by Pauline Clementson

Created on: May 09, 2008

Should smokers be responsible for the results of their addiction?

It has been well documented as to the detrimental effects that smoking has on a person's health so I won't dwell on that aspect. The idea of smokers being responsible for the results of their addiction sounds good in theory but I imagine, very difficult to carry out in a fair and equitable manner.

Yes, a patient could be charged with their hospital treatment, if it can be proven that the condition they are being treated for is the direct result of smoking.
Can a person be penalized because they were conned into smoking years ago but have given up and have now become ill with the consequences?
What happens though, if the damage was done years before from Parents smoking?
There is also the effect of passive smoking. Is the patient responsible because they made the choice to be in the company of smokers?
Is the Bar owner or the workers responsible because they allowed smoking in the bar before the law was changed?
How far do we need to extend the responsibility?

In New Zealand we have a State owned Health system so funding is always inadequate. Revenue from the smoking fraternity would be one way of boosting the Hospital's budgets, but is it fair to restrict the addiction costs to just the smokers?

Look at the effects and the terrible results of Drug addiction. Regardless of trying to get blood out of a stone, think of the massive cost to the country one drug addict can engender? The crimes committed to get the money to feed their addiction. The cost to the State of taking care of any children involved and bringing them up to adulthood. The cost of the prison time and the court costs when the addict is charged with those crimes. The medical costs of treating the addict just to name a few.
Can we charge the Drug Addict for the results of their addiction?
Yes, we can charge them but how much should we realistically expect them to front up with as reimbursement?

The alcoholic can also be asked to take responsibility for their addiction. The cost of the rescue services needed after they smash their vehicle up on the way home from the Pub. Their Hospital treatment plus the treatment of any other person injured in that same crash. Pay for the cost of their jail time as well as the court costs. Pay compensation to any victims of their alcohol addiction plus any future medical costs relating to the incident.
What about the cost to the State of the alcoholic's addiction that brakes up the family, causing the other Parent to rely on the State to live?
Maybe the Alcoholic can also be charged with the ongoing costs of the education and maintenance of the children of the breadwinner that was killed in the crash caused by their addiction.

There is also the gambler.
Where do you draw the line?
I was a smoker myself for 47 years and have now been smoke free for twelve months. Addiction of any description is an illness in itself and is extremely hard to combat.
With all the information available today as to the effects on the body and the surrounds of smoking, maybe some carefully moderated laws could be brought into play which could hopefully lessen the number of smokers throughout the world. That would eventually make a big drop in the cost of the effects of smoking, releasing more revenue for more important health issues.

Learn more about this author, Pauline Clementson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.