[Closed] smoking, could it happen here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21954909

Might not happen over the border in England though

The SNP are aiming for 2034 in Scotland

Edit- too slow

It's odd, half the population/media seem to be convinced cannabis will be legal, the other half that smoking will be banned entirely.

It's odd, half the population/media seem to be convinced cannabis will be legal, the other half that smoking will be banned entirely.

It may be news to you but there are ways of consuming cannabis that do not involve smoking it. For example space cakes.

[img] [/img]

😉

as a smoker (of normal smokes and the funny fags) all in favour of it, as I was before the smoking ban came in. I'd legalise weed for personal cultivation mind you 🙂

it'll be illegal. shoot on sight.

True, but it's harder to look cool eating a chocolate brownie.

not under the tories they bowed out easily under pressure/donnations from tobacco lobbyists over plain packaging

same as they did with minimum alcohol pricing

and food labeling

etc

True, but it's harder to look cool eating a chocolate brownie.

PMSL at mental image of hoodies on park bench with cakes in the shape of peppa pig

unlikely with a ex-director of BAT in the cabinet.

Might not happen over the border in England though

It's something that makes us an enormous amount in tax. Should we stop it? Erm......

there was a proposal floated down here in Tassie to increase the age of buying fags by one year every year to reduce the number of smokers and to effectively phase it out.

The SNP are aiming for 2034 in Scotland

I wonder whether they've included that in their budget calculations (given smokers are significant net contributors)?

It's something that makes us an enormous amount in tax. Should we stop it? Erm......

this is the thing, it costs the exchequer a fortune, but if you ban it today the tax hit doesn't go away for decades!

I wonder whether they've included that in their budget calculations (given smokers are significant net contributors)?

Perhaps not when you factor in the cost of smoking to the health system.

Cost to the health system is much less than the tax take. Smokers also don't tend to cost so much in pensions.

mrmo - Member

if you ban it today the tax hit doesn't go away for decades!

True point. Though o'course a proportion of the tax won't be lost, as the fag spend will mostly go on something else taxable- just less taxable.

There'll be all sorts of other costs, some wibblier than others... Loss of earning from people ill due to fags, subsequent impact on family members and employers, all that jazz.

No one smokes real cigarettes any more anyway do they? It's all about the electronic space fags now.

Cost to the health system is much less than the tax take. Smokers also don't tend to cost so much in pensions.

So smokers contribute more and take out less ? I almost feel that I should smoke out of patriotic duty.

Perhaps not when you factor in the cost of smoking to the health system.

If you smoke and get lung cancer you get a lethal injection. No treatments, no palliative care, just a nice quick exit.

Non-smokers with lung cancer for get the works.

Other health implications are a grey area...

Problem solved.

😉

So smokers contribute more and take out less ?

Yeah - it's us healthy mountain bikers with our VAT free helmets who will live to 102 who are the drain on the system (assuming that is our current pension [s]Ponzi scheme[/s] system survives that long).

Yeah - it's us healthy mountain bikers with our VAT free helmets who will live to 102 who are the drain on the system

You forget the A&E costs?
I think it's a great idea. We know enough about smoking to justify banning it completely IMHO. It doesn't even get you pissed.
That said, all of the tax lost by government will have to be replaced somehow.

It never fails to amaze me how many supposedly intellegent people think it is a good idea for the state to legislate as to what it deems acceptable for adults to ingest into their own bodies? What business of the state's is it? Why do you allow the state to assume a de-facto ownership over you?

Dr James Reilly has defined a "tobacco-free Ireland" as a state where less than 5% of the population smoke.

Er... that's not quite what I'd have in mind when talking about 'tobacco-free'.

We know enough about smoking to justify banning it completely IMHO

Like we've done with drugs? That's gone well.

Er... that's not quite what I'd have in mind when talking about 'tobacco-free'.

Just as well you're not the one saying it then.

Thanks for that DD 🙂

I guess that I can talk about fatality free roads (less than 50,000 deaths pa) too then.

Or calorie free meals (less than 1000 calories) or...

😀

You can talk about whatever you want. I guess the guy in question is probably being realistic in thinking that getting tobacco usage down to zero is nigh on impossible in a generation, so getting it to less than 1 in 20 users (and thus de-normalising (if that's a word) it) is a fair enough description for now.

You ought to email him your observations though - I think he may well have a change in tune and think more about his choice of terms rather than the more important job in hand.

Bad night with the little'un DD? 🙂

Can you get cancer from smoking 100% pure weed joints?
would be costly like.

vapourizesr are the way forward

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17437626

Bad night with the little'un DD?

Not at all. Have you emailed him yet?

Well, having had five friends die from drug ODs; I'm quite happy that heroin and crack aren't available in Tescos.

If drugs were legal/regulated and their problems were treated as a medical rather than criminal issue they would quite probably still be alive.

Each to their own etc. I wouldn't be an advocate of banning smoking. I do wholeheartedly support any moves to make it less socially acceptable though, especially amongst the young.
I feel that by the time kids that try smoking really have a sense of mortalitly, and are mature enough to make the right decision about smoking, they are already hooked. I know I was, and giving up was bloody hard.
Raise the age to buy them, increase the penalties for those who sell them to the under age, and continue to make them as uncool as possible.

ohnohesback - Member
It never fails to amaze me how many supposedly intellegent people think it is a good idea for the state to legislate as to what it deems acceptable for adults to ingest into their own bodies? What business of the state's is it?

If drugs were legal/regulated and their problems were treated as a medical rather than criminal issue they would quite probably still be alive.

They OD'd, and it's highly likely they'd have done so if they'd have got their stuff from Boots instead of dodgy derek the yardie.

The reason people OD is generally due to the vastly variable purity/quality of the drugs they are taking. If they were regulated this wouldn't happen. I'm sure the odd person would still OD but it would be much less common.

There's quite a lot of good evidence about this.

IMHO the only way the'd still be alive is if they just couldn't get the stuff at all.

How do you suggest going about making that happen?

t never fails to amaze me how many supposedly intellegent people think it is a good idea for the state to legislate as to what it deems acceptable for adults to ingest into their own bodies? What business of the state's is it?

The only person I've ever known to die from a heroine overdose did so because she didn't know what its purity was, she would be alive today if had got it from Boots at a known strength. She didn't want to die.

zilog - but it's the smoker's choice. Same for Cadburys, beer, Burger King et al.

All I'll say is that as

a) an ex smoker (5 years), I HATE the smell of smoke either in the air, on my clothes or in my vicinity.

b) with a Friday beer in my hand, I'd love a couple of Marlborough Menthols; all due to this thread!

I very much doubt that. They OD'd, and it's highly likely they'd have done so if they'd have got their stuff from Boots instead of dodgy derek the yardie. IMHO the only way the'd still be alive is if they just couldn't get the stuff at all.

Well, having had five friends die from drug ODs; I'm quite happy that heroin and crack aren't available in Tescos.

I know it's already been done, but I'm just astounded by the huge logical fallacy in that sentence.

The reason people OD is generally due to the vastly variable purity/quality of the drugs they are taking. If they were regulated this wouldn't happen. I'm sure the odd person would still OD but it would be much less common.

Surely the main reason people od is because they have foolishly taken the drugs in the first place.

Surely the main reason people od is because they have foolishly taken the drugs in the first place.

Yes but the main reason people die is being born in the first place. 😕

I know it's already been done, but I'm just astounded by the huge logical fallacy in that sentence.

I'm just astounded

Have you not spotted any straw men yet then?