While the aims of this project may be laudable, something about it makes me uneasy.

Perhaps it's the obvious unfairness to non-smoking women. They must be tempted to take up smoking just so they can join the scheme and then 'give it up'!

Perhaps it's the questions it prompts. A woman with a twenty-a-day habit would save £150 a month by giving up. Will £50 from the taxpayer really be that much more of an incentive? (In this respect it is quite unlike bribes for breastfeeding.)

The stated cost of £100,000 seems to be for the vouchers alone (8 months' worth for each of the 250). How much will admin, tests, and support add to this? How many birth defects would there have been? In short, is this cost-effective preventive medicine?

Don’t be fooled
Stop smoking can only be good for your health but who really cares about your health apart from your loved ones.
I will tell you the real reason behind the anti smoking campaign.
The capitalist system.
They think a smoker wastes too much time, when he should be working none stop to make his already rich company richer.
It is all about money sure the government looses out on the tobacco tax, but gets it back by having more production at the work place.
A smoker takes a smoke break so he can chill for a minuet or two once he has had is fag he is happier.
The government and the capitalist system don’t care if you are happy all the want is more production out of you which means more money for them.
So don’t be fooled.

Well Neil so some people can’t spell, at least David speaks from the heart.
I agree with him totally and I don’t agree with your personal attack.
I also agree with Billy and Rab
I think I should mention I am not a smoker.
I also don’t condemn any one who is.
I just hope I have not made any spelling errors.
So that Neil boy, can feel good about his self .

Colin; "himself" not "his self" (But I'm sure you knew that)

Marie

The econmics are complex but David is fundamentally wrong in his argument.

The health of every individual in a society is, or should be, important to all in that society. Poor physical health can lead to poor mental health all of this costs the NHS money in terms of ongoing treatment. The NHS like the rest of the public sector is funded largely out of taxation. Taxation is money collected by the government from the income and expenditure of individuals and businesses. Unhealthy workers cost businesses money as most still get paid even though they contribute nothing when they are off sick. That means profits and therefore tax revenues are reduced meaning less money in the collective pot to fund the NHS and other parts of the public sector. In effect what you get is an economic vicious circle. The opposite is true for a healthy productive workforce.

Finally I would argue that employers are very concerned that their employees are happy at work as it is well known that happy employees are far more productive than unhappy ones.

Neil ma man a bet you are good company in the battle cruiser yah stuck up get.
Now let me think you are a no smoker, a typical bore, and have no real mates.
How do you like that personal attack?
Only kidding you have a nice day as they would say in the good old USA.

Unfair doesn't begin to describe it. This incentive should be offered to all pregnant women whether they smoke or not and taken away from those that fail the subsequent tests. George has hit the nail on the head when he questions the effect of a £50 incentive against a £150 habit. People give up smoking because they want to not because of laudable but misguided health board initiatives.

And to David - If you had stuck in at school instead of taking so many smoke breaks behind the bike sheds you might have a better grasp of economics.....and spelling.

david is quite right, this rubbish is about cash, this is just another gimmick the one hundred grand
put a side for this is about six months wages for mconnell. if people want to stop then they will try and give it up. this money wont last it,s a piece of health board nonsence.they would be better employing another nurse with this money.

I totally agree with you David,
I have never been more unhappy.
I feel if I am getting shunned at work by my employers, all because I like a cigarette.
I know it is bad for my health. I don’t need constant reminders.
My work is always up to speed and I pride myself in doing a professional job.
Now that I cant get a cigarette when I go for a pint at the weekends I am seriously thinking about emigrating to another country.
I have had enough of it all and it all down our Scottish mps.
Why do none of them speak up against all this stupidity?

Could Neil explain the economics please?
I think you just slipped that word in because you no how to spell it.
Good comment David, as for Billy’s comment it is sad that in this day and age people have such small minds.
My heart goes out to you.

Wouldn't it have been more productive to use the money to ensure that all pregnant woman have an adequate supply of fruits and vegetables?

I think it is a good idea but agree it seems very unfair to reward smokers who give up and give nothing to non-smokers or those that had already given up. However, this is only a pilot - let's see the results before we condemn?
It is a shame that a lot of the comments have ended up criticising spelling (most of which I think are typing errors) and personal attacks - everyone is entitled to their opinion!

If the government of Scotland is going to start stealing money from smokers to "reward" non-smokers, how long will it be before it also imposes a penalty on smokers. Jail perhaps?

We are now at the point where a woman's body belongs to herself if she decides to have an abortion but, if she chooses to bring a fetus to term, her body belongs to the state.

Can it be very long before someone proposes that all pregnant woman be forced into "pregnancy camps" where they can "relax and be taken care of" until they give birth?

In Canada, some brilliant soul has just proposed automatic screening for smoking when pregnant. What happens if the result show a pregnant woman is smoking or is living with someone who smokes?

Can it be very long before the state imposes restrictions on all fertile woman in order to "protect" the health of future fetuses.

Michelle