Popping out for a smoke......

[fxmarkets]

The Dept. of Health says that treating smoking-related diseases costs £1.7b a year, and the Treasury receives around £8b a year in tobacco duty.

(As a sanity check: say 23% of 60m people smoke, at an average of 8 fags a day, and a packet costs £5, and 60% of the price is duty, then that's £6b to the Treasury -- very rough figures but it's only a sanity check.)

hmmm sounds about right, I mean i was thinking 12 odd years back......... so can we clear it up is this country cash positive for people smoking? leaving morals aside...

all agree....... non smokers are subsidised by smokers.. ?

 

[barjon]

well i'm sitting here happily puffing on my pipe (and getting 10% non-smoker discount on my life insurance since pipe smoking doesn't count and is not lung cancer related - strange that, it's supposed to be because of the temperature of the smoke, which doesn't sit comfortably with passive smoking dangers)

shame i won't be able to puff away in pubs but so be it and that's a fair do if the majority of customers find it objectionable.

i reckon what i've paid in tax and excise duty over the years (and it's been passed on to me, jonny, whoever it was levied against) will more than pay for some pretty extensive treatment should (when) i need it. anyway we don't ban rugby because players get injured and need hospital treatment do we?

good trading (puffing away or not)

jon

 

[JonnyT]

But Rugby players have a choice. Non smokers do not...

 

[wasp]

??
With a smoking ban, it is either all or nothing. A part ban or giving places the options won't work. People will look at revenue and allow smoking because they will be to worried about losing profit.

Yet, as it seems by the fact I am so greatly outnumbered on this thread, a 'part' ban, or by landlords having the choice, it seems the non smoking pub will prevail and be more financially beneficial as so many people blatantally prefer the 'non-smoking' option. Consequently, the 'non-smoking pubs' would all but vanish yet still exist in there small numbers for those who still smoke.

 

[barjon]

true, jonny, my comment was only related to the economic element

 

[fxmarkets]

"Tobacco products are a major revenue earner for the Government and contributed around £9.9 billion in tax in 2003/4 (£8.09 billion in excise duties and £1.83 billion in VAT). This is, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), equivalent to almost 3p on the basic rate of income tax or 8p on the higher rate of income tax.

lifted from
http://www.thetma.org.uk/page.aspx?page_id=10


Smoking costs the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn a year, according to the most recent research. The estimate by the Centre for Health Economics, University of York, is considerably higher than previous calculations which put the cost of treating smoking related diseases at just £610m a year.

lifted from bbc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/86599.stm



well, smokers are doing non smokers a favour financially......... one could say

"so stick that in your pipe"

thank you smokers.....

 

[dick_dastardly]

Most smokers want to quit ( I know, I was one of them until I quit in 1992 ). The hardest part of giving up was being in the company of other smokers.

A ban on smoking in public places IS SMOKERS RIGHTS !

A ban on smoking in public places IS NOT A BAN ON SMOKING !

 

[JonnyT]

Like I've said before. the vast majority of the revenue is through Corporation Tax not through people buying cigarettes in the UK.

 

[adrianallen99]

I don't understand the logic that because you are taxed and non-smokers don't have to pay for their treatment that it is in some way okay.

My grandad died in his late 60's from smoking related illnesses, he spent the last 8 years of his life having treatment. With all the care and operations he had, it is likely to have far exceeded any tax he paid.

Also what about the non-smokers who work in pubs who die from passive smoking related illnesses, how much tax do you need to pay to make that okay??

 

[wasp]

........and all those who become ill, require treatment, or die through alcohol... but thats okay?

 

[adrianallen99]

How about this.

The pub can either have a smoking Licence or a Liquor Licence, not both.

So you can either smoke in the pub or drink in it, not both

Oh and in the smoking pub you can only listen to music in the top 10 - Chrisw's suggestion

 

[adrianallen99]

........and all those who become ill, require treatment, or die through alcohol... but thats okay?

What has that got to do with a ban on smoking in public places.

Stop trying to justify your addiction with the fact you pay tax and we are going to die anyway.

 

[fxmarkets]

hmm I did hear on the radio earlier, in New York, ban in place for couple of years, that they do have ,8 cigar clubs I think its a place where you can get tobacco and have a quick quaff...

hooo haaa.

 

[wasp]

What has that got to do with a ban on smoking in public places.

Stop trying to justify your addiction with the fact you pay tax and we are going to die anyway.

It has everything to do with a ban on smoking in public places.

If, a person is allowed to drink and it has just as much effect on theire own, as well as someones elses life, with no choice in the matter by the effected in the same way as passive smoking, why should the smoker not have the option to drink whilst they smoke?

I'm not saying all pubs should allow it but there should be the option to run a pub which allows it and then the customer has the option to choose which pub they go to.

I'm not trying to justify the fact I smoke in the slightest. Its my choice and I'm quite happy about it. As for paying tax, I never mentioned it and don't care either, I accept that.

Chris

 

[JonnyT]

Does Alcoloh kill other people for simply being in the same room?

JonnyT

 

[chump]

No it does not JT ,but it can blight another persons life just the same.

Chris,
Don't worry overmuch . The market being as it is I can almost guarantee you that a solution to the problem of smoking and socialising together will be resolved in some form or other as there is money to be made in doing that.

 

[adrianallen99]

Also the debate on drinking and its effects is another debate entirely.

Drinking, Gambling, Drugs etc.. can all have very negative effect.
Trying to prove that they shouldn't have banned smoking in public places by saying they haven't banned Drinking, Gambling, etc.. Doesnt prove anything.

Alchol and the problems it causes are very serious and definately need to be addressed, but seperately.

Oh! I neither drink or smoke and I don't go to pubs anymore. I use to drink a lot and on one occassion I nearly killed myself, one of my friends had to always go one better and did kill himself after one especially heavy drinking session (whilst celebrating exams finishing).

 

[rossored]

As an occasionally-when-im-drunk-smoker, I welcome it. No more smoke-filled pubs and clubs and worse still - smoke drifting over me whilst I'm eating.

At the end of the day, if I want to smoke when I'm out then I go out anyway, because I don't see why others (particularly the non-smokers I'm with) should have to put up with the stink and stinging eyes simply because I fancy a quick drag. Bit of a problem if you're all smokers, admittedly, or if you're in a place that requires a queue etc to get back in if you go out - but this has been on the cards since before it happened in Ireland imo, and will be welcomed by the majority of the population.

 

[dbphoenix]

Seems like a golden opportunity for some energetic entrepreneur to create a chain of private clubs in which which smoking is not only allowed but encouraged . . .

 

[fxmarkets]

private clubs, still not allowed to smoke in them, which seems a bit , "control freakish" of the government

as far as I understand it at the moment...