The Stop Smoking Megathread [ including Champix]

[lubylou12]

Hello there, you know I understand what you are saying, and I have been there.

I also paid money for hypnotherapist and I thought ok, I did my part you do the rest in other words, no cravings - from that moment I should have been a nonsmoker. I was angry too when it did not work and blamed everybody and was a little happy, because I had an excuse to smoke again.

After that it took some time before I started taking Champix. I think you like the idea of being an ex-smoker, but are you sure you are ready to be one? Because this is hard work and cravings every day for a long time.

I might be wrong of course and I hope I am.

So good luck lubylou

 

yes im deffo ready to be a non smoker, i would not be trying other wise if you look back i quid on champix twice before for about 14 weeks each time and didnt crave at all after the first week

i would nto waste my money, im just wondering if to give champix one last go but im very reluctant to give up on the hypnosis as something is working somewhere, i ciggie out of about 100 shows it works, but not 100 percent for me, im gona call her monday i think

[jonjo2]

Too much entertainment and conversation online these days. Who wants to sit in a pub?

 

don,t u mean resturant

[iansheff]

The cost of service

 

 

average UK salary £25000

working days per year 230 (standard year minus weekends and holidays)

salary per day = 25000 / 230 = £110 (approx)

 

Cost per hour (assume 8 hour day) 110 / 8 = £13.75

 

if you only paid the minimum wage then its £6.00 (approx) per hour

 

Add on to this business rates, tax, insurance, and other overheads

and you can quite easily have a cost of £20 to £30 per hour per employee

 

The above figures can be manipulated to suit a particular situation

but I'm sure you understand the general priciple

 

So whatever job you do, your weekly wage or yearly salary has to be funded by

someone or the business goes bust, that's the capalist system.

 

Everyone who works in the public sector is essenially funded by the private sector

through the taxation system

State benefits and state pensions are essenially funded by the private sector

 

Private sector pensions are funded by the private sector

 

 

So if your favourite restaurant is paying all the proper wages/ salaries/ and overheads

and delivering a reasonable quality of service then there's nothing to complain about,

on the other hand if your favourite restaurant has staff who are not well turned-out,

cannot speak English then HMRC should be informed.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/index.htm

 

 

 

You should also rememeber 20% of the bill in your favourite restaurant is VAT

 

People in the public sector also pay tax.

[Cyclone]

[/b]

 

I'll explain my reasons:

 

Since the Smoking Ban was applied, I have noticed that there are less people visiting pubs. That is not an opinion, it is a fact - I work in the industry.

You may be correct, but have you also noticed that since the smoking ban the amount of piracy of the horn of Africa has risen steeply. That's a fact as well.

Maybe you can see my point, correlation is not the same as causation.

 

Therefore, many pubs are shutting down, again - fact. We must have all seen examples of this around Sheffield.

This was happening before the smoking ban actually wasn't it.

 

The remaining pubs (that have seen a severe drop in profits) have to do something to remain afloat. The food prices have not risen dramatically.... but the price of drinks has.

A self defeating tactic of course, expensive drinks drive away drinkers, the pub stays empty and profits drop.

 

And that is why I believe the Smoking Ban is related to the expensive price of wine.

 

Maybe you could find out the price of wine in that particular venue before the smoking ban, then I might concede that it's related. As it stands you've offered nothing that actually links the two facts.

[Cyclone]

People in the public sector also pay tax.

 

But they were paid from tax income in the first place. So what they actually do is give back a bit of money that originally came from the private sector anyway.

[chem1st]

It's worth noting, if everyone smoke the additional tax take would result in a government surplus.

[Cyclone]

If we all burnt some petrol in a can the extra tax revenue would achieve the same thing. Why does that make it worth noting?

[alstromeria]

I'm sure most of them would have opted to remain smoking, defeating the point of the ban.

 

I disagree. The majority of people who have posted on this thread are non-smokers. I think its pretty much split evenly.

[alstromeria]

You may be correct, but have you also noticed that since the smoking ban the amount of piracy of the horn of Africa has risen steeply. That's a fact as well.

Maybe you can see my point, correlation is not the same as causation.

This was happening before the smoking ban actually wasn't it.

A self defeating tactic of course, expensive drinks drive away drinkers, the pub stays empty and profits drop.

 

Maybe you could find out the price of wine in that particular venue before the smoking ban, then I might concede that it's related. As it stands you've offered nothing that actually links the two facts.

 

Blimey, you picked THAT to pieces!

[Sid Umpley]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg

 

stats can show anything