on top of that Half of us pay for private health insurance to ensure we get the care we need in a timely manner. Given that we are paying TWICE to get what which is a basic human entitlement, what makes you imagine you have the right to deny that to anyone?

# 52

Posted: 04/08/2009 10:25

Chris.

Hi Buzz, I suppose it will take time to notice the difference financially, tho if you smoked 20 per day, that's over a fiver per packet, would be 35 per week, 150 per month. 450 per quarter. That's a heck of stash, when you think about it.

Hmm, I take it your partner either has health problems or has difficulty finding a job. Either way, best of luck to them in the search or recovery. .

# 51

Posted: 02/08/2009 19:41

If anyone is unsure of the strong association between smoking and lung cancer I invite them to go to the following links for education:

http://www.quitguide.com/smoking-facts.html

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm

http://cancer.ie/quitting/relatedCancer.php

It is worthwhile remembering that COPD/Emphysema kills many more people than lung cancer and it is far more prevalent in smokers than lung cancer. COPD and lung cancer are largely preventable diseases. Everybody who smokes knows the harm it does - it's printed on the box! Why should I as a taxpayer have to fund exhaustive chemo and radiotherapy and surgery for somebody who gives them selves cancer? Palliation, fine... but pointless advanced interventions for Small cell lung cancer...why should the taxpayer pick up the bill?

# 50

Posted: 02/08/2009 19:23

Buzz, i said that people who have injuries from drunken brawls and people who contract STDs (of which HPV is one) should have to pay some of the costs of their medical care...I never said that they shouldn't be treated. I see that you are in the habit of twisting peoples' arguments and building straw man arguments. Perhaps you will now recognise that you have misread my words...or perhaps you won't.

If a smoker calls me a do-gooder for pointing out to them the destructive effects on their health on smoking, then I don't see why I as a taxpayer should have to fund their chemo and radiotherapy when they contract lung cancer.

Sure, not all smokers die from their foolishness - one could say the same about people who drink and drive or people who play Russian Roulette. If they don't kill themselves, it's not for the want of trying. Let people be stupid but don't ask me to pay the bill for the stupidity and weakness inherent in their lifestyle choices.

# 49

Posted: 01/08/2009 11:10

although i am not a smoker i think they are too dear as it is once again they mainly hit the elderly who have smoked all their lives and now have to let other things go so they can afford a pack from their pensions.the politians and better  paid will afford them no matter how dear they get

# 48

Posted: 01/08/2009 09:13

No i do note, i am sick of hearing that cigs cause everything, there are people who have smoke all there lives and are still healthy at 90, there are others who have not smoked and are very healthy and die very young.  There are others who have health problems from stress. 

Cigs have being there supportor of the irish health system for as long as i have being alive.  The reason they want to put the price up again is due to the amount off people quiting, so the income has from cigs has gone down. 

Leave people alone who smoke, they are the ones who are first out of a sick bed to have a cig,  they are the ones who do not suffer from stress, they are the poorest in irish public.  So it shows again how this goverment treats its oldest, youngest, poorest and sickest.

Yours ena

# 47

Posted: 30/07/2009 15:32

Hi thats not a bad idea, though the way things are going, even quitting hasnt really made much of a dent in the debt....will take time I suppose. My partner does not do the charity work, my partner is hard pressed to work for money never mind for free. x

# 46

Posted: 30/07/2009 14:01

Chris

Hi Buzz, I'm sorry to hear that. Still, one slip doesn't make a fall and if you're back on track that's the important thing. I believe the trick is to make the gaps in between having one longer and longer, put the money you would have spent onto them into a sealed jar (or seperate account) and then treat yourself when it mounts up. Sorry, I probably sound preachy, I don't mean to, I'm just basing it on what friends have told me years ago about their attempts to quit.

Fair play to yourself and your partner for the charity work. Maybe you could make a pledge to them for the the amount coigarettes would have cost you - just an idea.

# 45

Posted: 30/07/2009 10:21

Hi Chris actually I had one last night, very stressfull day and all that! I figure if I deprive myslef totally then I will just fall off the wagon whereas if I just have the odd one or two when I really want them then maybe thats ok (or it's certainly better than smoking twenty a day out of habit) or is that just me in denial?! Good point re low income families. Now that you mention it, I was assissting at a voluntary charity (cant give more info in case my partner is lurking around!) earlier in the week but anyway this woman turned up in need of our help which of course we were happy to but she could not give any donation to offset some of the cost (again ok as we do not turn people away) but she then proceeded to smoke 3 cigarettes in a row! The stresses of poverty also contribute.

# 44

Posted: 29/07/2009 15:13

Chris

Hi Buzz and Purple,

Well done for quitting Buzz, I think you have a point in terms of cost tho'. While price may not have been a big issue for you, what happens for smokers is that they'll buy them anyway and if they are in low income famiies, other things, by which I mean essentials, are cut back on so that cigarettes are afforded. So the increase doesn't hurt he smoker ut it does hurt their dependants.

# 43

Posted: 29/07/2009 10:19

Hi Purple, although your point makes sense unfortunatley the past has shown us that increasing the price doesnt lead to a reduction in the number of smokers. I have actually quit recently (sort of did my cold turkey for a few days where I was unable to smoke an now figure I am over the worst might as well not go back!) but certainly when I did smoke, the price was never an issue for me. i would bitch and moan about it and say "well just another 50c and then I will quit" but I never did. When people are addicted, cost does not feature for them. Regards x

# 42

Posted: 27/07/2009 22:32

hi

the more the price the better so people can come off them, they are disgusting.

# 41

Posted: 27/07/2009 10:46

re 38, have you stopped to consider the fact that in your messed up little plan, we would need to be sure of who was right and wrong? Who would have the authority to say "this woman knew about HPV", "that woman didn't" as well as ascertaining who is the instigator in assault cases? In a CIVILISED society we have a justice system that determines who is at fault - would you refuse to fix  a man's broken jaw until such time that the courts had deemed him to be innocent? Would you refuse medical treatment to a woman dying of cervical cancer until she had proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was absent from school with chiken pox the day they were taught about HPV transmission? As for your arrogant comments re lung cancer, yes smoking has been linked to lung cancer, but there are also a whole host of other contributing factors such as genetics, lifestyle, stress, diet, exposure to other carcinogens...how many people will die while you are faffing around with someone's history trying to ascertain if they brought the illness on themselves? Get real please.

# 40

Posted: 25/07/2009 13:09

I pray that the price won't go up, as my husband and I, both non-smokers have to buy cigarettes for my father-in-law. Even before the nursing home charge went up, his pension couldn't cover his cigarette habit. This is yet another drain on our finances...

# 39

Posted: 24/07/2009 14:44

Chris

If people have to pay more for their healthcare - you will have a situation just like the U.S. A shambles where those in need are left with chronic ill health, those who are poor are left to die and those without enough money go bankrupt (yes, individuals inte U.S. file for bankrupty becuase they cannot pay the hundreds of thousands, this is fact ) just to pay for a basic human right like healthcare. Thus the citizens health is effectively a lot worse - as is evident from U.S. "sick-care". A socialised healthare system - like Sweden (or other countries who are civilised with regard to social policy in medicine) provides for everyone from a tax-base which essentually means it is free at point of entry. That is the case system that is the envy of Europe and beyond.  Healthcare is a basic human entitlement. If we take your Orwellian idoelogy Right dowen the line, we would see people dying of heart-disease becuase they eat the wrong foods, dying of stress related coronary illness becuase they were in high stress jobs, dying of obesity related condtions diue to lack of exercuse, dying of a brainb cyst due to untreated dental abcess, dying of diabetc coma due to sweet foods : due to inability to pay - all becuase YOU have the outstanding ARROGANCE to imagine you have the right to decide who is entitled to what is a basic human right.

And then you say that if a woman contracts HPV - which is NOT prevented by condoms ( from a man, as it happens in 80% or 90% of cases ) then she should be left to a needless and horrific death from cervical cancer if she cannot pay for treatment. Not only is that an example of misogyny - it is nothing short of SICK. Do the men she had sex with get a similar deaht sentence or is it like Sharia law where only women and the poor are punished?. What about couples trying for a baby - how in your thatcherite bleak world are they going to use condoms? Aand before you say they should be tested - a) virtually all pople have HPV at some stage b) there is no vaccination once infected and c) it can and does lie dormant in the system for years. If a person has a coronary artery bypass graft and continues to work in high stress job - to pay his mortgage and feed, clothes and educate his children (and I say he because it is mainly men who are affected), are you going to let him die because he can't pay for treatment like they do in the U.S.? Will you take care of his family when they are on the breadline? Are you going to be a personal witnbess to every person who takes more than 80mg of alcohol and have your supreme arrogance take on the task of deciding who was fighting, defining thmselves, attacked or had an accident and what proportion of it was due in your mind, to alohol? And if they can't pay, you leave them to suffer with their injuries - if they are severe enough to prevent the person working - will you pay for their disability costs or maybe you think they should starve to death!?

I believe it is unethical and quite frankly gross professional misconduct in the EU at any rate, for doctors to refuse to treat without MEDICAL (not financial) reason.I agree that no-one should be abusive to staff or patience - no matter whether they are drunk or sober. And they should be suitablity penalised if they are - but the rest of your points paint a truley disgusting vista in which even U.S. sick-care pales in comparison.

# 38

Posted: 24/07/2009 03:43

If people have to pay more for their healthcare, they will be more careful with their health. If people know that the safety net is not all encompassing, because tax resources are not infinite and if they know that they will have to pay proportionately more of the cost if they develop a preventable disease, then I think that is fair and just. I would not say that somebody who develops breast cancer should have to pay more but most people who develop lung cancer should have to pay a higher proportion of their healthcare costs since in the vast majority of cases, lung cancer is caused by destructive behaviour which the person chooses to engage in. All girls should be taught in school that cervical cancer is strongly linked to sex without condoms. Then we can reasonably expect them to pay a higher proportion of the costs of their healthcare than an older woman who did not know about this when she was having unprotected sex and picking up Human papillomavirus. If a person has a coronary artery bypass graft and continues to drink and smoke, they should have to pay for most of their treatment.If a person gets into a drunken fight and breaks their jaw, they should pay most of the cost. Anybody who is drunk and disorderly in the Emergency Room should have to pay the full cost of their care and should also be fined 5% of their annual income, even if they are on the dole.

# 37

Posted: 20/07/2009 16:59

Chris,

Hi Buzz, I do see your point now re: legal vs. illegal drugs. I was too hasty in my response. I newver had that experience in college but maybe I'm a bit older than you and that scheme wasn;t in place at the time.

Badger, what about those who do not or cannot depend primarily upon their own willpower? Do you think they should be left to rot?

If medicines cost a certain amount now - what makes you think the same ones suddenly becoem mroe expensive if paid for by the state. If anything, bought in bulk and negotiated for, they will be cheaper.

Why should the cost of the medication not be paid for primarily by the people whose actions dictate the need for the medication?

What about tose who cannot pay for it?? Again do you leave them to rot??

And those who cannot pay for treatment for heart disease / cancer etc? Leave them to die? I sincerely hope you are never in charge of health policy with such an orwellian attitude. Do you take the same attitude to people who eat sweets beign denied denatal care or those in high stress jobs or eating high fat food being denied coronary care. Or people who who have unprotected sex - would you deny them STI care or pregnancy medical care?

# 36

Posted: 20/07/2009 13:16

Of course I am aware of the legalities surrounding drug use, but surely Chris that just supports my point - I mean why should someone who uses a LEGAL drug NOT be given cessation support while someone who uses an ILLEGAL drug is? Help should be given to all. I remember being able to access free contraceptives while in college through various health clinics.

# 35

Posted: 17/07/2009 18:16

Giving out anti-smoking medications for free is not a good idea as people who wish to give up smoking will depend primarily upon their own willpower. I think that such medicines will become too expensive if paid for by the state. Everything costs money, so why should the cost of the medication not be paid for primarily by the people whose actions dictate the need for the medication?

With regard to heroin junkies...once they are addicted to heroin, there is a very low rate of recovery. These people will commit crimes to pay for their addiction. That is why I see that the cost-benefit analysis of the government providing methadone or heroin for these people is in favour of keeping them off the streets. Since the government will be buyibg the methadone or heroin in bulk, there should be a large discount. This would undercut the crime lords and recuce street crime. Let the junkies sit in the corner injecting state-provided heroin until they die.

With regard to cigarette smoking, I have a similar attitude. Puff away to your hearts content, but don't pretend that you are paying enough in tax to cover the cost of surgery/chemo/rediotherapy for your self-induced cancer. You can pay for that treatment yourself. The government taxes will merely encourage the illegal black market to grow as high taxes always do.

I am in favour of personal liberties but if your lifestyle choices cost me money then you are impinging upon my civil liberties. Pay for your own mistakes.

# 34

Posted: 17/07/2009 14:25

I must get myself a friend in the middle east, though I would have nothing to offer in return....I dont think this country has much to offer anymore!

# 33

Posted: 17/07/2009 14:24

Well done Elena - give the greedy government the answer they deserve!

# 32

Posted: 17/07/2009 14:12

Chris

The difference Buzz, is that injecting heroin is not legal, smoking (as much as I dislike it) is.

The government doesn't actually give out contraceptives free - unless you  have a medical card and thus are entitled to all perscribed medication at no cost, but I do see the point you are making.Tho don't joke about child benefit, if An Bord Snip have their way, they'll cut that as well.

Yes, Elena the government is shooting itself inthe foot. It used to gather revenue from cigarettes, and to allay badgers concerns. this could part fund meidcla treatment but the need for medical treatment will remian but without the tax revenue cigarettes used to bring in.

# 31

Posted: 17/07/2009 14:00

Elena I'm just like you.  On the rare occasions where I have to buy cigarettes in a shop here I am nearly sickened by the price.  During the good times I used to go away a lot and would also stock up.  When supply was getting low I simply went away again.

Not so now!  I still refuse to buy them here if I can help it.  As not going away so much I simply order them online.  Not had any hassle yet.  Do I feel guilty for doing this?  No.  Simply because the government has been screwing us for so long.  I actually take pleasure in knowing that I'm screwing the government in some shape or form.

# 30

Posted: 16/07/2009 21:50

I am a heavy smoker -25/30 a day on average. Increasing the price of cigarettes has not prevented or curbed my smoking habits. I have simply stopped buying cigarettes in Ireland. Cigarettes in Ireland are now the most expensive in the world (I beg to be corrected). At the moment I’ve a friend bringing me back supplies from the Middle East (10 euro approx for 200 as compared with 90 euro in Ireland) and a second friend bringing me supplies from Eastern Europe (20 euro approx for 200). When will the Irish Government realise that by increasing the prices to a prohibitive level they are losing revenue? Anecdotal evidence tells me I’m not alone –witness the Canary Island brigade bringing back thousands for personal use.

# 29

Posted: 14/07/2009 10:18

badger also forgot:

The government should not give out methadone for free. This would be a waste of taxpayers' money. I suspect that many on this forum are not familiar with the idea that the government's money comes from the taxpayers not some bottomless money pit filled by billionaires.

If a person does not really want to give up heroin then they won't. If they contract  HIV while injecting then they should have palliative treatment only unless they can pay for it. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a junkies right to give themselves HIV?

AND...

The government should not give out contraceptives/child benefit for free. This would be a waste of taxpayers' money. I suspect that many on this forum are not familiar with the idea that the government's money comes from the taxpayers not some bottomless money pit filled by billionaires.

If a person does not really want to get pregnant then they won't. If they conceive a baby while having sex, then they should starve and go hungry  unless they can pay for it. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a woman's right to get themselves pregnant?

Again, point is, LOTS of people (for many wide and varied reasons) get "stuff for free" as you call it off the state (and can I point out for the record that I don't disagree with the above two payments), and nobody on this site has the right to decide that smokers do not have the right to access a free helping hand if they so wish.

The point I made earlier was not that smokers SHOULD be given free smoking cessation equipment, but that IF the government WAS genuinely concerned with people quitting (as IS their SCAPEGOAT every time they slap on extra taxes) then they WOULD assist with the provision of such products. It's not rocket science.

# 28

Posted: 14/07/2009 10:11

Chris

I cam across this by accident but I had to reply and I must say Badger, I am pretty apalled at your attiude and only thankful that the health service doesn't operate according to your utilitarian (Orwellian) mindset. I suspect maybe you are not familar with the concept that smokers are not some sort of minority that are excluded from the tax net. Smokers pay taxes too and contribute to the national coffers by the tax paid on their cigarettes / tobacco. With that fact in mind, what provides you with the arrogance to assume you have the right to deny people basic medical entitlement based your personal prejudices?? Another fact for you - smoking is a perfectly legal action. Regardless of whatever you or I may think of it - unhealthy (true) digusting (yes, in my own personl opinion) unpleasant, filthy etc but still perfectly legal. If we were to go by your qualifiers, what about people who eat sweets - would you see them denied dental treatment?People who eat fatty foods - denied medical care for heart disease. People in high stress jobs - denied cholesterol medication? What an apalling Vista this would open up for all of society. For the record, I don't smoke, I have never smoked, nor do my family and if I express a preference I don't like smoking and do everything I can not to be around it. But I am not so arrogant as to imagine my preferences can dictate other peoples choices - or worst of all, that my prejudices should dictate other peoples entitlements when it comes to medical care.

# 27

Posted: 13/07/2009 13:25

The government should not give out anti-smoking medications for free. This would be a waste of taxpayers' money. I suspect that many on this forum are not familiar with the idea that the government's money comes from the taxpayers not some bottomless money pit filled by billionaires.

If a person does not really want to give up smoking then they won't. If they contract lung cancer while smoking, then they should have palliative treatment only unless they can pay for it. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a smoker's right to give themselves lung cancer?