E
EddieM
"we" should ban eating food and drinking, that's absolutely packed with chemicals.
Actually we should just ban chemicals.
Actually we should just ban chemicals.
Good riddance tobacco!
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
Its a 64 page document, and going by your post time you apparently read it, and replied to my post in under 10 minutes
Like I said, you will believe what you want to, and ignore anything that you don't like.
And after we have changed human nature, we can genetically engineer pigs to fly.
Plenty of reasons given, but you are trying to frame a very narrow argument and simply ignore what you want, then act like a kid throwing toys at people when they won't play in your sand pit.
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
....But none credible, sensible or otherwise.
This may well have been mentioned already but I can't be bothered to read the whole thread so I apologise if that is the case and noseall's figures are taken to be accurate.
So for arguments sake tobacco is withdrawn from sale. No more income of £12.1B per annum.
Yet people are still going to suffer the after-effects and require treatment for say the next 20 years or so. This at a cost of £13.74B per annum (diminishing presumably) yet with no income from the sale of tobacco.
So the cost of withdrawing it from sale is overall a bill of £200B or so in the short term.
So for arguments sake tobacco is withdrawn from sale. No more income of £12.1B per annum.
Yet people are still going to suffer the after-effects and require treatment for say the next 20 years or so. This at a cost of £13.74B per annum (diminishing presumably) yet with no income from the sale of tobacco.
So the cost of withdrawing it from sale is overall a bill of £200B or so in the short term.
There is no economic model shown in ANY country that the sale of tobacco v's its withdrawal is financially beneficial in favour of keeping tobacco.
Aron Surly is deluded.
Aron Surly is deluded.
E
EddieM
i'm not disputing the figures, but assuming you're correct, why is it not banned already?
It's been claimed on this thread that no convincing arguement has been said for allowing smokers to smoke.
As far as I can see nor have any anti-smoking fans produced anything convincing either. It's one of those contentious subjects.
But .. a growing number of people are anti-smoking and they will win in the end.
Their case seems to be based on the fact that it is bad for you and an obnoxious habit.
Okay but I say perish the day when that applies to everything anyone can think of that is bad for you ... whether it be driving a car, lying on a sunbed in a salon and inviting cancer ... or exorbitantly priced alcohol to curb abuse and a whole host of other things the goverment decide are to become undesirable and phased out.
As far as I can see nor have any anti-smoking fans produced anything convincing either. It's one of those contentious subjects.
But .. a growing number of people are anti-smoking and they will win in the end.
Their case seems to be based on the fact that it is bad for you and an obnoxious habit.
Okay but I say perish the day when that applies to everything anyone can think of that is bad for you ... whether it be driving a car, lying on a sunbed in a salon and inviting cancer ... or exorbitantly priced alcohol to curb abuse and a whole host of other things the goverment decide are to become undesirable and phased out.
Where will the money go to then?
J
joinerjohn
So can you explain why the anti smoking brigade will win ?
What next? Anti alcohol, anti fat food, anti obesity, anti this, that and the other.
Bloody anti social lot if you ask me.
I'm a smoker, I'm just accepting that's the way it will end with the goverment encouraged to pass more legislation by the holier than thou brigade.
I'm just glad I don't drive, or drink and aren't fat, as yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Who will be next.
I'm just glad I don't drive, or drink and aren't fat, as yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Who will be next.
The figures are technically correct, but highly misleading and twisted in their presentation, as they count all costs, including those to the individual, and count them all as costs to the state, vs revenue (I.E if you lose a 20k job because you smoke, that 20k is presented as a loss to the state). And they count none of the savings, such as smokers drawing less pension and old age care, they are in fact rubbish in the way they are presented.
http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/defa...s/The Wages of Sin Taxes CJ Snowdon ASI_0.pdf
It matters because these items are being taxed at disproportionate rates, because they can be, and all the same tactics used to do this are already being pointed at food and alcahol.
We will ALL be paying more and more tax on everyday items because of people like noseall being fooled by dodgy statistics and prod-nosery righteousness.
Still playing in the sand pit?
Sponsored Links