Cigarette display ban considered

[Sima 0]

I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking.

 

 

Guess that makes me a better person than you

 

It'd be about a tenner a week. Nice of you to say so but some people can't afford to sacrifice around £40 a month just to seemingly breathe "cleaner" air.

 

like Chez said if the pros outweighed the cons it would be banned instantly. They don't and it never will be.

Sima, a tenner a week is less than the smokers I know spend on fags...

 

Yeah, well they average around £40 a week, split between the supposed 80% non-smokers gives you an idea how I came to that figure.

[Sima 0]

I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking.

 

 

Guess that makes me a better person than you

Easy to say when it isn't happening though.

come off it alex man, it's blatant that this was never going to happen overnight. Nobody has given me one good reason against the inevitable ban.

 

Personal freedoms are all well and good Chez, but surely a responsible government must, at some point, say enough is enough. The people are smoking themselves into early graves, smoking is not in anyway shape or form a good thing. The taxation of it does provide a lot of cash, but they'll find something else to tax so I don't see that being a problem.

 

The amount it costs, even before the social restrictions were put into practise, was so expensive it made NO sense to continue smoking. I'd understand if it had the same social connotations as drinking but it doesn't it makes you stink, it makes your respiratory system break down, it's a god awful thing and people are railing against it's demise because... they don't want to lose personal freedom? Do me a favour.

 

 

People seem to be saying they want to make their own choice, but alex, you HAVE made your own choice, you don't smoke. Now if everybody else made the right decision as well we'd not need this discussion.

 

Just so much ignorant bullshit I don't even know where to begin tbh

[The Fish 11106]

look I'm clearly in the minority here with regards to thinking a non-smoking Britain is a good idea and I'm not going to change anyones mind, nor will they change mine.

 

It strikes me that the arguments against are pretty selfish ones and the arguments for the ban are taken to be equally unjust.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

They only agreed to ban it imo because they couldn't do anything about the bootlegging, realised they were losing fortunes in tax anyway so thought they'd go the full hog and just tax you on something else, like 4 X 4's.

[Guest alex]

Fwiw I don't even think this will happen. The government are in a spot of bother and can do without losing any valuable income at present. This gives the impression that adding tax to tabs is to do with health concerns and not just to make money. Disagree with your points btw fish but I suppose we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Fish deserves to be pinned down, tied up, and covered in nicotine patches I reckon

Edited March 25, 2008 by Wacky Jnr

[Guest alex]

They only agreed to ban it imo because they couldn't do anything about the bootlegging, realised they were losing fortunes in tax anyway so thought they'd go the full hog and just tax you on something else, like 4 X 4's.

The daft thing is that the ridiculously high levels of taxation on tabs is what created the massive blackmarket trade in them in the UK.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

FWIW these type of threads aren't really worth discussing imo as we all know they'll just have your pants down some other way whether the subject is tabs or not.

 

 

If they want to start saving money on the NHS why not start giving heavier doses of methadone out, or would that be murder?

[Guest alex]

FWIW these type of threads aren't really worth discussing imo as we all know they'll just have your pants down some other way whether the subject is tabs or not.

 

 

If they want to start saving money on the NHS why not start giving heavier doses of methadone out, or would that be murder?

Morphine you mean? Harold Shipman got there first.

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking.

 

 

Guess that makes me a better person than you

Easy to say when it isn't happening though.

come off it alex man, it's blatant that this was never going to happen overnight. Nobody has given me one good reason against the inevitable ban.

 

Personal freedoms are all well and good Chez, but surely a responsible government must, at some point, say enough is enough. The people are smoking themselves into early graves, smoking is not in anyway shape or form a good thing. The taxation of it does provide a lot of cash, but they'll find something else to tax so I don't see that being a problem.

 

The amount it costs, even before the social restrictions were put into practise, was so expensive it made NO sense to continue smoking. I'd understand if it had the same social connotations as drinking but it doesn't it makes you stink, it makes your respiratory system break down, it's a god awful thing and people are railing against it's demise because... they don't want to lose personal freedom? Do me a favour.

 

 

People seem to be saying they want to make their own choice, but alex, you HAVE made your own choice, you don't smoke. Now if everybody else made the right decision as well we'd not need this discussion.

 

If smoking is no way a good thing then neither is drinking, or taking drugs as once you discount the individuals needs/desires then there is nothing of value to any 'harmful' pursuit. Discount the pleasure the smoker derives, then discount the pleasure the drinker derives, or the drug-take. What is left? Increased incidence of a truly early death in road accidents, fights and drug-related crimes. Great argument.

 

As for early graves, life expectancy is already slightly beyond what we can afford to pay for. When you die its basically dead expensive, the older you are when you die, the more expensive you are to the system, with sky high palliative care costs and increasingly expensive interventions leading to marginal survival benefits. If we all live to be 100, then the retirement age would need to be 80 for us to pay for it.

 

I've not had processed food for as long as i can remember, does that give me the right to preach who people who have that in their diet? As that stuff is a strong risk factor for many cancers and cardiovascular diseases too.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

They only agreed to ban it imo because they couldn't do anything about the bootlegging, realised they were losing fortunes in tax anyway so thought they'd go the full hog and just tax you on something else, like 4 X 4's.

The daft thing is that the ridiculously high levels of taxation on tabs is what created the massive blackmarket trade in them in the UK.

 

 

All goes back to greed

[The Fish 11106]

FWIW these type of threads aren't really worth discussing imo as we all know they'll just have your pants down some other way whether the subject is tabs or not.

 

 

If they want to start saving money on the NHS why not start giving heavier doses of methadone out, or would that be murder?

responsible governing if you ask me

 

should also increase the working age, or at least alter the way they judge a persons ability to work. People are living longer in good health... why shouldn't they work?

[Jusoda Kid 1]

FWIW these type of threads aren't really worth discussing imo as we all know they'll just have your pants down some other way whether the subject is tabs or not.

 

 

If they want to start saving money on the NHS why not start giving heavier doses of methadone out, or would that be murder?

Morphine you mean? Harold Shipman got there first.

 

 

No, methadone! You know the stuff they can't help doing the funky chicken to in a chemist near you, fucking weak scum, well 90% of them anyway.

[ChezGiven 0]

FWIW these type of threads aren't really worth discussing imo as we all know they'll just have your pants down some other way whether the subject is tabs or not.

 

 

If they want to start saving money on the NHS why not start giving heavier doses of methadone out, or would that be murder?

Morphine you mean? Harold Shipman got there first.

 

Everyday in the NHS there will be an old patient near the end of their life and a Dr could do something to prolong that life by maybe a few more weeks, even months if you are lucky and they dont.

 

No difference in my mind between letting people die over the course of a week and just hurrying it along. If one is ok morally then the other should be as its still essentially a choice being made (albeit a do nothing one).

[Guest alex]

Does prohibition work anyway?

[The Fish 11106]

don't need to ban it, just make it impossibly expensive.

[ChezGiven 0]

don't need to ban it, just make it impossibly expensive.

 

Cool, i start making my own and make a killing (sic).

[The Fish 11106]

[Fop 1]

fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them.

 

for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking.

 

The reason why the Government will never outright ban cigarettes is two fold.

 

1. the tax income - which is always a catch 22 for Governments.

 

2. that banned cigarettes would just provide an illegal market as for other currently illegal drugs - in fact the current level of taxation has already created a significant organised illegal market for smuggled cigarettes (not just people nipping over to France for a van load, but industrial scale), something that indirectly funnels cash into all manner of much more serious and repellent crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the reason I'm wary about the stuff that has been going on with cigarettes (despite the fact that I don't smoke, have never smoked, and frankly much prefer the current smoke free atmosphere), is that health fascists are just as dangerous as any other sort of fascist (and a lot of the anti-smoking campaign can be described by nothing as well as the term fascism - there is no "accepted" or "acceptable" opposing point of view).

 

 

I'm always for education and choice (and if necessary some prods like taxation) over sweeping arbitrary legislation. Especially as that legislation and the fixated pressure groups supporting it will always suffer from mission creep, which is perfectly illustrated looking at the UK ban and now things like this.

 

 

As can be seen by your logic for banning cigarettes, it's just as correct (and it IS correct from a certain narrow point of view) for all manner of other things. From alcohol, to crisps, to motorbikes, to paragliding.

[Park Life 71]

It's an easy target for lazy politicians who want to make it look like they're doing something...HOw about banning war?!! Let's talk about that...YOu don't see the papers carrying those stories..

[The Fish 11106]

fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them.

 

for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking.

 

The reason why the Government will never outright ban cigarettes is two fold.

 

1. the tax income - which is always a catch 22 for Governments.

 

2. that banned cigarettes would just provide an illegal market as for other currently illegal drugs - in fact the current level of taxation has already created a significant organised illegal market for smuggled cigarettes (not just people nipping over to France for a van load, but industrial scale), something that indirectly funnels cash into all manner of much more serious and repellent crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the reason I'm wary about the stuff that has been going on with cigarettes (despite the fact that I don't smoke, have never smoked, and frankly much prefer the current smoke free atmosphere), is that health fascists are just as dangerous as any other sort of fascist (and a lot of the anti-smoking campaign can be described by nothing as well as the term fascism - there is no "accepted" or "acceptable" opposing point of view).

 

 

I'm always for education and choice (and if necessary some prods like taxation) over sweeping arbitrary legislation. Especially as that legislation and the fixated pressure groups supporting it will always suffer from mission creep, which is perfectly illustrated looking at the UK ban and now things like this.

 

 

As can be seen by your logic for banning cigarettes, it's just as correct (and it IS correct from a certain narrow point of view) for all manner of other things. From alcohol, to crisps, to motorbikes, to paragliding.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said. Which bugs the crap out of me

 

I think that health-fascism in todays modern climes of staggeringly ill-health could be a good thing on the short term. Of course there needs to be limits and boundaries and the like.

As you put it, it's possible to subtly alter certain aspects of British culture through taxation or social restrictions as they've done with cigarettes. I'd be wary if they began genuinely impinging our rights, but I don't see prohibitive taxation and the social constraints as a genuine assault on personal freedoms.

 

Haven't they tried educating people to the risks of smoking? I don't think that worked.

[Sima 0]

Haven't they tried educating people to the risks of smoking? I don't think that worked.

 

Now I know you're taking the piss

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4444908.stm

 

They'd better ban decaf too.

[Guest alex]

don't need to ban it, just make it impossibly expensive.

What's the difference? You just create a black market either way.

[Fop 1]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. Which bugs the crap out of me

 

I think that health-fascism in todays modern climes of staggeringly ill-health could be a good thing on the short term. Of course there needs to be limits and boundaries and the like.

 

It won't be, like all fascism there may be short term "gains", but long term consequences. As I said mission creep (which clearly is already happening in this case) and the fact that for people like that enough is never enough, they just keep on pushing and pushing.

 

And I'm not sure we have staggering ill health either, everyone dies of something, you can't live forever no matter what. In the West we already live a hell of a lot longer than most (in other parts of the world or historically) and already we can't afford it. If everyone in this country aged 0-50 now lives to be 100, it's going to take some incredibly tough decisions for it to even vaguely work.

 

 

As you put it, it's possible to subtly alter certain aspects of British culture through taxation or social restrictions as they've done with cigarettes. I'd be wary if they began genuinely impinging our rights, but I don't see prohibitive taxation and the social constraints as a genuine assault on personal freedoms.

 

There's an awful lot of "it's good for you, we know best" taxes and bans that have been brought in recently or are being thought about being brought in.

 

Most of the taxes are pure shameless bandwagon jumping to simply raise revenue on the back of a trendy cause (the recent alcohol rises or the air tax rises for example are ones that will do nothing to address the issues they are supposedly aimed at), which in the long term actually undermines the issue they are supposed to "help".

 

Some of the bans I agree with (the junk food ban for kids - although the main reason I agree with it is that kids can't be expected to make educated choices, they are an idea audience to be brainwashed and genuinely have to be nannied), but those aimed at more general censorship I'm nothing like as comfortable about.

 

Hell, they've even tried to get historic films that show smoking reclassified to 18 (as well as the smoking edited out of them) - if that doesn't draw perfect parallels to other fascist causes I don't know what does.

 

 

 

Haven't they tried educating people to the risks of smoking? I don't think that worked.

 

The number of smokers has dropped massively from what it was, without a real root and branch sustained and concentrated education campaign - and education isn't just about AN issue, but about building up understanding general for people to be able to take it in context (the Embryology Bill shows just how clueless the UK public are - you don't need to be a biochemist to understand it, it's sup-GCSE level biology to have a simple overview understanding).

 

Draconian measures and scaremongering (both of which have been prevalent in the smoking campaign - secondary smoking is "bad" for you, but unless you work in it all day or are a child there's 1000 other things in everyday life that you should be more worried about) are the only measures likely to get a "quick fix", but then a quick fix is often the worst of all long term solutions (look at the 80's AIDs campaign and the backlash in sexual health it actually led to).

 

 

Plus at the end of the day I do think that if someone wants to smoke themselves to death it's their choice so long as they are not hurting anyone else (such as smoking in houses with young kids - although feeding your kids chicken nuggets may be almost as bad).

 

Where as for a lot of these people there is NO acceptable circumstance where anyone should be allowed to smoke, even a lung cancer expert smoking at the top of a mountain at 4am with no one else within 1 mile.

 

As I said there's LOADS of stuff that should go under reasoning like that, alcohol - both for direct health issues an indirect social, health and crime issues, most processed and fast food, motorbikes - even ridden ultra sensibly they are fucking lethal, skydiving/paragliding/handgliding, freeclimbing, long haul rock climbs and non-roped scrambles, ice-climbing definitely (you'd have to smoking 1000 a day to reduce your life expectancy as much with cigarettes ).

 

We're actually not so very far away (technologically or politically) from your ID card being checked at the supermarket against the "health database" and you being told that you've exceeded your bacon allocation for this week and you can't buy any more.