Smoking Ban

[k69atie]

Smoking makes the world's governments a lot of money through taxes, but smokers also cost governments a lot of money due to smoking-related health problems.

true, but so do obese people, people who drink too much and people who commit benefit fraud

 

[Duke]

Smoking makes the world's governments a lot of money through taxes, but smokers also cost governments a lot of money due to smoking-related health problems.

No one's gonna dispute it's bad for you, but, like alcohol, it has become such an integral part of western society, it's going to be nigh impossible to eradicate it. I mean, ideally, I'd see it disappear entirely as well and I'm all for the government trying to prevent people from taking up smoking, but banning it in a places like pubs/clubs seems like a bad idea imo.

They tried to do the same in Holland a couple of years ago. The plan to ban smoking in bars, hotels etc (even banning smoking in coffeeshops ). Didn't come through.

 

[~live2tell~]

[/B]

true, but so do obese people, people who drink too much and people who commit benefit fraud

There is a difference though - people who are obese usually suffer from a disease out of their control and if not and they're obese from eating too much well at least they are only harming themselves same for people who drink too much and people who commit benefit fraud. Whereas smokers are harming others that don't smoke as well as themselves.

 

[k69atie]

very true, but his point was about smokers who use tax payers money being treated on the nhs, i was just pointing out that so do other people, not just smokers.

people who commit benefit fraud effects the whole country, as it is a waste of tax payers money. as so does people smoking in public like you said, as it is damaging to other people.

and in some cases people going out and getting wasted does effect other people, some people are very violent when they are drunk.

 

[Illuminattile]

very true, but his point was about smokers who use tax payers money being treated on the nhs, i was just pointing out that so do other people, not just smokers.

But the economic cost isn't the justification for the ban, the damage it causes to others is. If hanging around people who drink damaged your liver, then I'd say that should be banned too.

I was just saying that the tax paid on cigarettes is counterbalanced by the additional cost of health care caused by smoking.

 

[Devious]

it was a joke, don be so uptight

and infact i do hav some insight, i believe this is a step in the right direction, since manitoba banned smokin in public places my step dad and my mom's girlfriend hav lowered ther smoking imensly and not only jus in public places, because they've become less acustomed to smoking all the time, so at home they've slowed it down, and in public places.

But because of the ban in public places, smokin in bars has gone up, cuz the people that used to smoke in coffee shops, and other places, but now the only place they can smoke indoors, is in a bar, so unless they want to stand outside in the winnipeg (winterpeg) weather, ther forced to go to bars

if it was banned in bars, then people would be forced to go outside, and would limit smoking ALOT, and people would start to quit.

I guess maybe its because you're too young to go into em saint lol, but smoking is banned in all public places in Manitoba, including bars

 

[k69atie]

But the economic cost isn't the justification for the ban, the damage it causes to others is. If hanging around people who drink damaged your liver, then I'd say that should be banned too.

I was just saying that the tax paid on cigarettes is counterbalanced by the additional cost of health care caused by smoking.

ok fair enough i see your point now

 

[_carmi]

i hope they do ban smoking from public areas. but i dont think they should ban smoking in clubs or bars tho. i mean each and every while if i go clubbing i like to have sometimes a cig and not this wont happen anymore in may (for over here). one thing i'd wish is my parents stopping smoking even if thats never gonna happen

 

[Pittsey]

I will be glad to come home from a night out and not stink of smoke. Also my bedroom won't stink in the morning either. The smoke fucking stinks up your clothes and anything they come into contact with, on that count it gets my vote.

Also places won't lose money. Did it happen in the places in the US or Ireland, from what I've seen No. Although you can smell a lot more stuff like booze and cleaning fluids.

And even though they will lose a lot of money on taxes, there will be a significant of people quiting. But it will also mean that less people have smoking related health complaints. So less tax money will be needed to fund the already overstretched NHS.

I look at it as a positive thing.



People will still be able to smoke outside, in beer gardens and stuff, right?


The way I see it the only people who don't want a ban are smokers, and even then some of them are for it.

 

[k69atie]

^ do you really think people will quit just cos they can't light up in public?

 

[FroDawgg]

What about the fact that this will also fuck with the economy?

QUOTE]

i HATE that argument (my father-in-law also uses it). so the economy is more important than health and lives? i don't think so.

 

[The.Menace]

i HATE that argument (my father-in-law also uses it). so the economy is more important than health and lives? i don't think so.

Well, wake up - welcome 2 this real world.

P.S: I agree with you, but still this is not how it works, sad but true.

 

[Illuminattile]

^ do you really think people will quit just cos they can't light up in public?

Yes. Not everyone, but some people. Those who smoke socially or just have the odd cigarette will probably quit because it's an inconvenience. The hardcore chain-smokers might not quit, but hopefully it might reduce how much they smoke.

 

[Katarina]

They have this in Sweden now, since last summer. I'm not really a smoker but I think it's great to be able to go out and not smell like smoke when you get home. Most smokers I know have no problem with the new law either.

 

[Cooper]

I agree with it (I'm a non smoker)

 

[Jibster]

Firstly tax on cigarettes brings in £8 billion whereas treatment for smoking related diseases costs £2 billion in the UK. That's a £6 billion deficit which means the we, one of the highest taxed countries already, will be taxed further with the deficit being lumped on alcohol and petrol.

Secondly, the effects of passive smoking were initially thought to be considerable when Tommy Cooper died but it's known now that that estimation was an overreaction. Passive smoking causes minimal health issues unless you are constantly exposed to it over a large period of time such as if you are a bar worker.

On the other hand, i'm one of those people who enjoys a cig with a pint but now i'll have to cut that out so i believe it WILL stop those casual smokers from buying a pack of 20 a week but it's not going to stop the hardcore from doing so.

Overall, i'm not entirely sure what i make of this, it doesn't really bother me personally but from a basic human rights perspective if you want to smoke it should be entirely up to you or the person that owns the premises, it's more looney lefties telling people how they should live, is no-one allowed a vice anymore?

The main thing which i hope comes out of this is that they bring cannabis laws in line with cigarette laws meaning that it won't be illegal so long as it's done on your own property. I personally reckon this is where it's heading.

 

[k69atie]

Yes. Not everyone, but some people. Those who smoke socially or just have the odd cigarette will probably quit because it's an inconvenience. The hardcore chain-smokers might not quit, but hopefully it might reduce how much they smoke.

yeah i had never thought of that. good point.

 

[k69atie]

Firstly tax on cigarettes brings in £8 billion whereas treatment for smoking related diseases costs £2 billion in the UK. That's a £6 billion deficit which means the we, one of the highest taxed countries already, will be taxed further with the deficit being lumped on alcohol and petrol.

Secondly, the effects of passive smoking were initially thought to be considerable when Tommy Cooper died but it's known now that that estimation was an overreaction. Passive smoking causes minimal health issues unless you are constantly exposed to it over a large period of time such as if you are a bar worker.

On the other hand, i'm one of those people who enjoys a cig with a pint but now i'll have to cut that out so i believe it WILL stop those casual smokers from buying a pack of 20 a week but it's not going to stop the hardcore from doing so.

Overall, i'm not entirely sure what i make of this, it doesn't really bother me personally but from a basic human rights perspective if you want to smoke it should be entirely up to you or the person that owns the premises, it's more looney lefties telling people how they should live, is no-one allowed a vice anymore?

The main thing which i hope comes out of this is that they bring cannabis laws in line with cigarette laws meaning that it won't be illegal so long as it's done on your own property. I personally reckon this is where it's heading.

good idea.

i am not sure i get how this works, it isn't illegal to buy cigs so how can they ban it?

 

[Jibster]

[/B]



good idea.

i am not sure i get how this works, it isn't illegal to buy cigs so how can they ban it?

The ban is on the actual smoking in public places, the bit where you actually light the cig, not the purchase of the pack. In other words, they want some of the tax from it, but not the hospital bills.

 

[k69atie]

^^ thanks. i see what you mean now!!