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?

But its not the babies 'stealing' the taxes. It's the mothers who won't quit smoking for the benefit of their child.

Can you get back pay?!?! I quit smoking whilst pregnant and all I got out of it was a healthy baby

And it's their babies who benefit from that, isn't it bumbley? I mean, yes, we'll have to suck up the fact that the mothers might be less likely to get lung cancer because the state helped them give up smoking, but primarily this is about the health of unborn babies.

But of course you are being stupid and still hung up on the massive unfairness of unborn babies' health being protected if it costs a few quid in vouchers given to their mums. Bloody babies, stealing my taxes.

It's nothing to do with that. It's dumbing down society even more by bribing/incentivising its members to not smoke during pregnancy. Next they'll need incentives bribes for other basic common sense actions.

The assumption here is that everyone knows the dangers of smoking when pregant.

If someone knows the danger of smoking anyway, it shouldn't come as a shock that is a danger regardless of whether you are pregnant or not. If people can't think for themselves and have to be told this rather basic nugget of info (a course? WTAF?), it WNBU to assume that they are not exactly fit to raise a child.

I think it's maybe important to recognise that the system has a lot of inbuilt rules and regulations about the kind of cost-saving benefits that a policy like this has to deliver in order to be rolled out nationwide.

It's not just a bunch of people in an office coming up with some sort of bright idea and rolling it out nationwide! The news story today is just the results of a very small-scale trial involving just 600 women. If someone decides to pursue this further (big 'if', since it is controversial), it'll be tested quite carefully (I imagine on a larger scale) and the effects modelled to see whether it'll be effective in the long run. A big chunk of that assessment will be about cost savings.

To put this another way, 'doing nothing' is not a no-cost option. It has downstream consequences. And if women, for whatever reason, don't have the will to do this by themselves, then spending £400 now to save far more thousands of pounds in future may be a good economy.

Some people don't quite realise the specific harm they are doing their babies by smoking, yes. Some people do realise, and find it hard to stop. If they are helped to realise it, or to stop, this is of benefit to their babies. Placing children in care left right and centre is a bad move for all concerned, not least the tax-payer.

I don't really understand why anyone takes heroin - the idea terrifies me, I never have taken and never will take it. I can however understand that for some people it is initially compelling and ultimately addictive. So I can get my head around the idea that, if they are treated for it, that's not 'unfair' on me for not being a heroin addict, but a Good Thing.

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

That's a brilliant idea! In fact, they should do it with Class A drugs - if the government ban them, no one will take them. Sorted!

Oh, wait...

Okay acat. Just...whatever you say.

SteamingNit, The babies do benefit from the mother not smoking, yes, but it's not their fault that their mother can't do it unless she is given vouchers for it so I don't think it's them 'stealing' the taxes.

Precisely!

Bribery is not the right way to go about saving money though! Its enforcing the attitude that quitting for your baby is not worth it but quitting for money is.

Is it worth saving the money in the long run when we are sending out that message?

bumble I don't think it's that mothers can't do it unless they're given vouchers tbf...

TheOriginal - precisely what? You said that babies were stealing your taxes, I said it's the mother, you disagreed...

No, it's re-enforcing the message that quitting for your baby is hugely important - so much so that we are prepared to give you an extra incentive and support in doing so. Win-win.

Well that's what the study apparently shows Wish. More mothers quite when they are given vouchers. Not as many manage it without.

No, when I said babies are stealing my taxes I was parodying posters who seem to be getting awfully cross about this measure being unfair to them by pointing out that it is the babies, primarily, who benefit.

It's an absolute joke, and I say that as a e-cig smoker.

If your babies health isn't as important as the £400 there's something seriously wrong.

So what should be done about that serious wrongness then, Grays?

The vouchers do not show the importance of quitting! If the fact that your baby is more likely be still born because of your actions dosent do it then I doubt vouchers do

bumble no it says that more mothers were rewarded for quitting by receiving vouchers after they'd stopped, not that upon receipt of a voucher they miraculously stopped smoking. they had to go through a process to receive the vouchers at the end (i.e. a smoking cessation course) where, I would imagine, they would have been given extra support and information around smoking whilst pg, which will have arguably informed their decision to stop. Therefore, not a waste of money IMO.

I think that there is a time and place for bribary or behaviouralism with certain types of mother. (Ie. young teens, those with learning difficulties, those who are under social services etc.) Mothers with chaotic life styles who miss medial appointments are incredibly expensive for the state to deal with. Sometimes the fact that a pregnant woman smokes is the least of the worries of the midwife.

There is a variation of a opinon where the nanny state should step in. I would like midwives and social workers to have the option of bribary. I am not in favour of universal bribes.

My mother smoked throughout her pregnancies and my elder sister died prematurely, as a result. All her life she was frail and had a perpetual cough. Smoking deprived me of much loved sibling.

wishmiplass

Whatever I say?

Have I been wrong in submitting my thoughts on this topic and, like others, challenging other people's thoughts, as part of a debate?

I must be stoopid to think such a thing.

The vouchers do not show the importance of quitting! then what on earth do they show?

If the fact that your baby is more likely be still born because of your actions dosent do it then I doubt vouchers do except that apparently they do. You know how other people are different from you, yes....?

We can't do anything, because women very rightly have autonomy over their own bodies.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with this though.