I've loved reading through this thread. When I first heard about the tests I didn't think too much about it, other than perhaps it was another pointless attempt to nanny people and send them off doing precisely what it is you don't want them to do. But I dunno, a lot more of you on here who are anti the test are non-smokers. Fair enough. You should be taken at your word, you haven't done anything wrong, and you have the good sense not to endanger your unborn child.
I was a confirmed smoker for years. Kidded myself that I smoked only 5 a day when it was really closer to 15 or 20. I made an effort to cut down drinking before conceiving, but somehow thought the smoking would take care of itself in pregnancy and while I would give up immediately upon finding out I was pregnant, I suffered a few miscarriages on the way to being currently pregnant. (28 weeks). Before falling pregnant this time, I gave up well before - and while I will never know for sure that it was a contributing factor, I do wonder if smoking before and in the early days of pregnancies before caused my miscarriages.
For that reason, if I hadn't stopped smoking by now, I would take that test and insist they kept testing me to shame me into giving up. Smoking is fucking horrible, I should know, I did it for nearly 20 years and hated every minute of it but STILL DID IT!! Anything, I mean, ANYTHING that gets someone to stop should be tried. Especially because I have a little human being on board who has no choice if his mother is a complete fuckwit like I was. In fact, I'm half tempted to ask the midwife to test me once my baby arrives to make sure I don't start again.
Also, and this is radical - maybe I'm still too new to non smoking and am a bit of a born again as a result - but at a time when the NHS is under increasing strain - why shouldn't we be hard arsed about allocating funds to people who continue to treat their bodies like cesspits? If I get lung cancer when I'm older, I shouldn't be surprised. I knew what I was doing. I watched my gran die of cancer and would nip out of the hospital for a fag break during the worst of it. It's perverse, and frankly it's so perverse that maybe we should just be extremely tough. What's the difference between breathalyzing people for drink driving (which can be fatal) and testing them for smoking while carrying another human being who is entirely dependent upon them? Even if it means only 1 out of every 10 person tested is guilted into giving up, it's a result. And if you didn't smoke in the first place, you can fully allow yourself to be smug and say 'I told you I didn't smoke .'
Just my (rather long - sorry!) twopence worth.