Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

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As per this pageCigarette Tax cigarette taxation is approximately 80% (I appreciate the link is 5 years out of date, but this situation would only have worsened over the last few years).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

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

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.

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

[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.

[KennyR]

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

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.

Free market...urgh. If it was really free then I could buy guns, nerve gas, child porn, slaves and plutonium. Thankfully, we live in a more civilised world.

[bloodline]

High tax income from cigarettes does not an economy make. :-)

[Wolfe]

Wanna live longer?
---------------------------------
Stop drinking and driving.

Stop war.

Stop automobile pollution..

Stop Factory pollution.

Stop illegal drug use.

Stop criminals from doing crime.

On and on,

Ah crap.  At this rate we might as well take over the world.  Kill all those who might rebel ( 9 out of 10 ? ) and start all over again.   :lol:

[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??

[AccyD]

EDIT: OOps posted twice

[AccyD]

Wolfe wrote:
Wanna live longer?
---------------------------------
Stop drinking and driving.

Stop war.

Stop automobile pollution..

Stop Factory pollution.

Stop illegal drug use.

Stop criminals from doing crime.

On and on,

Ah crap.  At this rate we might as well take over the world.  Kill all those who might rebel ( 9 out of 10 ? ) and start all over again.   :lol:

What about sex?? :-D  :-D

[that_punk_guy]

Smokers are fairly evenly distributed among those bars/pubs who do not have a smoking policy. The problem is that if there's nowhere else to go, people will put up with the smoke and until someone has the balls to open a non-smoking bar/pub within the same sphere of influence people simply do not get the chance to exercise the "freedom" of capitalism/consumerism you've so graciously bestowed upon them.

People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom. That's what the free market's doing for us there. And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.

Also, if you're going to kill people for the sake of the economy, hell, let's round up certain demographics and have a holocaust! Much more efficient.

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking

But everyone also knows that those risks only effect "other" people. :-D

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.

What has been found locally is that when a group of people go out for a few drinks, if there is a smoker (even only one) in the group, the group will generally go to a smoking establishment rather than alienate the smoker. They are willing to put themselves at risk rather than make the addict feel bad. This is an irrational behaviour but the "free market" we know today would collapse if humans behaved rationally. Crowds in bars are generally not risk averse anyway else why would they drink so much?

Anyway, it's funny to see a smoker getting so uptight about their habit. I don't think I was that uptight when I was a smoker, and if you are, it's a sign that you aren't smoking enough! :lol:

The point of the article was how HUGE the effect of public smoking is on public health among non-smokers. Doubtless if the ban had been given more time the heart attack rate would have gone back up since these are tickers that'll probably fail later anyway, but that the smoking was such a potent trigger was interesting. It would be even more interesting to have been able to observe the effect over a longer period to see just how much longer it would take the folks with dicky tickers to succumb if there was no public smoking.

BTW, smoke in a bar or your car or a room in your house is significantly more toxic that street level car polution, and car polution is quite strictly legislated in most of the industrialized world.

[AccyD]

that_punk_guy wrote:
People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom.

Exactly, so why should the Government intervene to make a business practice which is unviable, adjust the market just to make it viable - but even that is not guranteed, if pubs were to ban smoking I would simply buy beers at home and not visit them, so it might not even work. By adjusting the market you may find you have less places to enjoy yourself anyway.

If there were enough people sharing your views then the problem would solve itself. I would freely accept business' decisions if they felt it more profitable to make their pub non-smoking - what I do have a problem with is the Government intervening.

And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.

We all have a choice. I visited the local jobcentre last week (my wife is looking for a new job) and there were hundreds of jobs - not highly skilled - availiable so it is hardly like they are forced to take these jobs.

[AccyD]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

AccyD wrote:

Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking

But everyone also knows that those risks only effect "other" people. :-D

That is immaterial, we have the information to hand if we choose to either disregard this, or view that it is not a risk worth worrying about then that is our choice.

I fully understand the risks that smoking has and that I have a 50/50 chance of dying from the effects but it is my choice, and for whatever personal reasons I have I choose to do it.

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
What has been found locally is that when a group of people go out for a few drinks, if there is a smoker (even only one) in the group, the group will generally go to a smoking establishment rather than alienate the smoker..... Crowds in bars are generally not risk averse anyway else why would they drink so much?

Yes, but they all have a choice - no one is forcing you or your friends to visit a smoking pub, you all have your right to decide where you visit.

Why should the Government legislate to avoid you or your friends feeling embarassed at upsetting your friends, by going to a non-smoking pub? People have to take responsiblity for their actions and not defer to the Government.

As said earlier if you are confident that your views are felt by so many people then vote with your feet and the pubs will follow......unless of course you are not that confident that the majority of people will follow your views??

Incidentally, are you now advocating that we ban drinking too?? :lol: :lol:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Anyway, it's funny to see a smoker getting so uptight about their habit. I don't think I was that uptight when I was a smoker, and if you are, it's a sign that you aren't smoking enough! :lol:

Its more the idea of free choice that I am advocating and that we should be able to make those choices ourselves rather than have the views of 658 people determine our choices for us.

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
BTW, smoke in a bar or your car or a room in your house is significantly more toxic that street level car polution, and car polution is quite strictly legislated in most of the industrialized world.

Yes, however, cars emit many more times more pollution than cigarettes in the UK. The pollutants in my 3,650 annual cigarettes I'm sure is dwarfed by the emmisions from my 40,000 miles travelled in my car each year.

Also, you have the option of avoiding cigarettes (visit only non-smoking areas) however, you cannot reasonably avoid motor vehicles so they probably have a much higher impact on the non-smokers health.

[swift240]

You know it makes me laugh........ yes it does the people who smoke can make lots of excuses for it. like.....

"I can give it up if I want to"
or
"My gran smoked for 35 years and she was o.k"
or
"Its my only bit of pleaser"
or
"I tried for a day but I couldnt give it up"
or
"I wil die if I dont have a fag"
or
"Why should I"

People who smoke just dont give a {bleep} for any one who is around them, they say "Ohhhh well they can always move"

How bloody sad is that?
I hope they ban it EVERY WHERE.
Weak willed, very sad indeed.

Mike......

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[that_punk_guy]

AccyD wrote:

that_punk_guy wrote:
People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom.

Exactly, so why should the Government intervene to make a business practice which is unviable

The businesses won't be "unviable." That's just scare-mongering spread by smokers. I've heard smokers belly-laughing when student bars have gone non-smoking and lost some custom. It's pathetic.

At the moment, non-smokers are forced to go to bars and breathe smoke. If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why that benefits us all.

We all have a choice. I visited the local jobcentre last week (my wife is looking for a new job) and there were hundreds of jobs - not highly skilled - availiable so it is hardly like they are forced to take these jobs.

And unless you're working for image-Nazis like McDonald's, you're going to find that almost all of these "non-skilled" jobs are with employers who do not have a smoking policy.

Edit: Removed trolling :-(

[AccyD]

that_punk_guy wrote:
The businesses won't be "unviable." That's just scare-mongering spread by smokers. I've heard smokers belly-laughing when student bars have gone non-smoking and lost some custom. It's pathetic.

I agree the laughing may be pathetic but it proves the point that going non-smoking will cause enough these places to close. If you feel that strongly about your point only visit non-smoking pubs - the owners will get wise quickly enough.

At the moment, non-smokers are forced to go to bars and breathe smoke. If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

Wrong, I will simply stop visiting those pubs that ban smoking, or drink at home if it is a universal ban. I simply accept the view that if there is an environment I dislike, then I will avoid it.

And unless you're working for image-Nazis like McDonald's, you're going to find that almost all of these "non-skilled" jobs are with employers who do not have a smoking policy.

We are assuming here that enough pubs remain open that there are jobs worth fighting for.

But to address your point, most businesses these days have stopped smoking indoors for insurance purposes (rather than health reasons), so being near smokers should have become less of an issue except in the lesiure industry - hardly a large sector of the economy.