I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”
I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.
(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)
Don’t cover anyone who drinks beer, eats fast food, etc etc then.
Surely that will be good for society.
If someone is alcoholic or eats until their health is seriously compromised they could cover related medical expenses with private insurance.
No need to downvote and get sarcastic just because you disagree.
The sarcasm is to make a point. First it’s smokers then it’s everyone else. And social cohesion is hard enough without segregating those who you think make poor life choices. What other vice would be next on the chopping block?
Besides that, smoking is going down anyhow overall and again, people are going to have vices. I absolutely disagree with pinching pennies on silly things like determining if someone is a smoker or a drinker or a binge eater or a coffee addict or whatever other measure instead of just treating people and moving on with life. The price will be paid in one way or another- in cents or in social disintegration.