Is it time to ban cigarettes/tobacco?

[AronSearle]

Doesn't matter how heavy the tax is on cigaretttes, if the cigarettes is banned then what will they spend their money on because everything else you buy is taxable, even the tax duty percentage on petrol is higher than smoking.

:notsureifserious:

You know the tax on cigs is approx 80% right?

So if you spend the same amount of money on something else, the government would see 20% (vat) of that money at best.


(From ash.org.uk: The price of a pack of 20 premium brand cigarettes is currently around £5.10, of which £4.08 (80%) is tax.)

(so technically if the price is 1.02 before tax, to get to 5.10 you are looking at 500% tax).

Sorry a bit misleading from me, I was taking into an overall accounts of road tax, insurances tax, petrol tax, mot etc. however at the end of the day the government will grab back the shortfall of lost taxes elsewhere because more money would be spent if cigarettes wasn't available

Hmmm, sorry the numbers don't support you.

People would spend the same amount of money yes, but on items taxed at a lower rate = less money for the government.

The only way they would make the shortfall is to increase the % of tax on other items, unless that is what you are saying?

 

[joinerjohn]

Thing is, any government is going to tax the hell out of anything that people buy. If smoking were banned tomorrow, they'd have to increase taxation on something else.. (beer and spirits maybe?) When everyone stops drinking, they'll tax something else, (food, water, clothing) Heck I reckon they'd put a tax on housing (already got council tax I know, but they'd probably introduce another tax that went straight to the government. Or,, they'd be forced to raise VAT to unheard of levels, to compensate for the loss of income to treasury coffers.
Of one thing you can be sure however,,, MP's will still continue to fill in false claim forms. Foreign Aid would still be ringfenced. Europe would still receive it's billions from the UK every year (and everytime another EU country pleads poverty)

 

[masona]

Doesn't matter how heavy the tax is on cigaretttes, if the cigarettes is banned then what will they spend their money on because everything else you buy is taxable, even the tax duty percentage on petrol is higher than smoking.

:notsureifserious:

You know the tax on cigs is approx 80% right?

So if you spend the same amount of money on something else, the government would see 20% (vat) of that money at best.


(From ash.org.uk: The price of a pack of 20 premium brand cigarettes is currently around £5.10, of which £4.08 (80%) is tax.)

(so technically if the price is 1.02 before tax, to get to 5.10 you are looking at 500% tax).

Sorry a bit misleading from me, I was taking into an overall accounts of road tax, insurances tax, petrol tax, mot etc. however at the end of the day the government will grab back the shortfall of lost taxes elsewhere because more money would be spent if cigarettes wasn't available

Hmmm, sorry the numbers don't support you.

Ok, you cannot run a car without, fuels so when you add all the costs of tax duty of running the car, is it not higher than the cigarettes tax duty percentage?

The Petrol/Diesel tax percentage is approximately just under 70% but the rest of the taxes would add up on

Car vat,
Car insurance vat
Road tax duty
MOT vat
Servicing vat
tyres vat etc

The only way they would make the shortfall is to increase the % of tax on other items, unless that is what you are saying?

In theory but wouldn't the money be saved via the NHS for reducing the smoking related illness if cigarettes was banned?

 

[noseall]

but wouldn't the money be saved via the NHS for reducing the smoking related illness if cigarettes was banned?

Yep. About 2.5 times over.

 

[Whitespirit66]

but wouldn't the money be saved via the NHS for reducing the smoking related illness if cigarettes was banned?

Yep. About 2.5 times over.

If everything has to come down to money, have you forgotten that smokers die younger, so will save the state many years of pension payments. A pension that the smoker has paid for. Dying younger means they are far less likely to need several years in a nursing home, at £500+ p.w. Living to a greater age just puts off the expensive medical treatment until later. Unless you are unlucky enough to be on one of the geriatric wards where they leave you to die of dehydration and starvation.

Personal choice and freedoms also seem to have been forgotten. Let's live in a sterile, health and safety Stalinist state. Ban everything.

 

[joinerjohn]

but wouldn't the money be saved via the NHS for reducing the smoking related illness if cigarettes was banned?

Yep. About 2.5 times over.

Perhaps, but it would take a long time for smoking related illnesses to finish.
The next big illness that's going to require more and more money is Alzheimers / Dementia. The NHS just isn't set up to deal with these illnesses either. I know of one care home where two residents both fell and broke their hips around the same time. One resident suffered from dementia and the other was just elderly. The dementia sufferer was returned to the home within a week. The elderly resident spent 3 weeks in hospital recuperating. Hospitals excuse for the differing treatment? "Ahh well the care home is better at looking after their own residents."
(no reason given why the care home couldn't look after the elderly resident as well though)

Still I digress from the original post... In my mind, I don't think the government could afford to ban smoking entirely. Perhaps the real question should be, "How far should we let the government tell us what we can and can't do ?"


Any takers on that one? (basically the same question re-phrased), If we allowed them to ban smoking, what else should we allow them to ban? Drinking?,, Having more than 2 children? Eating junk food? What exactly would be next in the firing line?

 

[noseall]

You can not ignore the fact that one single smoking disease related, major operation can cost many times what a smoker spends on tobacco tax in a lifetime.

 

[joinerjohn]

You can not ignore the fact that one single smoking disease related, major operation can cost many times what a smoker spends on tobacco tax in a lifetime.

Equally, you can't ignore the fact that one single alcohol disease related operation , can cost many times what an alcoholic spends on drink duty and tax in a lifetime.

Equally, you can't ignore the fact that one single obesity related operation , can cost many times what an obese person spends on food tax in a lifetime.

Equally, you can't ignore the fact that one single operation on a young child, can cost many times what that child will spend on all taxes in it's lifetime.


So where do we draw the line at government interference?
Before you know it, alcohol will be banned, getting obese will be a criminal act, and having children will be strictly controlled.

Your choice.

 

[noseall]

You have hit the nail on the head JJ.

The people in power have known for decades that fatties, drinkers and smokers are sapping the countries' finances and are trying to tax them as such to claw back what these 'expensive' people are costing the country.

And it's not just medical either, lost earnings, sick pay etc, all takes its toll on a skint country.

 

[AronSearle]

People will believable whatever they want if it suits their prejudices.

In this very thread it was proven that more money is raised in taxes than the government spends on treating smokers and associated costs.

by several billion pounds.

But carry on with your prejudices, just don't come crying to me when the government starts picking on one of your lifestyle choices and punitively taxes it way beyond it's cost so that it can continue to **** money up the wall on local "initiatives", gold plated pensions, millions of middle managers, international aid, HS2, windmills and duck-houses.

 

[yaleguy3]

Maybe the whole smoking agenda is carefully 'stage managed'

ie Let smokers continue and pay lots of tax while they are 'healthy' and then every so often when the figures show conflict (ie revenue vs spend) lets throw out a few anti smoking campaigns to redress the balance for a while.

Let's not forget something here before we start talking about the healthcare cost of smokers.
Right now people the government have been happy to gain tax from due to smoking based revenue are BEING REFUSED operations unless they quit smoking.

I was a manager in healthcare and quiting smoking revolved around merely substituting tobacco with another nicotine receptor substitutes.

Champix has a particular reputation for causing the patient to commit suicide.

Hey maybe the cynic would actually question whether that was the plan?

But seriously people come of Heroin easier than tobacco. As mentioned in my first post on this thread most habitual smokers start as children so their brains are still developing so the nicotine thwarts the development of the brains usual receptor mechanisms. Take away the nicotine and the bodies own mood stabilising system simply is not there to take up the slack.

 

[masona]

Any takers on that one? (basically the same question re-phrased), If we allowed them to ban smoking, what else should we allow them to ban? Drinking?,, Having more than 2 children? Eating junk food? What exactly would be next in the firing line?

Smoking can be passed onto 2nd and 3rd hand smoke related illness whereas drinking and junk foods can't be passed on.

If anybody can show me a link that smoking is good for you then I would be happy to read it.

 

[AronSearle]

I can't believe anyone is mug enough to fall for the 3rd hand smoke scam.

But it seems that prejudice makes you leave your brain at the door.

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issue...a-further-example-of-prejudice-and-propaganda

 

[joinerjohn]

People here are missing the point. Smokers pay their whack in taxes and duty on tobacco products. If the government decided to ban tobacco, then we have the situation where everyone will pay, in the form of vastly increased taxation, to make up the shortfall in treasury coffers. Not to mention the whole industry which will shed jobs right left and centre (another burden on the state.)
Time for the non smokers to leave the smokers alone. Let us shorten our miserable lives with the evil weed (unless you want to pay the price for a total ban on tobacco products) (which I very, very much doubt)

 

[masona]

I can't believe anyone is mug enough to fall for the 3rd hand smoke scam.

But it seems that prejudice makes you leave your brain at the door.

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issue...r-example-of-prejudice-and-propaganda[/QUOTE]
You can argue all day because I can show you links explaining this so it's pointless but although there is a risk from 3rd hand smoke but what they don't know yet is how big the risk is as it's early days.
I quite happy to have normal civil manner debate on this issue but when you starts telling me to leave my brain at the door which is unnecessary therefore I'm staying out of this