Letter: No smoke without taxes - the case against prohibition
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article (20 May) suggests that the NHS should consider discriminating against smokers on the grounds that their illness is self-induced. Such a punitive system in health care would require very elaborate judgements to decide exactly how much an individual is responsible for his or her illness.
First, individual responsibility for health has a social context insofar as some people find it difficult to make healthy choices in situations of deprivation. Second, where do you draw the line? There are many other situations where people knowingly take health risks: dangerous sports, drug abuse, unsafe sex and alcoholism are examples.
LYNN FIELD
Droitwich, Worcestershire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments