cloudybay Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 One of the more contentious arguments against smoking, designed to make smokers feel guilty about their habit, is the suggestion that they are placing an unnecessary financial burden on the rest of society because of the cost of treating 'smoking-related' diseases. In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.) As a smoker, I welcome the ban as I don't see why non smokers should have to breathe smoke in Pubs and Clubs. However, perhaps the ban should be total?? If the ban was extended to outlaw the sale and use of tobacco then income tax would have to be increased by at least 5p in the pound. The pension age, already increased to 68 by our caring Labour Government would have to be increased again because we will live far longer, wine and all alcohol will be taxed even more as it makes us all drunk, and as for vegetables, well, they will still vote Labour. Just don't throw the bottles in your own bin because, guess what?? Saving the planet is yet another excuse to pick our pockets. Tony Blair's Britain..............a camera on every corner, a Lord for every million and a dead soldier for every weapon of mass destruction. Well done Tony ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 One of the more contentious arguments against smoking, designed to make smokers feel guilty about their habit, is the suggestion that they are placing an unnecessary financial burden on the rest of society because of the cost of treating 'smoking-related' diseases. In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.) As a smoker, I welcome the ban as I don't see why non smokers should have to breathe smoke in Pubs and Clubs. However, perhaps the ban should be total?? If the ban was extended to outlaw the sale and use of tobacco then income tax would have to be increased by at least 5p in the pound. The pension age, already increased to 68 by our caring Labour Government would have to be increased again because we will live far longer, wine and all alcohol will be taxed even more as it makes us all drunk, and as for vegetables, well, they will still vote Labour. Just don't throw the bottles in your own bin because, guess what?? Saving the planet is yet another excuse to pick our pockets. Tony Blair's Britain..............a camera on every corner, a Lord for every million and a dead soldier for every weapon of mass destruction. Well done Tony ! Sorry cloudy, I have to disagree. Even as someone who likes to have a cigarette after a few beers or so, we all know that it's not good for you in any way shape or form. A couple of beers can be; a few glasses of wine can be; a good steak with a Bearnaise (can't do accents) can be, but smoking causes hassle, end of story. I look forward to a society that can still be as drunk and hedonistic, but maybe not as smelly ......... That said, pass me a cigar ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudybay Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Sorry cloudy, I have to disagree. Even as someone who likes to have a cigarette after a few beers or so, we all know that it's not good for you in any way shape or form. A couple of beers can be; a few glasses of wine can be; a good steak with a Bearnaise (can't do accents) can be, but smoking causes hassle, end of story. I look forward to a society that can still be as drunk and hedonistic, but maybe not as smelly ......... That said, pass me a cigar ....... What part of my post don't you agree with?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 What part of my post don't you agree with?? The fact that smokers contribute so much to the NHS. If we (and I'm being presumptive) didn't smoke, there'd be a damn sight less of a strain on resources. I'm not the healthiest being on the planet, but if we become a healthier country as a result of the public ban, so much the better. Given the poor state of the NHS as it is, surely it's better to ensure we don't need it as much? Prevention is better than the cure? I don't want to be the sterotypical 'reformed smoker' (partly because I'm not), but I've always had a problem with the "I've paid more than you" argument. It kills, whichever way, which is why I don't have a smoke in my house, and if I'm out, I'll go outside. Nobody else gets my gubbins then. It was my stupid fault for starting (though I do still enjoy a quality cigar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Passive smoking is an invention to get more money out of insurance companies when loved ones die due to the fumes in the air, all around us and above us. Yes, that is right. Only the purchasers of cigarettes are permitted to get cancer from the smoke. IMO anyone claiming to have contracted cancer through passive smoking should be sued for misappropriation of smokers property. We need to make an example of these parasites and teach them that if they want lung cancer then they need to pay for it like everyone else. Anyone fancy joining me in a class action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey10 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 ive never heard, apart from roy castle, of anyone getting cancer from passive smoking. does anyone else have an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky B Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I've said it before ( ) but if everyone gave up smoking overnight, I (and some of my colleagues) may well have very little work to do a few years down the line!!! Then they'll start thinking of 'streamlining' the service.... That said, I loathe smoking with a passion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 ive never heard, apart from roy castle, of anyone getting cancer from passive smoking. does anyone else have an example? It's impossible to prove and unethical to set up the sort of study which could prove it. Logically though it's pretty simple to deduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 ive never heard, apart from roy castle, of anyone getting cancer from passive smoking. does anyone else have an example? One bar person a week http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynoDon Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.