Is it time to ban cigarettes/tobacco?

[Alarm]

Alarm, do keep up dear,, Since scientists realised the world isn't going to get warmer, they re-names it "Climate Change".

Dear Joiner, Sir.

I was trying to point out the cold feeling people on drugs were blaming the wrong items. As you correctly mention "Climate change".

So we can all rest assured if the change gets more climatically ( is that rude) changeable the drugs will increase?

 

[darrington]

Aaron, your chasing a lost cause here. Peaps really wants to save "Bertie the smoking Beagle"

Besides He'll try to blind you with "Statistics" (which can be made to show , whatever the person publishing those statistics wants).
At the end of the day, the point about lost productivity, is quite useless, unless the data contained in the statistics can quantify the cost of production.(and what they are producing) For all we know, 10,000 of the people who died and lost productivity, could have been cleaners on the minimum wage. A thousand of them may have been aero engineers on £20 an hour. A hundred of them could have been barristers on £500 an hour.
So without the data to quantify the statement "Lost Productivity" the statistics are essentially useless.

How do you work that out? I'm a smoker

In the Plastering Forum, (Topic: Condensation Damp, Bubbling- Re-Plaster or just Skim? Pic), Peaps says he has Aspergillus, a potentially serious lung condition caused by a mould/spores from the old walls. He also says he has to wear a mask at home, and is also moving house soon, because of this condition, yet on here he says he's a SMOKER.

 

[HERTS P&D]

I was working for a member of the government last year and we got onto talking about smoking.

He told me that if the government wanted to ban smoking then they would put £25 tax on a pack of cigarettes, he said people would stop smoking over night. But the tax they get from cigarettes is huge, let alone not paying for peoples pension, as there not normally alive by then.

It gives you food for thought.

Andy

 

[joe-90]

He was talking bolex - tobacco is a net drain on society.
The reason they don't tax them too high is that they would be smuggled ever more from Europe, and smokers vote.

 

[Diane2]

couldnt the same be said of pies.....or alcohol?

 

[Corgigrouch]

I was thinking why were they even invented in the first place! cigars have no health benefit whatsoever, so why did it became so popular that people actually became addicted to i, how i wonder why people wanted to patronize something that could kill them!

Not too many years ago, smoking was actively encouraged as a cure for some ailments....Of course this is before we discovered what cancer was... Similarly Asbestos was the new wonder material of the modern age.. but that too was before we knew otherwise..

I predict that the next health scare will be games consoles which will cause ailments of the thumb.... And without your thumbs, you are kippered

 

[Corgigrouch]

Sadly I also feel that in the future we will all live 'till 150 year of age but will die of boredom....

 

[AronSearle]

I was working for a member of the government last year and we got onto talking about smoking.

He told me that if the government wanted to ban smoking then they would put £25 tax on a pack of cigarettes, he said people would stop smoking over night. But the tax they get from cigarettes is huge, let alone not paying for peoples pension, as there not normally alive by then.

It gives you food for thought.

Andy

No, that's not how you do it.

You squeeze through any potential cost from smokers you can think of, no matter how spurious, flimsy and immoral it is, but ignore any savings.

The facts are as they are, if they can't be twisted how else could people like Joe and various busy bodies feel smug superiority.

Because that's what this is about, busy bodies feeling good about meddling "for the childreeen", it's not about money, if it was the government would be advertising smoking.

 

[yaleguy3]

Smoking is child abuse.

No adult would knowingly and willingly start smoking once past 18yrs old if they weren't smoking already because they would know the dangers.

However by 18 it's usually too late because as children they have already started smoking. The reason peer pressure.
It should be illegal for cigarettes and tobacco being available for minors to access. This means more monitoring of shops . entrapment prosecutions for smugglers and a legal responsibility for all adults to keep tobacco locked away at home and innaccessible to children and minors. Using a safe if necessary.

 

[AronSearle]

Smoking is child abuse.

 

[EddieM]

All drugs should be listed like illegal drugs are. Alcohol and tobacco should be in the 'A' list.

When all things are taken into account - tobacco costs us all big money.

How would you categorize a drug then. Eg, where would you place caffeine? Chocolate? Codiene? Aspartame ?

 

[masona]

I was working for a member of the government last year and we got onto talking about smoking.

He told me that if the government wanted to ban smoking then they would put £25 tax on a pack of cigarettes, he said people would stop smoking over night. But the tax they get from cigarettes is huge, let alone not paying for peoples pension, as there not normally alive by then.

It gives you food for thought.

Andy

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.

 

[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).

 

[peaps]

Aaron, your chasing a lost cause here. Peaps really wants to save "Bertie the smoking Beagle"

Besides He'll try to blind you with "Statistics" (which can be made to show , whatever the person publishing those statistics wants).
At the end of the day, the point about lost productivity, is quite useless, unless the data contained in the statistics can quantify the cost of production.(and what they are producing) For all we know, 10,000 of the people who died and lost productivity, could have been cleaners on the minimum wage. A thousand of them may have been aero engineers on £20 an hour. A hundred of them could have been barristers on £500 an hour.
So without the data to quantify the statement "Lost Productivity" the statistics are essentially useless.

How do you work that out? I'm a smoker

In the Plastering Forum, (Topic: Condensation Damp, Bubbling- Re-Plaster or just Skim? Pic), Peaps says he has Aspergillus, a potentially serious lung condition caused by a mould/spores from the old walls. He also says he has to wear a mask at home, and is also moving house soon, because of this condition, yet on here he says he's a SMOKER.

I also suffer for asthma.

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA)

This is a condition, which produces an allergy to the spores of the Aspergillus moulds. It is quite common in asthmatics; up to 5% of adult asthmatics might get this at some time during their lives. ABPA is also common in cystic fibrosis patients, as they reach adolescence and adulthood. The symptoms are similar to those of asthma: intermittent episodes of feeling unwell, coughing and wheezing. Some patients cough up brown-coloured plugs of mucus. The diagnosis can be made by X-ray or by sputum, skin and blood tests. In the long term ABPA can lead to permanent lung damage (fibrosis) if untreated.

The treatment is with steroids by aerosol or mouth (prednisolone), especially during attacks. Itraconazole (an oral antifungal drug) is useful in reducing the amount of steroids required in those needing medium or high doses. This is beneficial as steroids have side-effects like thinning of the bones (osteoporosis) and skin and weight gain, especially when used for a long time. It is not known whether patients with ABPA not on steroids (or on low doses) benefit in some way.

It's an allergy. And I'm an occasional smoker, stopped for 15 years and started two years ago when I stopped drinking booze.

What's your point?

 

[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