Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

[AccyD]

swift240 wrote:
Its such a pitty that those who smoke are to WEAK willed to give it up.

I disagree. I'm a smoker and I actually enjoy smoking and willpower has nothing to do with it. I don't want to stop and don't see why the governement and others wish to impose their views on me.

As far as bans go, the ban in Ireland was unnessacery. If pubs & clubs want to go no smoking there is no law against it, the owners are completey within their rights to do that.

Why should they be forced to succum to the governments whim, smoke is not being forced onto employees or customers - if they want to work or socialise somewhere else, again, no one is stopping them from leaving these places.

The reason that these places have not banned smoking voluntarily is that they know that the inevitable impact will be less custom & thus less profits & less jobs. People have predicted that around 60,000 jobs could be lost in Ireland from the ban as less tourists visit the country, and when they do they won't visit the traditional inns.

Combined with less tobacco sales & thus less taxation, and the increase in social security benefits being paid to the unemployed this could really backfire on the Irish government.

[AccyD]

swift240 wrote:
Spoken like a true smoker.

Mike..... :-)

Cor strong argument for your cause ........... :-)

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
you couldn't give up smoking any more than I could give up masturbating...

Did I say that I felt I could give up smoking??

No. I said i didn't want to. The two are very different. I assume it would be hard for me to stop (I haven't tried) but I don't want to, so why does willpower come into the argument??

bloodline wrote:
Fortunatelly, for you, there is a public ban upon masturbation.

You are taking your argument to the nth degree, and at which point it becomes absurd.

Using your reasoning, if I wanted to or didn't mind watching you (plural by the way not personal :-D)masturbate I would visit a Soho sex cinema, but I don't, so I don't visit those areas.

Translating this to our argument, if you don't want to visit a smoky atmosphere then only go to pubs which ban smoking - surely if there are so many of you then the pubs which presently allow smoking will ban it and you will have achieved your aim??

The reason more pubs do not ban smoking (as said in the previous post) is that it is not in their interests to do so as they know their trade will decline substantially.

So what I am saying is let market forces decide the outcome, not the government. Pub owners will go where the profits are, and it is plainly clear given the number of non-smoking pubs, that the market has shown that pub owners are better off allowing smoking as most people prefer it that way.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
But what about walking down the street. I have no choice but to "enjoy" the experience of another persons addiction.

What say you?

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:

AccyD wrote:

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

Deflection!

I would hardly call this deflection, if you are wanting to improve your health then you cannot look solely at the things that you gain no benefit from (i.e. cigarettes), and ignore other items which you personally benefit from, but which in the future prove more of an issue than tobacco smoking.

You cannot ban one without the other as they both have the same polluting effects.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
@AccyD

The issue here is that, whether you enjoy smoking or not, you've doomed yourself to an early grave and have a fair probability of dying in shocking, lingering pain. I tell you that for your own good.

Firstly, thank you for your concern.

However, I understand the risks but choose to continue smoking due to the enjoyment of the experience. With all due respect, I do not advise you what to do to yourself, and I accept that you may make choices which I do not agree with, but you must be allowed to make those choices.

As long as people have all of the information availiable to them, these choices should be allowed to made, otherwise what type of people has our society raised if they are not allowed to make their own decisions??

KennyR wrote:
By banning public smoking, the government make sure you don't pass this deathwish onto people who didn't have the choice.

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

KennyR wrote:

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

The pollution levels in the average club or pub are so high, if it was a workplace youd'd be forced to wear protective equipment. Otherwise you could sue your company.

The compensation culture has gone mad these days, no one forces anyone in these industries to work in the environment, it is a matter of choice. Again if the problem was so bad, people would refuse to work in these environments and thus smoking would be banned "informally" by the pub owners or wages would rise to compensate, (neither of which has happened) - it is not the governments place to intervene. Given that most pubs do not have an issue in recruiting staff I would say that the vast majority of employees do not see this as a problem.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
Yes, and that's why they're banning smoking in public places - allowing people to make their own decisions.

But doing nothing about the pollution from cars?? Double standards??

Supposing they want to sit in that pub, but without the smoke? Smokers are taking away their choice to do that.

As far as I am aware I do not force landlords to operate a smoking or non-smoking policy, that is not the preserve of anyone regardless of their attitude to smoking. The person who owns the pub makes that choice - they will make the decision based upon their estimate of the best way to maximise profits, if they view keeping smokers custom to be better than losing non-smokers then it is their business and they should be allowed to do as they wish.

The point I am trying to make is that if MOST people were against smoking then a ban would be pointless as the market would ensure that smoking pubs closed because no one visited them. Since this policy (in terms of the market making the best decision) is in place at present we must conclude that the vast majority of people do not mind the issue of smoking.

This has nothing to do with the compensation culture. It has everything to do with the unions trying to prevent new waves of asbestosis.

I hate to break your jaded view of the unions but they actually love the compensation culture as they can recommend firms to their members to fight their case and they get a nice kickback from any succesful claims made. I know from a friend who has dealt with the mineworkers claims - the NUM love the compensation courts.

Or am I just being a little bit cynical/truthful??

I'm afraid when it comes to work safety, it is NOT in the hands of the employee to choose how they work, for many reasons. One is that they become a liability to others.

Firstly, how is allowing a person to choose whether or not they work in a smoking atmosphere making them a liability to others?? Lets stick to the argument here.

Secondly, exactly how much do you feel that the state has to intervene in employment and life in general? Is this because you feel that we are incapable of making our own decisions and being responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

We are all capable of making our own decisions and living by those results, please credit your fellow countrymen with the intelligence to decide how they live their life.

[AccyD]

ami500 wrote:
The fact of the matter is here I have an 8 year old car that has 0% CO emissions

Please can you tell me the make & model of this car - if this is true then I will get it as my next co. car.

I would think that the catalytic converter whilst reducing some exhaust gases does not eliminate them completly otherwise why would the IR (in the UK) use the emission figures for taxing company cars?

If you could eliminate the CO2 emmisions completely by doing this then why am I being taxed 28% for my car emitting 214 grams of CO2 for every mile I drive?

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.

True, but if there is a Miss Bloodline then that might make things more interesting....... :-D  :-D

[AccyD]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport.

I would think the hundreds of thouands of gallons of airline fuel would make me think twice about smoking in an airport.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
The pollution of cars has no bearing here. It's a necessary evil - although we can tax needless drivers and more polluting cars off the road. Smoking is not necessary. It doesn't transport people. It doesn't keep Britain moving. And the taxes it generates could come from something else just as easily.

Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.

The pollution of cars is exactly right here, you are arguing that my smoking is irresponsible and causes you and others harm by my actions. How does this differ from me deriving benefit from driving my car fast and polluting the atmosphere, either way you are harmed.

You cannot stop your argument when it begins to infringe upon the things you enjoy - either you believe your argument or you don't - which is it??

KennyR wrote:
Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.

Are you suggesting that the Government should intervene in all aspects of business.....you are going down a very long road there and there are many examples I could cite to you which would prove the road is a dead end.

Leave the market to decide, if the non-smokers are so confident of their argument and vote with their feet it won't be long before business follows and bans smoking.

KennyR wrote:
No, just plain, totally wrong. The unions don't get money from claims made, and never have. My father is a union secretary AND a safety executive and has never made a penny from what he does. It's his job and he's proud to do it.

And I'm sure he doesn't recieve a penny for his time, and I admire him for giving up his time so freely, it should be actively encouraged (no sarcasm intended).

But that's not to say that his union doesn't recieve anything for recruiting the people to claim through a particular agency. I have a friend who works for the "official" claims company for the NUM, and he has seen the monies they have paid to the union for the access to their membership lists and the right to advertise as the "recommended partner".

Don't let yourself be disillusioned, the unions are in this to make as much money as possible for themselves. I'm sure the members and activists have the same ideals as your father - and that's to be commended - but please don't put your head int he sand over the realities of life.

Kenny R Wrote:
For a start, there's the NHS bills...

Over my lifetime any NHS bills I incur I will have paid many times over through taxation of my hobby (incidentally I have PMI but that would kill your argument even more as I'm paying for the privilidge twice!!).

KennyR wrote:
The very idea of you smoking when you know what it can do to you and people around you provides me with an excellent example of why you cannot be considered to be totally reponsible for all your own decisions.

Do you drink, do you drive above the speed limit, do you eat too much/too little??

What about these decisions they can all affect you and others around you, do I claim that you cannot make those decisions knowing the consequeces? No. We all have the right to make our own decisions about our choices in life (before you say that the non-smokers don't have a choice they do, they are not forced attend areas where smoking is permitted).

Alternatively, to follow your reasoning, who do you suggest makes the decisions as to what I can & can't do?? Because again we are going down roads which have been tried & failed in the past.

KennyR wrote:
In the same way people would be pretty offended if I decided to use my chemistry knowledge to make poisons and bombs. There are laws against that too. Laws for a reason.

Slightly extreme argument don't you think??

KennyR wrote:
There's always a thin line between social responsibility and freedom, and allowing tabacco companies and pubs and clubs to profit on our death and misery is well over that line.

I enjoy my habit, no one forces me to do it, and I accept that there are risks involved. Why should I let you make decisions about my life??

If I want to buy a legal product what is wrong with someone providing a service to allow me to buy that product, that's not wrong, thats capitalisim and it works. If no one wants to buy that product then Government bans will not be needed but whilst the majority of the public visit smoking bars it is clear where the UK stands on the issue.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.

No item is taxed as much as cigarettes, so although expenditure may remain the same actual tax revenues will fall (even if you take account of higher profits).

The reduced strain on the NHS will harm non-smokers, at present they are subsidised by smokers, things will only get worse if smoking is banned.

Less cancer specialists, less equipment......sound like a world you would like to live in??

No me neither...

P.S. Hope you didn't take offence at the Miss Bloodline reference - I was only joking.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
No offence taken :-) (I would hope you don't take offence at my counter argument).

Anyway, if more moeny was spent on proper items, we get a stronger ecomony. When you buy something that requires 2 people to make rather than a cigarette that requires approx no people to make, then it creates jobs.

As per this pageCigarette Tax cigarette taxation is approximately 80% (I appreciate the link is 5 years out of date, but this situation would only have worsened over the last few years).

So for evey £100 spent on cigarettes, £80 goes to the Government (ignoring any profits made by the tobacco companies).

Compare this to "normal" goods, where £100 sales equals around £15 VAT & if you say a gross margin of 10% on the net sales value (a good margin for most companies) then tax at 10% (min corp taxaton rate), you get corp tax of £0.85.

So total taxation of £15.85 versus cigarette taxation of £80. A massive variance wouldn't you agree?? Especially since I have been generous with the calculations to benefit the non-smoker argument.

No good (with the exception of possibly fuel) could achieve the same taxation gains as cigarettes.

Bllodline wrote:
As for the NHS, that will remain the same regardless.

How when tax revenues fall? Can you imagine a Government increasing income tax to cover the £65 difference in taxation, and still remaining in power??

No, I didn't think so.

Cigarettes are good for the economy as a whole and as such any ban will harm your health as much as mine, as lower tax revenues have to be spent on more people's helath & pension benefits.

If I stop smoking I may live longer but will also consume more social security & healthcare benefits making the situation even worse, and reducing the amount left to be spent on non-smokers.

So in effect by banning smoking you may be having a negative effect on your own health!! Life is strange ! :-D

[AccyD]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
I doubt that, but what about the other scenarios where such a quip is even less realistic. How about hospitals? How about Kindergartens?

I think this again comes down to the free market.

Where the private sector has deemed it to be a bad thing, (i.e. in hospitals & kindegartens) I have no problems accepting their rules if I wish to use their services (as, as far as i am aware there is no current legislation banning smoking in either of these places).

Incidentally, in most UK hospitals until fairly recently (last 5 years) you were allowed to smoke on most wards in the hospitals.

If only the anti-smoking lobby followed our views, and understood that if firms view that it is in their interests to allow smoking on their premises, then the potential customers should respect that view.

Let business owners make their own rules not the Government, if publ;ic opinion is strong enough then they will follow.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
No, because the only thing they are interested in is profit, and don't mind if we suffer for it. On the other hand, governments have to cater to us or we vote them out. There's not really an option here.

Wrong.

Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking if you choose not to put yourself in the position of sharing a pub with me (a smoker) then the pubs will see their profits decline. If the owners view this is worth more than my custom then the free market would then respond to your desires and non-smoking pubs would replace those outlets. It's nothing to do with them not caring about their consumers health, they leave the decisions up to us (quite right too) and merely provide what the customers want.

So you see if your argument was supported by enough people then there would be no need for legislation - but there isn't and I think that is what is annoying you !

People have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, this is not the role of Government to take those decisions away from them, and you cannot critise business for providing for our desires - that is what the economy is made up of.

Free market...urgh. If it was really free then I could buy guns, nerve gas, child porn, slaves and plutonium.

Can you not discuss your arguments without resorting to extreme, and unreasonable examples??