[JobsForTheBoys]

Do you think if the smokers of this country had shown the same sort of gumption as the students, then the government might have had a re think about bringing the smoking ban in?

[30stone]

I doubt it.
It was coming and its a good thing it did.

They should raise the prices get more people to stop.

[Benjamin]

LOL, the smokers would have had to stop their riots every 10 minutes for a fag break

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by Mistletoe-Kiss

I doubt it.
It was coming and its a good thing it did.

They should raise the prices get more people to stop.

But if everyone stopped where would they get the Ł9 billion in lost taxes from?

[fruit_cake]

less power the government has the better IMO, hate the 'ban everything' brigades

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by christmas_cake

less power the government has the better IMO, hate the 'ban everything' brigades

They'll ban us having sex before long.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

But if everyone stopped where would they get the Ł9 billion in lost taxes from?

As a smoker - this is precisely my arguement. It's been proven time and time again, that the money smokers cost the NHS, the taxes paid on cigarettes not only cover such related medical costs - but indeed - it actually helps make up the deficit in what they'd lose from tax paid by smokers.

The additional flip side is the reality that smokers don't tend to live as long (obvious reasons!), so we won't be as much of a burden as far as pension go.... we won't need a pension for as long as non smokers.... since we'll have long had our last fag!

[fruit_cake]

As a none smoker I often go to the smoking areas because I find smokers more relaxed people to be around, especially when I don't know anyone!

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by Snowball

As a smoker - this is precisely my arguement. It's been proven time and time again, that the money smokers cost the NHS, the taxes paid on cigarettes not only cover such related medical costs - but indeed - it actually helps make up the deficit in what they'd lose from tax paid by smokers.

The additional flip side is the reality that smokers don't tend to live as long (obvious reasons!), so we won't be as much of a burden as far as pension go.... we won't need a pension for as long as non smokers.... since we'll have long had our last fag!

Personally I think the smoking ban and all the pretty pictures on the packets was one big con trick.

The government in its wisdom knew well before the ban that they could make a lot of money from the revenue on cigarettes. Why would they want people to stop smoking........thats just crazy.

They knew people were getting sick of the constant price increases in cigarettes so to justify this they came up with the cunning trick of pretending that they wanted people to stop. (they dont really).

Now whenever people complain about cigarette prices (which they never do now, have you noticed) the government just say......."Well, we want you to stop smoking"

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

Personally I think the smoking ban and all the pretty pictures on the packets was one big con trick.

The government in its wisdom knew well before the ban that they could make a lot of money from the revenue on cigarettes. Why would they want people to stop smoking........thats just crazy.

They knew people were getting sick of the constant price increases in cigarettes so to justify this they came up with the cunning trick of pretending that they wanted people to stop. (they dont really).

Now whenever people complain about cigarette prices (which they never do now, have you noticed) the government just say......."Well, we want you to stop smoking"

I make frequent trips abroad throughout the year to stock up on my smokes - I give my money to other EU countries - that's been the result for me - and the only one now loses out due to these shockingly high price increases is now the Government. They've had more than enough cigarette tax money from me over many, many years. I'd rather use that 'tax' to pay for my holiday abroad and get my smokes elsewhere. The one losing out isn't me anymore.

My choice was to stop smoking or to do what I do. Doing what I do now, means I may require treatment - but what I've paid in taxes over my working life, in buying ciggies: I've more than contributed to the 'coffers' in that respect.

in fact, I reckon I'm due a substantial rebate!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

Do you think if the smokers of this country had shown the same sort of gumption as the students, then the government might have had a re think about bringing the smoking ban in?

Nope most smokers actually agree with the rationale behind the smoking ban, its just the inconveniance of its practical application. Its fine to make the decision to poluute and poison yourself, but not to inflect the same on people who dont smoke.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

pubs smell vile now

before the smoking ban the smoke masked the smell now they just smell of piss and BO

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Nope most smokers actually agree with the rationale behind the smoking ban, its just the inconveniance of its practical application. Its fine to make the decision to poluute and poison yourself, but not to inflect the same on people who dont smoke.

Perhaps the people who don't drive motorbikes or cars could say the same thing..... CATS only do so much to limit emissions.

Then there are planes, industrial workplaces, smoke belching out into the atmosphere.

Most smokers aren't in a position to smoke anywhere other than in the privacy of their own homes, cars or out in the wide open public.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Perhaps the people who don't drive motorbikes or cars could say the same thing..... CATS only do so much to limit emissions.

Then there are planes, industrial workplaces, smoke belching out into the atmosphere.

Most smokers aren't in a position to smoke anywhere other than in the privacy of their own homes, cars or out in the wide open public.

Wouldnt the world be a fairly backward place without industry, aircraft and motor vehicles? While the damage on the human body that their fumes can do is not to be ignored, measures have been put in place to reduce it as low as possible, e.g. lead free fuel, emission control etc.

It is only right that the potential damage caused by smoking be reduced to innocent bystanders and its no great sacrifice on the parts of smokers to suffer a little inconvenience for their pleasures.

[ElProximo]

Two excellent points were made here:

- YES, pubs DO SMELL NOW. They just reek of BO and pissy alcohol smells. Also, the outside of them is littered with dogs ends and there are more damp people and damp jackets inside.

- Little known and rarely mentioned but the truth is that smokers illness is mitigated by a shorter lifespan (if we use government stats).
Yep.
Smokers SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY. They not only pay a massive massive amount of taxes but the younger they die the more pension for everyone else.

Oh and just so the non-smokers know - IF everyone quit smoking tomorrow you will know exactly where they make the difference in money... directly out of your pockets.
Oh yes.

but yes.. its all a scam. there is far far greater **** to worry about.

[BB_Eye]

Well they didn't change their minds over the fees so probably not, lol.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wouldnt the world be a fairly backward place without industry, aircraft and motor vehicles? While the damage on the human body that their fumes can do is not to be ignored, measures have been put in place to reduce it as low as possible, e.g. lead free fuel, emission control etc.

It is only right that the potential damage caused by smoking be reduced to innocent bystanders and its no great sacrifice on the parts of smokers to suffer a little inconvenience for their pleasures.

Oh I agree that we need industry, aircraft, vehicles ets - it doesn't negate the point however - although I understand precisely the point you're making.

There is such a thing known as democracy - smoking is legal, the government made it legal and continue to allow it to be a legal drug - why? Because they make so much revenue in taxation. As I mentioned earlier: there are very few places that smokers actually infringe upon 'non smokers', and given the amount of money that smokers contribute to the economy - in it's own warped way, non smokers should be grateful to us: otherwise everyone's tax bills, their included, would go through the roof.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier; smokers actually contribute the same PAYE as non smokers - but don't live as long, thus we in effect, 'leave more than our fair share of monies paid for pension funds', to those non smokers remaining alive once we've popped our clogs.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

There is such a thing known as democracy - smoking is legal, the government made it legal and continue to allow it to be a legal drug - why? Because they make so much revenue in taxation. As I mentioned earlier: there are very few places that smokers actually infringe upon 'non smokers', and given the amount of money that smokers contribute to the economy - in it's own warped way, non smokers should be grateful to us: otherwise everyone's tax bills, their included, would go through the roof.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier; smokers actually contribute the same PAYE as non smokers - but don't live as long, thus we in effect, 'leave more than our fair share of monies paid for pension funds', to those non smokers remaining alive once we've popped our clogs.

There are very few places that smokers affect non smokers now, that's true however it wasnt always that way, only a few years ago, you could smoke in cinemas, bars, restaurants, on trains and aircraft etc. In fact there were very few places that non smokers could get away from us dirty filthy smokers.

All things being equal tax bills would rise initially in the short term but would start to fall after a number of years and revert back to about current levels when treatment for smoking related illness wasnt needed. Its this initial steep tax hike governments dont want, so they institute a smoking prohibition in phases.

The amount of money taken by revenue versus costs of smoking isnt as large as you seem to indicate. Depending on the sets of figures you view. The anti smoking lobby use one set that actually shows smoking costs more than it generates, while the tobacco industry and pro smoking lobby use another set that show revenue more than offsets costs.

Lots of ex smokers suffer from costly illnesses later in life, which the anti smoking lobby maintain were probably caused by but were definately exacerbated by smoking.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

There are very few places that smokers affect non smokers now, that's true however it wasnt always that way, only a few years ago, you could smoke in cinemas, bars, restaurants, on trains and aircraft etc. In fact there were very few places that non smokers could get away from us dirty filthy smokers.

All things being equal tax bills would rise initially in the short term but would start to fall after a number of years and revert back to about current levels when treatment for smoking related illness wasnt needed. Its this initial steep tax hike governments dont want, so they institute a smoking prohibition in phases.

The amount of money taken by revenue versus costs of smoking isnt as large as you seem to indicate. Depending on the sets of figures you view. The anti smoking lobby use one set that actually shows smoking costs more than it generates, while the tobacco industry and pro smoking lobby use another set that show revenue more than offsets costs.

Lots of ex smokers suffer from costly illnesses later in life, which the anti smoking lobby maintain were probably caused by but were definately exacerbated by smoking.

I recall going to Kenya about 12 years ago and having to travel KLM because it was one of the very few scheduled airlines who actually still permitted smoking on board all those years ago. I think you are out with your reckoning of 'only a few years' - and iirc, that was almost enforced globally at the time - just giving you an example that your sweeping generalisation of 'only a few years', is not strictly correct.

The smoking bans brought about in the UK have not reduced the amount of smokers in any great numbers, and indeed, many pubs and clubs went to the wall and went under as people elected to not spend as much time in pubs - in the place that they could relax in and have a drink and a smoke, that was well documented.

Your clear use of overly emotive phraseology does nothing for your case - the fact that the Government will never ban smoking - they simply make too much money from the taxation on tobacco products, to an extent that they could not make up the deficit without the public creating hell, given that we alreadly live in a country whereby taxes are exuberant.

Non smokers may not like smokers or the very limited pollution they are now currently 'subjected' to in very very limited amounts and areas. There really is no point in discusses 'the past' - we don't live in the past and we cannot alter the past, we live in the here and now - and that is a place whereby smokers have very little rights, but still pay through the nose in tax, and that non smokers benefit from that as far as the smokers' contribution to the NHS funding pro-rata.

Obviously, due to the nature of smoking, some ex-smokers may have health issues in the future - but you can be certain that the taxes they will have paid over many years whilst they were smoking, will more than even itself out.

The hard fact is and remains. Regardless of any phasing in of the prohibition of smoking in public places: if it was regarded as the 'huge issue' that the Government 'play on' - they would ban it outright. They will not do that simply as they need the billions upon billions of Ł's that smokers generate to the economy. It might not make good reading however that is the bottom line.

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

But if everyone stopped where would they get the Ł9 billion in lost taxes from?

I don't know why people think the government would lose out on tax revenues all that much.......

Remember ex smokers would have all that lovely cash to spend on other things that are "Taxed" Revenue would still roll in......

The worst effect by banning fags would be unemployment (No cig factories) and small shopkeepers dependant on cig sales......

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by XmasTurtle

LOL, the smokers would have had to stop their riots every 10 minutes for a fag break

Indeed. A good use of water cannons to put the cigs out would have them back home in a flash......

[letmein]

Smoking is tacky.

[joeysteele]

I don't smoke,i however have no objection to people smoking,like drinking and many other things,if people wish to then they can as far as I am concerned.I consider excessive drinking to be far worse health wise than smoking and its also very anti social too when epople get violent and abusive to others under the influence of alcohol.

The treasury gets a very large revenue from tobacco taxation and would be in a right mess if everyone stopped, they would need to raise taxes elsewhere to make up for such a big loss of revenue. Lots of my friends smoke and I have no problem with that at all.

I had to grin the other day though, a bus shelter, just with the front and sides covered,totally open to the elements where the bus stops, had a sticker in it,saying, 'smoking is not allowed in this shelter',but take just one step out of it and smokers can smoke anywhere there.
Totally rediculous.

[lostalex]

Well considering the students protests have had absolutely no impact at all on the legislation vote, it would seem the clear answer is NO.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Well considering the students protests have had absolutely no impact at all on the legislation vote, it would seem the clear answer is NO.

Of course it wont affect the initial vote to remove the cap on fees. And that is all this first round of voting was to achieve.

Over the next few months various select commitees will sit and make recommendations on fees to be set, method of administering the system, reimbursement, interest rates on the loans, repayment scales and time frames.

Very few protest campaigns achieve their agenda in the initial days. It may takes months for policy makers to decide to compromise, if indeed they do.