smoking, could it happen here.
Might not happen over the border in England thoughPosted 4 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years agoJon TaylorSubscriber
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…
😉Posted 4 years ago
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?Posted 4 years ago
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.ohnohesbackMember
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?Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agocbmotorsportMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.scotroutesSubscriber
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?
When “the state” pays for healthcare I think it’s reasonable it should make efforts to contain and reduce those costs. Of course, we could hypothecate tobacco tax and then use it to pay for private medical care, subsidise employers for time lost, pay for “smokers-only” ambulances etcPosted 4 years ago
If drugs were legal/regulated and their problems were treated as a medical rather than criminal issue they would quite probably still be alive.
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.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘smoking, could it happen here.’ is closed to new replies.