FabSwingers.com forum: Pregnant smokers £400 incentive to quit

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay."

I agree, but I strongly suspect that the extra money will go straight to the tobacco companies.

If a woman is already pregnant, and the risks and the social opprobrium aren't enough to stop her smoking, then I doubt that a £400 payment is going to do the job.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

That's the parent's responsibility

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

I agree, but I strongly suspect that the extra money will go straight to the tobacco companies.

If a woman is already pregnant, and the risks and the social opprobrium aren't enough to stop her smoking, then I doubt that a £400 payment is going to do the job."

Prosecution would maybe work better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

I agree, but I strongly suspect that the extra money will go straight to the tobacco companies.

If a woman is already pregnant, and the risks and the social opprobrium aren't enough to stop her smoking, then I doubt that a £400 payment is going to do the job.

Prosecution would maybe work better."

Interesting take on it. I think prosecution could happen when we get to a smokeless society.

Should tobacco manufacturers be taxed heavier to pay for this initiative, I personally think they should.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

That's the parent's responsibility "

I agree the parent should be responsible, but in these cases the parent isn't.. Do we do nothing to try and help an unborn baby who is being subjected to poisons?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Obviously on the surface any initiative like this at first seems nuts. People will justifiably question it and ask about personal responsibility.

However, these types of initiatives (which are often just one tactical line in an overall strategic plan) are intended to provide downstream benefits.

In healthcare this is, broadly speaking, prevention is better than cure.

In this case the intention is to help ensure the baby (ergo child and adult) is healthier because long term that reduces pressure on healthcare budgets and provides a healthier workforce.

Will it work? Call me a sceptic but no! As said above, knowing all we know now about smoking it amazes me anyone still smokes at all, let alone pregnant women!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Obviously on the surface any initiative like this at first seems nuts. People will justifiably question it and ask about personal responsibility.

However, these types of initiatives (which are often just one tactical line in an overall strategic plan) are intended to provide downstream benefits.

In healthcare this is, broadly speaking, prevention is better than cure.

In this case the intention is to help ensure the baby (ergo child and adult) is healthier because long term that reduces pressure on healthcare budgets and provides a healthier workforce.

Will it work? Call me a sceptic but no! As said above, knowing all we know now about smoking it amazes me anyone still smokes at all, let alone pregnant women!"

I would fully support a blanket ban on all tobacco sales from tomorrow. Job done

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

"I would fully support a blanket ban on all tobacco sales from tomorrow. Job done"

That would just cause a black market in tobacco.

The way to do it is to provide cigarettes and vapes on prescription, and ban the sale to the general public. Those people that are then getting prescription drugs for their addiction can be required to attend classes to help them quit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would fully support a blanket ban on all tobacco sales from tomorrow. Job done

That would just cause a black market in tobacco.

The way it should be done is to follow the New Zealand example, no cigarettes to be sold to anyone born after 2009, and reducing the outlets that can sell tobacco from 6000 to 600.

We could easily adopt or adapt this model in my opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Obviously on the surface any initiative like this at first seems nuts. People will justifiably question it and ask about personal responsibility.

However, these types of initiatives (which are often just one tactical line in an overall strategic plan) are intended to provide downstream benefits.

In healthcare this is, broadly speaking, prevention is better than cure.

In this case the intention is to help ensure the baby (ergo child and adult) is healthier because long term that reduces pressure on healthcare budgets and provides a healthier workforce.

Will it work? Call me a sceptic but no! As said above, knowing all we know now about smoking it amazes me anyone still smokes at all, let alone pregnant women!

I would fully support a blanket ban on all tobacco sales from tomorrow. Job done

Me too. But money talks. Tobacco lobbying is huge. Tax revenue from sales is huge too. However, I wonder how the tax revenue from tobacco compares with the long term healthcare costs and loss in productivity? The key phrase is “long term” because the tax revenue is now for the current govt but the benefits are downstream for another government. I guess they still need to be seen to be doing something?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *quirtyndirty!Couple
over a year ago

Nottingham

Why should our taxes go to someone who's so weak minded they might kill their own baby? Didn't realise the NHS had the cash to spunk on such stupid ideas.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Why stop at unborn babies? Parents and grandparents smoking near babies and children are also risking the health of their kids and grandkids.

Why just mothers, surely fathers who smoke around pregnant women are just as guilty?

What if the pregnant parent smokes after giving birth? At what point is the £400 paid? Who monitors them?

Totally unworkable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uri00620Woman
over a year ago

Croydon

"Why stop at unborn babies? Parents and grandparents smoking near babies and children are also risking the health of their kids and grandkids.

Why just mothers, surely fathers who smoke around pregnant women are just as guilty?

What if the pregnant parent smokes after giving birth? At what point is the £400 paid? Who monitors them?

Totally unworkable. "

Yes, I wonder how it would be quantified. Surely the NHS are stretched enough without lung screening to determine whether someone is in fact a smoker when pregnant. If that's the case and screening is too much/waits are too long etc, are they just going to take someone's word for it? Sounds like a flawless plan.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

I'd heard it was 400 of vaping products, not cash. Vaping supposed to help with quitting though I don't know if it could also have health impacts on unborn children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley

"I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them "

..and if the driver is a smoker, they would no doubt deliberately run a hose from the exhaust back into the car to enable maximum inhalation of the soothing and satisfying fumes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them

..and if the driver is a smoker, they would no doubt deliberately run a hose from the exhaust back into the car to enable maximum inhalation of the soothing and satisfying fumes."

The pregnant women in the street I meant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley

"I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them

..and if the driver is a smoker, they would no doubt deliberately run a hose from the exhaust back into the car to enable maximum inhalation of the soothing and satisfying fumes.

The pregnant women in the street I meant. "

Ah, the ones whose fag smoke car drivers have to breathe if they are driving with the windows open !!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them

..and if the driver is a smoker, they would no doubt deliberately run a hose from the exhaust back into the car to enable maximum inhalation of the soothing and satisfying fumes.

The pregnant women in the street I meant.

Ah, the ones whose fag smoke car drivers have to breathe if they are driving with the windows open !!!"

Thems the ones

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

That's the parent's responsibility

I agree the parent should be responsible, but in these cases the parent isn't.. Do we do nothing to try and help an unborn baby who is being subjected to poisons? "

Or do we send a message that says do what you like because someone else will sort it out? This just highlights the complete lack of accountability of the younger generations

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Already said above but if a woman in 2023 with all the knowledge we now have about the dangers of smoking still smokes (let alone when she is pregnant) then it starts to come down to Darwinism.

You need carrot AND stick to change behaviour. Think about seat belts. It started as an emotional plea to save lives. It wasn’t enough so the law was changed to make it required. Make smoking while pregnant illegal then also offer help.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I wonder how many advocating prosecuting pregnant smookers drive petrol or diesel cars along streets with pregnant women in them

..and if the driver is a smoker, they would no doubt deliberately run a hose from the exhaust back into the car to enable maximum inhalation of the soothing and satisfying fumes.

The pregnant women in the street I meant.

Ah, the ones whose fag smoke car drivers have to breathe if they are driving with the windows open !!!

Thems the ones

. "

I read that in the voice of Mary (ghosts)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

That's the parent's responsibility "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Given the waiting times on the NHS the child would be a toddler by the time any follow up is done.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley

If the smokers had half a brain they would be concerned about their own health as well as the baby's.

A fair bit of thought should also go into considering the wisdom of having children, full stop.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dont think its just pregnant smokers this support is being offered to though is it. Pregnant smokers who are a part of the scheme also will not be handed £400 just like that, it's a stepped programme where vouchers are given at each step. Personally I think it's a good thing, catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Vilifying people doesnt help.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It makes sense, if its an inscentive then good.

£400 isn't much in the way of stopping issues with a newborn child that could last them the entirety of their lives, when you think of the long term.

Financial return? - If a child is born without a form of potential disability caused by said smoking, then the need for care and personal independence is already resolved.

£400 vs the cost of that works for me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"It makes sense, if its an inscentive then good.

£400 isn't much in the way of stopping issues with a newborn child that could last them the entirety of their lives, when you think of the long term.

Financial return? - If a child is born without a form of potential disability caused by said smoking, then the need for care and personal independence is already resolved.

£400 vs the cost of that works for me. "

Seriously? You want to subsidise this and be taken for a fool, fine. I opt out

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

I agree, but I strongly suspect that the extra money will go straight to the tobacco companies.

If a woman is already pregnant, and the risks and the social opprobrium aren't enough to stop her smoking, then I doubt that a £400 payment is going to do the job.

Prosecution would maybe work better.

Interesting take on it. I think prosecution could happen when we get to a smokeless society.

Should tobacco manufacturers be taxed heavier to pay for this initiative, I personally think they should. "

So what about prosecution for smoking cannabis or doing other drugs first.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?"

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there."

You say that but Russell Brand done a documentary on rehab and prison.

If we lock someone up it costs the tax payer about £36k but rehab is about £24k but there is very little rehabilitation in the UK.

I do know a bit about addiction 14 years ago I was drinking far to much Im still struggling but it's a battle. But legal witch makes it harder.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there."

Harm reduction my arse. It's called having the balls to give it up. I smoked for 30 years and gave it up over a weekend using something called willpower. An increasing number of our populous have no idea what that is

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there.

Well done you.. its hard so hat off to you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

[Removed by poster at 13/04/23 21:10:06]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

It's really not difficult

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rvineguy79Man
over a year ago

Kilwinning

Wow far to many idiots on here

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"Wow far to many idiots on here "

Meaning what exactly?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rvineguy79Man
over a year ago

Kilwinning

"Wow far to many idiots on here

Meaning what exactly? "

Take it anyway you want, but I think you are clearly one of them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otdoggieCouple
over a year ago

Tenby

Try a foot in the backside instead lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *helovesitwetCouple
over a year ago

brighton

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?"
surely it's better to fine immediately if any pregnant selfish woman is stupid enough to light up

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?"

Judgemental much?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Why should our taxes go to someone who's so weak minded they might kill their own baby? Didn't realise the NHS had the cash to spunk on such stupid ideas. "

More judgement

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Given the waiting times on the NHS the child would be a toddler by the time any follow up is done.

And chain smoking

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Surely if someone is caught in a cycle of addiction, we offer alternatives to help them break that addiction ? That's called harm reduction.

Your desire to prosecute would increase harm, since it neither addresses the underlying problem, and heaps further harm upon the parent AND the unborn child.

You've doubled the harm right there.

Well done you.. its hard so hat off to you "

It depends upon whether it was an addiction or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"The combination of offering £400 in vouchers for well-known shops alongside regular services to help pregnant women quit smoking proved more effective than just the services on their own.

In a randomised-controlled trial with 1,000 pregnant women who were smokers, everyone received standard smoking cessation services but one half were offered the voucher incentive scheme as well.

Only 12 per cent of pregnant women from the group who did not receive the voucher stopped smoking by the end of their pregnancy, compared with 27 per cent of women from the voucher incentive group."

It was part of research.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

Then in April the LBC had this headline: one million smokers in the England are to receive free vaping "starter kits" and pregnant smokers will be offered shopping vouchers worth up to £400 as part of government's smoke-free nation pledge.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

The longer term picture here is what sort of society do we want to encourage in the future ?

Do we want to restrict / control / deny people's personal choices, no matter how foolish and harmful they may be, using taxation to fund harm prevention, healthcare and behaviour modification, or do we blanket ban activities (and ensure we keep adding more to the list) ?

On the one hand, there are those who do not want to fund other's lifestyle choices, and on the other is a more libertarian approach where we all fund each other.

I prefer the latter. My NI and other taxes goes in to the "pot" for all to use. I need not worry about their choices, and they need not worry about mine. It makes for a judgement-free peaceful life, IMHO. You stop worrying about others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?"

Crazy idea.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea."

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

This type of attitude has infested our society. Our daughters' school rewarded pupils who had high attendance. However they seemed to forget that attendance is compulsory, so should have penalised the non-attenders instead.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

You're not one to see the bigger picture?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Instead of criminalising expectant mothers of course. You’d want coppers going to Ante Natal classes and fining mothers who’ve failed carbon monoxide tests if they are smoking. Because that is the only workable solution.

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead."

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

" "The combination of offering £400 in vouchers for well-known shops alongside regular services to help pregnant women quit smoking proved more effective than just the services on their own.

In a randomised-controlled trial with 1,000 pregnant women who were smokers, everyone received standard smoking cessation services but one half were offered the voucher incentive scheme as well.

Only 12 per cent of pregnant women from the group who did not receive the voucher stopped smoking by the end of their pregnancy, compared with 27 per cent of women from the voucher incentive group."

It was part of research."

Prevention is better than cure approach is often cost effective so hope it works. Do the women have to prove they are smokers in order to get the money? The cynic in me wonders if some may just claim to be smokers to get the money so assume there is a reliable way of knowing one way it the other

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

" "The combination of offering £400 in vouchers for well-known shops alongside regular services to help pregnant women quit smoking proved more effective than just the services on their own.

In a randomised-controlled trial with 1,000 pregnant women who were smokers, everyone received standard smoking cessation services but one half were offered the voucher incentive scheme as well.

Only 12 per cent of pregnant women from the group who did not receive the voucher stopped smoking by the end of their pregnancy, compared with 27 per cent of women from the voucher incentive group."

It was part of research.

Govt press release

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smokers-urged-to-swap-cigarettes-for-vapes-in-world-first-scheme

Hasn't started yet

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing. "

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse."

Are you just trolling?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?"

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

" "The combination of offering £400 in vouchers for well-known shops alongside regular services to help pregnant women quit smoking proved more effective than just the services on their own.

In a randomised-controlled trial with 1,000 pregnant women who were smokers, everyone received standard smoking cessation services but one half were offered the voucher incentive scheme as well.

Only 12 per cent of pregnant women from the group who did not receive the voucher stopped smoking by the end of their pregnancy, compared with 27 per cent of women from the voucher incentive group."

It was part of research.

Govt press release

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smokers-urged-to-swap-cigarettes-for-vapes-in-world-first-scheme

Hasn't started yet"

Thank you for the link. It's very interesting and good to see the UK government leading in this topic. Apparently it will be the first such scheme in the world. Unfortunately in it I don't see any mention of how they will know if a pregnant lady is already a smoker or just saying that they are a smoker to get the financial benefits. I was wondering if there is a quick test that can be done to prove it but I'm not from a medical background. As you say, it is not started yet so maybe those details will follow

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends."

Research. Research shows what/how/why things are done. It's merely an extension of the money spent on free prescriptions and services for giving up smoking. And it has been found to be cheaper doing this than the amount of money that would have to be spent on treating smoking related illnesses.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help."

Punish smoking pregnant women? Is that how you see it?

The least amount of money spent is surely the most insignificant reason to do something when a child not yet born is being poisoned?

The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab.

Our world is fucking mental, when the future life of an unborn child developing in the womb is secondary to the decision to smoke.

We have moved on from the 40’s and 50’s, even 60’s. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and yet it is still allowed to happen at the expense one that can’t defend themselves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help.

Punish smoking pregnant women? Is that how you see it?

The least amount of money spent is surely the most insignificant reason to do something when a child not yet born is being poisoned?

The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab.

Our world is fucking mental, when the future life of an unborn child developing in the womb is secondary to the decision to smoke.

We have moved on from the 40’s and 50’s, even 60’s. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and yet it is still allowed to happen at the expense one that can’t defend themselves. "

Punitive punishment won’t change a thing - have we learned nothing from ‘The war on drugs’?

Smoking should be phased out over a generation, but punishing smokers isn’t the way to go about anything

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help.

Punish smoking pregnant women? Is that how you see it?

The least amount of money spent is surely the most insignificant reason to do something when a child not yet born is being poisoned?

The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab.

Our world is fucking mental, when the future life of an unborn child developing in the womb is secondary to the decision to smoke.

We have moved on from the 40’s and 50’s, even 60’s. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and yet it is still allowed to happen at the expense one that can’t defend themselves. "

Fining or imprisoning is punishment - how else am I to view it.

If you ask me do I think it's right for a pregnant woman to smoke, no. I was a prem baby - could have been due to a smoking mother. But it's legal. Just like it was legal to smoke in cars and other vehicles (I was always travel sick). Just like it used to be in pubs and restaurants ( my goodness I would give my mother hell if she smoked at the table and I hadn't finished my dinner. Yes smokers are selfish. They have had to be taught legally to consider non-smokers.

I'll reiterate help is required and if that includes incentives, so be it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

As for knowing the pregnant woman is deliberately harming her own child, denial.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help.

Punish smoking pregnant women? Is that how you see it?

The least amount of money spent is surely the most insignificant reason to do something when a child not yet born is being poisoned?

The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab.

Our world is fucking mental, when the future life of an unborn child developing in the womb is secondary to the decision to smoke.

We have moved on from the 40’s and 50’s, even 60’s. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and yet it is still allowed to happen at the expense one that can’t defend themselves.

Fining or imprisoning is punishment - how else am I to view it.

I'll reiterate help is required and if that includes incentives, so be it."

It is illegal to smoke indoors at restaurants, bars and public places. We both know it is wrong, and like you my mother smoked, I don’t blame her it was accepted back then.

It can be illegal in all those places but not the most vulnerable place, the womb? I Struggle with this, as I don’t like interfering government overreach, but I feel we need to step up and start to say it is not right to be pregnant and smoking, stigmatising it is not bad in my opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?

Crazy idea.

Why?

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Not well thought through that idea, eh?

Spend a little money on expectant mothers to stop smoking, or waste time, money and resources on enforcing a fine? Because all services have been cut to the bone.

The smokers need to be identified to reward them. No extra work to fine them instead.

How’s that going to work, you would have coppers going to expectant mothers houses? Wasting resources again, going to every one conducting a carbon monoxide test.

Just admit it’s crazy to fine expectant mothers, don’t go the route of trying to make it a thing. It’s slightly embarrassing.

Why go to their house? Just send a fixed penalty notice.

Then also, on the spot fines if seen smoking or vaping in the street while obviously pregnant. Add alcohol consumption to the list as well.

All are known to damage the baby so the mother to be is deliberately damaging her unborn baby so obviously doesn't care at all about the child's health.

Should really be prosecuted in the same way as child abuse.

Are you just trolling?

Can you see that persons point of view at all?

Playing devils advocate: We would imprison a person who deliberately poisoned another human being.

How is smoking and drinking while pregnant different to that? The fetus takes its nutrients from its mother who can pass on those poisons through their blood stream.

Is it extreme to want to stop that by tougher measures than hoping an incentive will be the difference between a healthy born child or one that will need medical support all their lives.

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that the softer approach is not always better than a more direct approach that are trying to achieve the same ends.

If you want to punish smoking pregnant women then you should punish society, because you can bet your bottom dollar the woman interacts with other smokers perhaps including the baby's father.

While we're at it, anybody NOT pro choice when it comes to terminations?

Btw, I have never smoked. Cannot stand the stuff. Couldn't stand being near my parents and sister cos of it. But I've seen the addiction first hand. It's not punishment that is warranted but help.

Punish smoking pregnant women? Is that how you see it?

The least amount of money spent is surely the most insignificant reason to do something when a child not yet born is being poisoned?

The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab.

Our world is fucking mental, when the future life of an unborn child developing in the womb is secondary to the decision to smoke.

We have moved on from the 40’s and 50’s, even 60’s. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and yet it is still allowed to happen at the expense one that can’t defend themselves.

Fining or imprisoning is punishment - how else am I to view it.

I'll reiterate help is required and if that includes incentives, so be it.

It is illegal to smoke indoors at restaurants, bars and public places. We both know it is wrong, and like you my mother smoked, I don’t blame her it was accepted back then.

Forcing people to stop smoking would be an overreach and I've already implied they are incentivising cos it'll be cheaper than prospective therapeutic costs.

Stigmatise smokers as a group, not just pregnant women. After-all second hand smoke is as bad.

And I mentioned restaurants.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"The government should ban smoking and draw a line in the sand, the companies making and selling tobacco products should be picking up a significant part of the tab."

A) Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban.

B) The big tobacco companies are hugely active lobbyists (and fund several organisations based out of or connected to our favourite address).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

"Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban."

I don't think that's true. Smoking is definitely on the wane, and cancer treatments have become much more effective recently. I'll bet that the NHS spends more on treating smoking-related illnesses than the government receives in tobacco tax.

To add another reason: there are still too many smokers. Banning it would annoy enough people to affect voting patterns, and no politician wants that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

So you advocate rewarding selfish and stupid people?

Positive reinforcement is a kinder and more effective behavioural modification tool than punitive punishment though, isn't it ?

Attendance is compulsory. Great.

How about actually "seeing and validating" the kids that met that ideal? Reward then for their attendance.

It's called motivation.

We got the cane for skipping school. Then a belting from our parents. That was demotivating. It made me feel like I was being forced. (Which I was) and made me want to rebel even more (Which I did). Vouchers for an Atari Computer may have worked on me for perfect attendance however. (To to be fair, I got a Sat job and saved up and bought it myself)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban.

To add another reason: there are still too many smokers. Banning it would annoy enough people to affect voting patterns, and no politician wants that."

According to the ONS the UK collects £10bn a year from smoking. The NHS spends £2.5bn a year on smoking related diseases.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

"Apparently the government is considering giving £400 to pregnant smokers as an incentive to quit smoking.

Why?

Surely if someone is stupid enough to start smoking, then selfish enough to damage their unborn baby by carrying on during pregnancy they should be prosecuted not rewarded?"

Totally as in endangering life and the risks surely would make them classified as unfit as well

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"The idea is to protect the baby from the harm of cigarettes, which is not a bad thing and if it works a small price to pay.

I agree, but I strongly suspect that the extra money will go straight to the tobacco companies.

If a woman is already pregnant, and the risks and the social opprobrium aren't enough to stop her smoking, then I doubt that a £400 payment is going to do the job."

My Aunt was a heavy smoker, who when she was pregnant got advice from the GP on how to best manage her smoking.

For her it was best to cut down, instead of stopping altogether. So it will be interesting to see how much those women would get, if anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

[Removed by poster at 11/09/23 06:58:45]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

"Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban."

"I don't think that's true. Smoking is definitely on the wane, and cancer treatments have become much more effective recently. I'll bet that the NHS spends more on treating smoking-related illnesses than the government receives in tobacco tax.

To add another reason: there are still too many smokers. Banning it would annoy enough people to affect voting patterns, and no politician wants that."

"According to the ONS the UK collects £10bn a year from smoking. The NHS spends £2.5bn a year on smoking related diseases."

Looking up the figures gives some wildly different numbers for the cost of smoking to the UK, with one charity quoting £17.5bn. But it turns out they are including 'time lost in labour productivity' as well as lots of other indirect things.

The best figures I can find for direct costs to the NHS vary between £2.5bn, and £4bn, both of which are less than £10bn, which is what the government collects in taxes. So it looks like we should just let them carry on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban.

To add another reason: there are still too many smokers. Banning it would annoy enough people to affect voting patterns, and no politician wants that.

According to the ONS the UK collects £10bn a year from smoking. The NHS spends £2.5bn a year on smoking related diseases.

Time loss re labour affects tax received by govt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Still too much tax revenue being collected to risk a ban.

To add another reason: there are still too many smokers. Banning it would annoy enough people to affect voting patterns, and no politician wants that.

According to the ONS the UK collects £10bn a year from smoking. The NHS spends £2.5bn a year on smoking related diseases.

Is that your way of saying “you were right BIRLD”

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

There is enough help out there for anyone wanting give up smoking.

Free patches, support, gum etc and if your planing to get pregnant is it not better to stop first.

Help to stop drinking alcohol, or drugs might help. But guess that's another problem.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
over a year ago

Leigh

"... if your planing to get pregnant is it not better to stop first."

Of course not. If you are selfish, and don't care at all about your unborn baby the wet do-gooders will give you £400 of shopping vouchers.

Apparently.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread