Good riddance tobacco!

[AronSearle]

Whilst the economic benefits will weigh in favour of a non smoking nation by only £1.64 billion (revenue of tobacco £12.1b v's cost to society £13.74b)

This statistic has been proved to be nonsense multiple times.

But anti smokers are going to believe what they want to be true regardless.






--

But for those new to this....

About 6 billion of that 13 billion is "lost productivity", that's people getting sick or dying, and so no longer paying tax (the fact they will also no longer be drawing a pension, or costing money for old age care (A much bigger financial drain) is completely ignored in this cost analysis).

Nice to know that dying is considered a cost to the state, personally I think dying should be banned.

Another 2.5 billion or so was from fag breaks.

The NHS itself put's the cost to treatment at around 3 billion, and other actual costs are further 400 million or so from cleaning up litter, and another few hundred million from fire damage (which any idiot can tell you is paid for by insurance companies/owner, not the government).

According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577636/Healthy-people-place-biggest-burden-on-state.html


You want to argue against it on health grounds, sure go ahead, but financially you are onto a looser, and as to banning it, just remember America tried prohibition, I am sure there are many people that would just love you to ban it!

How do I get in my pub with the smokers in the doorway, not my choice?

There is absolutely no way that even if you walked in/out the door 10 times, that just passing them would present a health risk.

You basically don't like it, because it annoys you.

That's fine, and I encourage you to seek it being banned for that reason.

As long as you don't mind me seeking to ban things you do, cus they annoy me.

Whoops, pressed quote instead of edit.

 

[masona]

How do I get in my pub with the smokers in the doorway, not my choice?

There is absolutely no way that even if you walked in/out the door 10 times, that just passing them would present a health risk.

You basically don't like it, because it annoys you.

That's fine, and I encourage you to seek it being banned for that reason.

As long as you don't mind me seeking to ban things you do, cus they annoy me.

Let make this clear, I for one do not want to see smoking banned, can you not see where I'm coming from? Example, last night there were a few smokers just outside the doorway and one was inside smoking in the foyer which is a banned area now I don't say anything because of their attitude, now tell me is it right for me to walk though the smokey area whereas they could've shown a bit of respect to non-smokers by moving along a bit? My clothes stink of cigarette and I do have have smokers friends but they show a bit a respect by making sure smoke are not near the non-smoker, if the smokers show a bit of respect you're be surprised how many non-smoker will not want a smoking banned! If the smokers don't show any respect for others then it's understandable why they want it banned

 

[peaps2]

Whilst the economic benefits will weigh in favour of a non smoking nation by only £1.64 billion (revenue of tobacco £12.1b v's cost to society £13.74b)

This statistic has been proved to be nonsense multiple times.

But anti smokers are going to believe what they want to be true regardless.






--

But for those new to this....

About 6 billion of that 13 billion is "lost productivity", that's people getting sick or dying, and so no longer paying tax (the fact they will also no longer be drawing a pension, or costing money for old age care (A much bigger financial drain) is completely ignored in this cost analysis).

Nice to know that dying is considered a cost to the state, personally I think dying should be banned.

Another 2.5 billion or so was from fag breaks.

The NHS itself put's the cost to treatment at around 3 billion, and other actual costs are further 400 million or so from cleaning up litter, and another few hundred million from fire damage (which any idiot can tell you is paid for by insurance companies/owner, not the government).

According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577636/Healthy-people-place-biggest-burden-on-state.html


You want to argue against it on health grounds, sure go ahead, but financially you are onto a looser, and as to banning it, just remember America tried prohibition, I am sure there are many people that would just love you to ban it!

How do I get in my pub with the smokers in the doorway, not my choice?

There is absolutely no way that even if you walked in/out the door 10 times, that just passing them would present a health risk.

You basically don't like it, because it annoys you.

That's fine, and I encourage you to seek it being banned for that reason.

As long as you don't mind me seeking to ban things you do, cus they annoy me.

Whoops, pressed quote instead of edit.

desperate

 

[noseall]

Let me ask a question.

For those of you who have childeren or a youngster you care for, do you WANT them to smoke...yes or no.

The question is not to be interpreted as 'they can make up their own minds'...or 'i hope they have the sense' etc.

Do you pro-smokers want to see your child addicted to fags...yes or no.

 

[Micilin]

From an economic point of view is it not better to have more people smoking?

Better to treat the related illness and have people dying younger but harvest the tax revenue ; than collect no revenue and look after an older population with other age related conditions plus state pension.

As for heroin,economically it would be better to have legal suppliers, at a pound a hit for clean product , paying tax ; than all the crime related to the illegal trade that we have to pay for.


I don't use either, but from a UK plc point of view is there an economic argument against the above?

 

[EB1caneyeB]

I don't think anyone would actually want their kids to smoke. And we would all rather they drink sensibly......pfffffff. But this aint Disneyland......is it ?

 

[AronSearle]

Do you pro-smokers want to see your child addicted to fags...yes or no.

No, I want to see it banned or more highly restricted and taxed because that won't lead to gang crime, dangerous counterfeits, and will make our kids safer

According to the British Crime Survey 2005/2006 it is estimated that 34.9% of 16 to 59 year olds have used one or moreillicit drugs in their lifetime, 10.5% used one or more illicit drugs in the last year, and 6.3% in the last month.

"http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9878022.Illegal_tobacco__sold_to_children__in_East_Sussex/"

“This is most probably fake Chinese tobacco full of God knows what, rat poo, sawdust. He is selling this to kids.”

http://www.thenationalstudent.com/F...ootleg_vodka_putting_your_life_in_danger.html

Counterfeit alcohol recently seized in Derby contained seven times the permitted levels of cadmium, which can cause kidney damage, and six times the permitted levels of lead, which can harm the nervous and reproductive systems.

Also discovered in Derby was fake Drop Vodka which contained isopropyl alcohol - which is normally used as a cleaning fluid - and acetone, which is nail polish remover.

A chemical that is commonly found in bootleg alcohol is Methanol, or wood alcohol, which is used in anti-freeze. Methanol has a very similar odour to drinkable alcohol so is hard to detect, but it can be highly dangerous even when drunk small quantities.

Methanol is purple so it is mixed with bleach to make it clear and it is usually found in fake vodka.

If drunk, it can leave you blind and with kidney damage and if a large amount is drunk it can even cause death."

 

[noseall]

Why is it that when pro-smokers are presented with the economic and health impacts of their disgusting habit, they always, turn to alcohol and street drugs to counter their argument instead of addressing the issue.

We don't want the next generation to smoke, neither do doctors or those with the wisdom to make fags history.

Not one single pro-smoker has presented a decent argument other than "stop telling us what to do or i'll throw me dummy out of the pram".

Pathetic.

 

[snico]

Why is it that when pro-smokers are presented with the economic and health impacts of their disgusting habit, they always, turn to alcohol and street drugs to counter their argument instead of addressing the issue.

We don't want the next generation to smoke, neither do doctors or those with the wisdom to make fags history.

Not one single pro-smoker has presented a decent argument other than "stop telling us what to do or i'll throw me dummy out of the pram".

Pathetic.

Pathetic argument really!

Its up to the individual if they want to smoke or not. There is no issue to address with smokers, they want to smoke...let them. The money made from smokers, far exceeds the money used to treat them and to society. Thats why the government would not even consider an outright ban on smoking.

Most none smokers will like a drink now and again....lets see what their reactions would be if we talked about banning alcohol...it costs the NHS and society more money and would effect me more than smoking, so why should we not ban it?

 

[JohnD]

Not one single pro-smoker has presented a decent argument other than "stop telling us what to do or i'll throw me dummy out of the pram".

Pathetic.

Not a problem.

They'll be gone before us.

 

[joe-90]

The freedom of choice is a false argument as tobacco is highly addictive - and thus free will goes out of the window.

Heroin is less deadly so let's legalise it.

 

[masona]

Most none smokers will like a drink now and again....lets see what their reactions would be if we talked about banning alcohol...it costs the NHS and society more money and would effect me more than smoking, so why should we not ban it?

As Noseall pointed out,

Drinking in moderation is actually beneficial.

Drink also has a nutritional value.

Smoking in any quantity is utterly pointless.

Moderate drinking can actually help you live longer

Which is more healthy, having a glass a wine or fags?

I think the problem is that the smokers know deep down it's not healthy or good for you but tend to block it out or turn a blind eye because it's a drugs habit which is difficult to break away from.

There're plenty of study showing moderate drinkers outlive teetotalers

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I think smoking should be allowed. It's like a form of natural selection. If someone is dumb enuff to smoke, let them. They pay a fortune in tax and reduce their likelyhood of collecting a pension. Can't see the problem.

 

[securespark]

Not one single pro-smoker has presented a decent argument other than "stop telling us what to do or i'll throw me dummy out of the pram".

Pathetic.

Not a problem.

They'll be gone before us.

Not as a group, they won't.

 

[calorific]

Maybe the secret is to make smoking safe