To hate the idea of the new smoking bribe?

[CharleyFarleyy]

What do people who dont smoke anyway get? seems like they are going to miss out un-fairly.

Also if quitting for your and your babys health isnt incentive enough will shopping vouchers help anyway?

What do you get?
You get not to smoke, fairness my arse.

Its for the health of the baby and a great incentive.
Easy to police as they can do a test for carbon monoxide, I had one done at my clinic.
They claim to even be able to estimate quite close to the last time a cig was smoked.
Nobody is going to start smoking, just to stop in order to gain vouchers.

If it works, I really can't see a problem with it at all.

It would be great if they could do something similar for pregnant obese mothers too.

Having a baby is a great incentive to give up smoking and lose weight, but as we all know, it doesn't always happen for lots of reasons.

Fining women who smoke when they're pregnant? Oh yes, there's a fantastic idea. It will alienate vulnerable women who are most likely to need support. Let's face it - it's hardly 'naice' middle-class women who continue to smoke while pregnant, is it? It's more likely to be low-income women from deprived areas who have other problems, who need the support to quit properly.

I hate seeing pregnant women smoking. I hate it almost more than anything else, but I would rather see it than drive those women into disengaging from vital services, which would likely result in more potential harm to them and their baby.

Does anyone here remember the £190 maternity grant given to all pregnant women for a brief period around 2010? It was blink and you'll miss it, because it was axed very quickly, but that was given without any strings attached. I don't remember there being an outcry about wasting money then.

Once more, I suspect most posters don't actually live in the real world, going by this thread.

Oh charley Do you really think that? Really? Do you really, really honestly think that?

What should be happening and what actually is happening are two different things.

If this saves the NHS money on SCBU, and helps protect babies and improves the health of the mothers, it's worth it IMO. And I say this as a mother who has never smoked as a habit.

SoupDragon, maybe the law about smoking in a car with children will be extended to smoking in the house? I realise it would be a difficult one to implement and I'm sure plenty of people would object. I do think there should be some way to protect children from smoke though.

"Nobody is going to start smoking, just to stop in order to gain vouchers."

I'm pretty sure some would abuse this. Perhaps the ones who stop smoking during pregnancy under this scheme are the ones who would have managed to stop anyway.

If they can afford to smoke, they dont need shopping vouchers? Cigs are so expensive.

Its not envy, I dont personally want the vouchers, I just feel strongly about fairness.

But life is, essentially unfair. Some people are born to rich parents, some are born in poverty, some do minimal work for high wages, some are unable to work and have to live on benefits. There are an infinite number of things which you have that others don't and vice versa, most just due to luck and it's flip-side of unfairness.

Do you also think you should be able to claim housing benefit, DLA, maternity allowance and a state pension just because other people's circumstances entitle them to these as well?

from the BBC article:

One of the lead authors, Prof David Tappin, said: "Many of these mothers have inadequate housing, difficult relationships, low self-esteem and only enough income to subsist.

"The money, albeit in the form of vouchers, often lifts the pressure.

"This evidence shows that the money is the hand they need to pull them out of their addiction.

Surely they would save a lot by quitting anyway?

bummbleymummy - Perhaps the ones who stop smoking during pregnancy under this scheme are the ones who would have managed to stop anyway.

That's why studies use control groups:

More than 20% of the women offered vouchers stopped smoking, compared with 9% given normal NHS support alone.

The participants take regular breath tests and give a urine sample. It's a straightforward procedure which shows clearly if smoking has occurred. If the tests are negative, the vouchers are handed over. I imagine it's impossible to cheat or lie.

I saw a similar programme of rewards initiated in prisons. Those who were addicted to and got hold of class A drugs (and prisons are awash with those) were encouraged to be tested and if clear were given extra privileges (more recreation time, gym session or more 'canteen' orders for example) It seemed to have a fair amount of success.

This resentment happens at all levels. I often had the difficult pupils and they were on a star system. (Not my idea, the Head's) If they passed a whole morning or afternoon session without misbehaving, they got a star. Then a certain number of stars gained a reward. The 'good' children were incensed and said it wasn't fair. They'd been good all day and got zilch. It's very difficult.

Thanks Plenty - I hadn't read the report in detail.

If smoking is so bad that the government want to bribe people to stop, why not ban it all together.

I don't normally go all MN-Feminist-Hysterical.
We are NOT walking wombs. We do have autonomy over our bodies and I'll be out protesting on the streets if pg women start getting fined for activities legal to all others.
What next? Ban them from riding bikes, drinking alcohol, home birth, eating soft cheese?

Plenty - thanks for quoting that - I was just about to. The interesting thing is why it works: because it's targeting women who are poor, stressed and have fuck all else in their lives other than the occasional fag. All of us can summon up reserves of will power when we're comfortable and in a good place - it's doing it when the rest of one's life feels like it's a pile of shit that's nigh on impossible. And the grants seem well thought out - it's just enough money to lift a bit of the financial pressure and hence a bit of the stress, delivered at just frequent enough intervals that it's something tangible to look forward to in the not too distant future, not a vague promise of jam tomorrow. And it seems to work - months later 15% of women who stopped on the scheme are still non-smokers, compared to 4% who managed it without the scheme.

Oh, and OP, the rapist analogy is completely and utterly offensive beyond just about anything else I've ever seen on a benefits-bashing thread, and god knows, I've seen a lot of offensive stuff. You should be bloody ashamed of yourself.

Because banning something that people are addicted to, is never going to help the addicts is it?

It'll just drive tobacco sales underground.

Your last point is reasonable, Charley. It's an awful habit for anyone to ever start.

Useful background on smoking and health inequalities here

Exactly, lljkk.

and what lljkk said.

I'm not usually in favour of this kind of thing. But I think this is worth a go and if it does improve people's health then it is worth it. I can see the counter arguments though. Like vouchers being more important than the health of your baby. You can't stop for the baby's health but you could for vouchers.

What's not fair, is that some babies get to be born with healthy lungs because their mothers didn't smoke whilst pregnant and some don't. This is about fairness to babies, and if it works I'm all for it.

And if anyone says 'life isn't fair, what should I do, make sure my baby's lungs are damaged so that things will be fair, blah blah' I'll be sick.