I do agree we are all accountable for our choices BUT government intervention has certainly reduced the number of smokers over the last 6 years (which in turn increases the number of healthy people working and paying taxes and reduces the burden on the NHS so must be good for society right?):
If the British government would have said "Oh **** the smokers, health, they are all adults and, hey, we get lots of money from tobacco tax so let's leave things as they are" then I can assure you the graph would have gone in the other direction the last 6 years.
The elected government has a duty to provide legislation to protect its citizens - be that via the armed forces, police force or even controlling access to vices proven to be addictive (e.g. smoking bans, increased tax on alcohol and tobacco, banning of "drinking flat" and other tricks to increase alcohol consumption - although more could be done - and yes, controlling access to highly addictive gambling machines).
Let's be honest - would the world really be a poorer place without FOBTs? I think not ............................
You must log in or register to see images
If the British government would have said "Oh **** the smokers, health, they are all adults and, hey, we get lots of money from tobacco tax so let's leave things as they are" then I can assure you the graph would have gone in the other direction the last 6 years.
The elected government has a duty to provide legislation to protect its citizens - be that via the armed forces, police force or even controlling access to vices proven to be addictive (e.g. smoking bans, increased tax on alcohol and tobacco, banning of "drinking flat" and other tricks to increase alcohol consumption - although more could be done - and yes, controlling access to highly addictive gambling machines).
Let's be honest - would the world really be a poorer place without FOBTs? I think not ............................


