dark light

  • SPIT

SMOKING BAN

Hi
Now I quit smoking 2 years ago and I am curious, If cigarettes were banned entirely (in the interests of health),HOW MUCH WOULD TAX WOULD THE GOV OF THE DAY LOSE??? :confused: ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,693

Send private message

By: jbritchford - 19th February 2006 at 21:50

I agree that it is a person’s right to choose whether they smoke or not, and it is my right to find public areas smoke free.

But what I do not like is the fact that my taxes will have to pay for the medical treatment of smokers who are intentionally damaging their bodies.

And supposing the govt. did ban smoking, a vast black market would arise overnight, just like prohibition in the USA in the 1920s.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

12,725

Send private message

By: Grey Area - 17th February 2006 at 16:48

I never knew your house was attached to the MAN car park Lance ? ๐Ÿ˜€ :dev2: :diablo:

That’s a vile slander, Sir! :diablo:

Anyway, I can see the 24R approach from the garden. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

310

Send private message

By: PilotDKH - 17th February 2006 at 14:51

Finally, something good from the government. It should have been banned in enclosed public places years ago. If someone made any other kind of stench around others in public, it would not be tolerated. It’s about time the exception for smoking was stopped.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

11,401

Send private message

By: Ren Frew - 16th February 2006 at 22:57

Which is why I spent so much time in the garden. ๐Ÿ™‚

I never knew your house was attached to the MAN car park Lance ? ๐Ÿ˜€ :dev2: :diablo:

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,018

Send private message

By: laviticus - 16th February 2006 at 21:22

BAN SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES.
apart from the extra tax they pay, smokers contribute nothing except litter ,stench and an attitude that its alright to just nip off for a quick cig while the rest of us are still working, so they get longer breaks,get paid more per hour and are a drain on public resources .So keep smoking ,in fact increase the intake and keep me busy.

Did i mention i work for a friend on a weekend,as a driver for his funeral business. :diablo:

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,910

Send private message

By: Deano - 15th February 2006 at 23:48

to be honest, look at my dad as a casing point, he has smoked since he was 8yrs old, he is 55 this year, how much tax has he paid on his cigs? I would bet far more tax to cover the cost of NHS care if he was ill through smoking for the next 15 years.
Also this argument does not hold water because even IF everyone gave up smoking my tax bill would go UP, you do the sums ๐Ÿ™‚

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 15th February 2006 at 23:18

Their taxes pay for our health-care too, and the average smoker in the UK pays more tax than the average non-smoker.

Yep, and has increased health-costs. No one has the real figures, so we’ll never know.

But to be honest I don’t care. All I know is that there will be an end to smokey pubs towards the end of next year ๐Ÿ˜€

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

12,725

Send private message

By: Grey Area - 15th February 2006 at 23:04

Their taxes pay for our health-care too, and the average smoker in the UK pays more tax than the average non-smoker.

It’s an argument I’ve never had much time for, to be honest.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 15th February 2006 at 22:54

Personally people can do what the hell they want, as long as they do not smoke in my house, car, plane or in and around the vicinity of my children I don’t really care.

What about when your taxes pay for their health-care?

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,910

Send private message

By: Deano - 15th February 2006 at 22:30

The smoking ban in public areas won’t affect the tax revenue one iota, because, smokers will move outside. Just look at the number of people who stand around, in all weathers, outside of offices where smoking is banned.

Totally agree, I’m not implying that you thought that this was what I was saying but my point was if the government had it’s way and 100s of thousands of people gave up smoking then where would the extra revenue come from? the non smokers of course. Maybe their add campaign shouldn’t be “Smoking Kills” but more like “Smoking Kills, but keep doing it cos we need the 3 billion pounds p/a revenue”

Personally people can do what the hell they want, as long as they do not smoke in my house, car, plane or in and around the vicinity of my children I don’t really care.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

12,725

Send private message

By: Grey Area - 15th February 2006 at 20:51

It’s every smokerโ€™s right to carry on their habit as they wish, I would defend their right to the hilt, however it is also my right to be able to sit in a public area without the intrusion of their smoke threatening my health and well being.

That’s the whole argument, in a nutshell.

I gave up smoking just over 6 years ago but I even when I did smoke I never believed that my right to enjoy smoking in any way over-rode the rights of others – especially my children – to live and work in a smoke-free environment.

Which is why I spent so much time in the garden. ๐Ÿ™‚

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

4,978

Send private message

By: EN830 - 15th February 2006 at 20:36

It’s every smokerโ€™s right to carry on their habit as they wish, I would defend their right to the hilt, however it is also my right to be able to sit in a public area without the intrusion of their smoke threatening my health and well being.

The smoking ban in public areas won’t affect the tax revenue one iota, because, smokers will move outside. Just look at the number of people who stand around, in all weathers, outside of offices where smoking is banned.

What is the bigger concern is the number of kids, especially young girls, which I see smoking. This is where the Gov’t should be concentrating. I know a lot of it is peer pressure, I can recall the same thing when I was at school. If it can be forced down the throats of the sub 16 year age group, that smoking is not cool, it is in fact bloody stupid, then maybe in a few generations time the number of smokers will diminish.

Despite the peer pressure I managed to resist the need to join in and smoke, mainly because both my parents smoked and even then I hated the smell. My mother managed to kick the habit about 6 years ago at the age of 70, even then she suffered a minor stroke as a result of smoking for 50 years. My father contracted throat cancer, which was cleared, even though this was attributed to his life style, he continued to smoke, that is until the day that he suffered a major stroke which robbed him of his mobility, the ability to swallow, put him into care for the rest of his days and ultimately led to his death just over two years ago. Like many starting out smoking today, he maintained it would never affect him.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,910

Send private message

By: Deano - 15th February 2006 at 18:55

The government as usual show double standards, on one hand they want everyone to give up smoking, on the other hand they cannot afford the tax revenue reduction so will have to look elsewhere to tax, usually in the form of stealth taxes, it’s the same as the cars, they want people to give up their cars but they can’t sustain the loss in taxation from petrol, as well as the public transport system being an absolute joke & shambles (sorry to digress)

Dean

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 15th February 2006 at 18:47

Several billion pounds. But then again Britons would be healthier and companies would not lose time in cigarette breaks.

But they won’t be banned. We’re just making it difficult for people to smoke in public places, which is fair enough. If you want to smoke, do it in your own home (or in the open air).

Sign in to post a reply