Hi
I have been wondering that if the Gov’t was at all serious about people
giving up smoking (which I have done) , how much tax revenue would they lose if ciggys were banned and do you think that the poor bloody motorist would again help to make up any shortfall in any gov’t losses ???:confused::confused:
By: steve rowell - 9th July 2008 at 07:37
these people would like a word with you for such blatent sterotyping…
If you did some researching.. you’d probably find that the majority of them probably died from a smoking related illness
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th June 2008 at 11:13
You’ve got to remember they’re weak feeble minded people with no will power and scant disregard for others health or wellbeing
these people would like a word with you for such blatent sterotyping…
By: steve rowell - 27th June 2008 at 10:28
Absolutely totally agree!
As long as they:
1) Do it nowhere near me
2) Don’t think that standing in a doorway with their hand held outside is in some way helping keep the smell out of the building
3) Stop congregating immediately outside doors to public buildings, blocking access and making me walk through their smelly exhalations and carpet of fag butts.
4) Believe that when returning from their 10 minutes-in-the-hour fag breaks, that the rest of us have worked through, they don’t think they aren’t pursued by a waft of stale tobacco odour as they return to their desks.
Moggy
You’ve got to remember they’re weak feeble minded people with no will power and scant disregard for others health or wellbeing
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th June 2008 at 18:14
I’ve got a smoking related dilemma myself…
I have just moved into a house-share, and one of the other occupants is a smoker (and boy does he like to light ’em up!).
Although he is considerate enough to use only one designated room to smoke in (the conservatory!), I am somewhat concerned that I am going to be affected in someway through passive smoking as I am told that it is just as bad as smoking yourself!
Short of locking myself in my own room for all eternity, I cant think of a reasonable solution, does anyone have any suggestions?
Build a vent fan thing into a wall, make him sit under it to smoke – extractor fan thats the one. I am a heavy smoker but understand passive smoking is very bad, i wont say its 10 or 100 or xxxx amount worse then normal smoking, might not even be as bad i don’t know its hard to tell with all the scare-mongering that takes place these days about smoking but yeah make him get an extractor it can’t be good. Failing that theres always the garden or the porch, its not unreasonable.
By: cloud_9 - 26th June 2008 at 14:59
I’ve got a smoking related dilemma myself…
I have just moved into a house-share, and one of the other occupants is a smoker (and boy does he like to light ’em up!).
Although he is considerate enough to use only one designated room to smoke in (the conservatory!), I am somewhat concerned that I am going to be affected in someway through passive smoking as I am told that it is just as bad as smoking yourself!
Short of locking myself in my own room for all eternity, I cant think of a reasonable solution, does anyone have any suggestions?
By: Moggy C - 26th June 2008 at 13:44
As to smokers and drinkers etc, let them be. If they do kill themselves early then that’s their choice and the pension fund will be saved.
Absolutely totally agree!
As long as they:
1) Do it nowhere near me
2) Don’t think that standing in a doorway with their hand held outside is in some way helping keep the smell out of the building
3) Stop congregating immediately outside doors to public buildings, blocking access and making me walk through their smelly exhalations and carpet of fag butts.
4) Believe that when returning from their 10 minutes-in-the-hour fag breaks, that the rest of us have worked through, they don’t think they aren’t pursued by a waft of stale tobacco odour as they return to their desks.
Moggy
By: MishaThePenguin - 26th June 2008 at 08:38
The tax people pay on smoking more than covers the NHS treatment.
Garry
Actually it doesn’t. People mistakenly use the cost of treating lung cancer as the measure, however smoking is implicated in a large number of diseases including coronary heart disease, stroke, other cancers, chronic lung diseases and is indirectly implicated in many more. The cost is immense. Then factor in issues around passive smoking, children living in households that smoke who get asthma etc. etc. and you see how far the costs mount up.
Also the fact a smoker has cancer does not mean the cancer was caused by smoking . If it was then all smokers would have cancer and none smokers would never get it.
Depends on the cancer – smoking has been one of the most intensively studied areas in health. Due to a wide range of factors you can never definitively say that a disease has a particular cause. you can however look at the evidence and say that, on balance, the cancer is caused by a particular agent. Lung cancer has probably had more research than any other and it is clear that smoking is heavily implicated in its causation. True you can get cancer from other things but as I said earlier smoking can be implicated in some of these.
By: mike currill - 24th June 2008 at 08:31
I agree with your take on the subject Garry. I’m convinced that politicians only make decisions based on the effect it has on their lifestyle.
By: garryrussell - 18th June 2008 at 12:01
The tax people pay on smoking more than covers the NHS treatment.
The Government was reluctant in the fifties to discourage smoking as the made so much money that way they did not want to upset the books.
You can’t start charging for so called self inflicted as the taxes have been paid and they have a right to the treatment.
Problem with demands that so called self inflicted illnesses always apply to everyone else. The mooters of such ideas would scream out loud that they were some sort of exception if it was applied to them.
Also the fact a smoker has cancer does not mean the cancer was caused by smoking . If it was then all smokers would have cancer and none smokers would never get it.
Most health conditions are either self inflicted or self induced if you think about it……..lack of exercise, poor diet, taking risks.
One of the biggest drains on the health service are time wasters using resources where there is nothing wrong with them
Perhaps that is an area where persistent offenders could be charged like when ambulances turn up to find the patient has just popped out and will be back in a mo.
As to smokers and drinkers etc, let them be. If they do kill themselves early then that’s their choice and the pension fund will be saved.
As it stands the government want everyone to live longer by taking the pleasure away then moan they can’t afford to look after the increasing amount old elderly.
One other thing
If the NHS was saved millions you would be no better off.
They would cut the budget down and you would still have a basic service and would not get a reduction in tax.
Garry
By: wl745 - 18th June 2008 at 09:58
Tobbaco fields
Is there a food crop giving a higher return than tobbaco?Perhaps governments could subsidise tobbaco farmers to grow more food until everyones given up smoking!
By: steve rowell - 18th June 2008 at 06:14
WHAT I SMOKE WE DON’T PAY TAX ON!!!:D:D:D:p
YET!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
Mr Rudd is watching!
By: STORMBIRD262 - 13th June 2008 at 05:19
LUCKY DOWN ERE!!!
WHAT I SMOKE WE DON’T PAY TAX ON!!!:D:D:D:p
YET!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
By: SOC - 13th June 2008 at 03:52
The simple solution would be to stop providing any sort of free or subsidized health care for things you do to yourself. Car accident from driving drunk? You pay the whole bill. Get cancer from smoking? You pay for the chemo. People know this is unhealthy, so they are totally complicit for any negative effects. Better yet, liver disease or lung cancer from alcohol or tobacco consumption should disqualify you from any sort of organ transplants as well, if they don’t do that already.
By: J Boyle - 12th June 2008 at 02:56
Yes, the government would lose tobacco taxes…but in the long run, it would save any money lost by a (hopefull) reduction in what the NHS pays out for treating smoking related illnesses.
It might be unwise for the ban to be enacted now, I’d guess (since I’m not party to budget and health forcasts) that the money will be needed for the next 20 or so years until the older generation (the long time smokers) die off. In the meantine, the government might need the extra dosh to fund their care.
I’m always shocked by seeing the oldsters still smoking, occasionally while toting portable oxygen gear.
With existing medical research, anyone who has taken up smoking in the last 30 years is simply a fool…IM(not so)HO.:D
But your probably corrrect, if they do lose money, they’ll add it to the fuel or TV taxes…:diablo:
Sign In
June 12, 2008 at 12:19 am