Yeah that seems to be the case now,annoyingly! They had just banned smoking in bars and restaurants when I went skiing the other week,was amusing to see my friends having to huddle outside in sub zero temperatures
It not the taxing of smokers I disagree with, although the majority of the cost of cigarettes now goes to the government, it's the fact that the revenue raised will not pay for the cost of the administation, like so many other bright ideas recently. If the want to raise more money from smokers raise the duty. We don't need any more civil servants.
My my my... ever the shrinking violet are we?
You really should step up to bat and address my comments directly and stop trying to play cute and passive aggressive.
Err... wrong.
We have the same laws where I'm at on any given day the number of smokers who stand outside the door of the pub/office buildings/train stations etc. creating a cloud of cigarette smoke is noticeable. Anyone who wants to go in or out of the pub or those other buildings/locations has to pass through that crap. So yes it does directly effect non smokers. Lucky for us here they've started relegating smokers to the alleyways and side streets because there was enough an issue that buildings were getting complaints and losing business because of the constant crowd of people standing around getting their nicotine fix.
Buildings mgmt. got tired of having to come around and sweep up all the cigarette butts from smokers who never seem to be able to either find the ashtray or get their cigarette butts into it.
Alcohol is taxed. Given that the UK has a massive binge drinking problem that's become part of it's culture then hopefully at some point it's going to be given some consideration. I'm willing to bet the same lot that chain smokes and binge drinks is also the same lot that pisses and moans about how inadequate the public health system is. Gee... ever wonder why it's under such a heavy load?
Again - have you actually thought your arguments through? It sure doesn't sound like it. Especially if you live in a country that has nationalized medicine. Did you ever consider how the number of people who has smoking related diseases and conditions are a massive burden on the public health system?
Sure why not. I'm all for taxing the daylights out of fat, binge drinking smokers.
Err... smoking has a very long and documented history of bringing a whole list of diseases. You're trying to paint it as if everyone was an 'occasional' smoker... well you know that's not true.. otherwise the cigarette companies wouldn't be as profitable as they'd been for decades.
That's fine if you can't figure out why sucking superheated gases into your lungs would be a bad idea. But that doesn't me I should have to stand around and smell your smoke... deal with your litter or support the massive strain your lot puts on a public health care system.
But that's not really the point is it?
Is that the same professor that taught you how to think out your stance in an argument or spell inadequacy?
I'm all in favour of it, anything that makes it harder for people to smoke themselves to death is a good thing in my book. The reason this has been proposed is not to raise money for the NHS, because it wont, £10 will barely cover the administration and material costs, rather it is being set up so people who smoke but want to quit (so every smoker with an IQ over 70) can forego getting the license and effectively cut themselves off. Of course they could get other people to buy them in their place, but it would still be more difficult and more people would be successful in their bid to quit smoking - everyone wins, except the scum who work for tobacco companies.
They underestimate the level of adiction of the average smoker. The ciggy peddling crimminal will be rubbing his hand with anticipation right now. Anyone got a Transit van?
Though on topic, I think the license is a good idea, it should actually be a lot more than £10 and I don't doubt it'll go up in future.
Someone mentioned the ban including train stations. What would be really nice is if the train station staff didn't just walk on by those people with the cheek to STILL be smoking on the platforms. More and more people are lighting up while waiting for a train and everyone turns a blind eye
The real problem isnt the binge drinking over the course of the week, to be a binge drinker you need to drink over 4 units a night! Come on thats only 2 cans of cider, its not a great amount. The biggest problem this country has is a lot of people dont drink during the week then have a blow out during the weekend. We generally then drink a weeks worth of alcohol in a single night, thats were the problem starts. Its the mindset of the country, where as (supposedly) the rest of Europe drink in moderation over the course of the week. The weekend is seen as a time to relax and have a good time, and the way its done is to get the rounds in down the pub. Unless your a student of course then every night is the weekend
I wouldnt know how to combat the problem, as its always seems to have been part of our culture. Its not new, ive seen a program stating we've been piss heads for a few hundred years!
And to the smoking license, i dont know were i stand. I know a lot of smokers and it doesnt really bother me, they wanna smoke its fair enough. But i can understand the views of others esp Lou/Su who has Asthma, i guessing, were smoking causes a lot of problems for her.
Hmm... I think if one actually reads that article is shows that the conclusion the Dutch researchers arrived at eg. fat smokers put less strain on the health system ... is based on a very narrow look into the costs of public health.
God I try and try. How I try!! *lights another ciggie*
My ex-father-in-law used to say the same as Agutro there. If you're going to ban it, then you might as well just make it illegal, but what about booze? *takes a long pull* Very bad for you, causes innumerable problems, costs millions in money every year cos of accidents, injuries, lost time etc.
*takes another loooong pull*
Ciggies (y'know, I've been in the US so long I can't say the f-word anymore!) are a legal drug. And they are massively addictive, so taxes just won't stop people. Non-smokers have no idea about the power of that addiction *takes a pull* and the hold it has over you.
So, either make it illegal or leave it alone. *stubs out ciggie and reaches for fresh pack*
Tobacco is a killer and any reduction in use in society is a good thing, but this whole permit issue is just creepy, but is no surprise coming from the UK gouverment which is still hot on the idea of National Identity cards and there is already 1 CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK.
If smokers want to kill themselves then that is their choice, there should be no permit unless there is also a £10 permit to buy alcohol.
Compared to 50 years ago when the majority of the population smoked, tobacco usage today is vastly down to what it was and as it continues to become something which is less and less socially acceptable so will usage decline.
No reason to introduce yet another gouverment database, which will probably cost the tax payer far more than it saves.
To add also, what would REALLY work is a tightening of the license laws on where tobacco can be sold.. for example ending sales of tabacco in News Agents, petrol stations etc
The amount of fuss that would be made by buisness associations would be immense though, as they make a lot of money out of damaging peoples health.
Restricting where tobacco can be sold goes a long way to reducing futher the perception of social aceptability, instead of some feeble £10 permit.
How will this work for a visitor or someone passing through? Where will the money go from this; into a general fund, educational programs, or for something that the general public wont benefit from?
I am a smoker who has tried to quit and I am trying to again so at the moment I am with the smokers that we more than pay our fair share of taxes. It would be nice if I wasn't addicted to the nicotine but I am and that is something I have to kick. That being said if all the smokers stopped smoking today what would the non smokers have to pay in taxes to make up for the loss of revenue? The former smokers would probabably be paying less in taxes than the non smokers.
As for this keeping underage smokers from smoking it wont work anymore than having an age limit for drinking keeps minors from drinking. When my friends and I were under age we had no problem obtaining beer for the weekend.
Oh well I'm sure that this will just fall on def ears anyway.
I'm sure if this whole issue actually went anywhere they would figure that out. Not that they'd do a good job of it. Given the way many governments handle anything to do with taxation that is.
Fair enough. Good luck on quitting. Nice to see someone that is honest about it. Oddly enough I have many friends who have been into heavy use of other substances that are far worse than smoking. Most of them have eventually left that sort of thing for good. Oddly enough (or not so) not a single one of them has been able to quit smoking. It's crazy when you see someone that can drop a serious and expensive gear habit... but can't manage to quit smoking. I don't doubt for one second that stopping smoking is hard.
Yeah but if you use that logic it really leads you nowhere fast. Apply that same logic to hard drugs or to personally owned firearms or just about any other issue and it seems more like an absurd excuse or rationalization. I don't doubt that cigarettes and tobacco taxes do generate a fair bit of revenue at the moment.
At the moment where does that revenue go to?
A special designation? Into the general coffers? Anyone know?
I can largely agree with that. I'm not so old as to not remember how easy it was to score just about anything at the age of 12 to be honest. No doubt kids are faster and slicker and more hip than we were 20 years ago. I think the whole point is though to make it as problematic for youngsters to take up smoking - make it problematic financially for their parents - and increase the amount of education the young kids receive about just how bad smoking is.
Do you think better education will work? Kids know from an early age taking harder drugs is far from healthy and is very illegal but how many people do you know that, have dabbled/are recreational/are raging drug fiends? People try it out of curiousity, to fit in, etc etc but unlike the others nicotine is legal and more addictive than many class A drugs.
I do agree with you that better edcational could help but how much, i dunno? With all the new smoking laws that have come in then maybe the chance of children taking up smoking may drop as its not absolutely everywere now
I do think education works to a certain extent. I'm not saying it's ever going to be the complete answer in and of itself. But to not consider it as part of an integral system to teach kids there are healthier choice than smoking... would be a bit daft.
Obviously people experiment and people do give into pure pressure. But again... if someone is educated then I'd like to think their chances of giving into peer pressure are far less than those who haven't any clue.
As always I don't think there is one single answer. Like anything it's got to be a multiple approach system to teach kids the risks of smoking. Obviously that doesn't guarantee that you no one smokes... but I think it helps.