Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I'm a smoker. I pay this tax that everyone benefits from. the tax that some people complain about that I'm paying by way of a filthy habit that bothers them :)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

so why not give up instead of blaming the government for your own shorcommings ,i also smoke but i'm not about to start calling the HMG "drug dealers"

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I don't want to give up. I enjoy smoking. and if I go into hospital due to smoking I won't feel guilty from those people who say I'm costing them money.

the money that I've paid for myself. not them.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I'm sorry Gary but your posts are confusing me i don't know where you stand on the subject .In one post you are calling the government drug dealers and irresponsible for selling tobaco ,in the next you're saying you don't want to give up and enjoy smoking :confused:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

No. I said They're no better than the local drug dealers.

Yes.

So I enjoy smoking and think they make too much money from me and others that smoke. and think they're irresponsible for letting me and others be allowed to buy them when they know that they are dangerous to mine and everybodies health.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Education and persuasion is always more effective in the long term. As Ignition pointed out earlier, if you simply slap an overnight ban on smoking, all you achieve is to create a massive demand for a black market trade in tobacco.

The long term strategy of taking tobacco out of the public view is designed to reduce take-up of smoking, and reduce the number of people who go back to it after quitting. And health campaigns are designed to encourage people to quit.

All of this is more effective than simply banning. And as for 'allowed to buy them' ... well you have to take responsibility for yourself sooner or later, don't you. Very few people who smoke today can claim they don't know what the risks are.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

You'd think so. so why won't they let me buy and take other drugs?

A good example is the wearing of a seatbelt. I'm not allowed to say if I get hurt or killed from not wearing it, then that's my responsibility.

They 'banned' me from having that choice.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Because the effects of 'other drugs' were established and understood before their use became widespread.

Tobacco, on the other hand, we are stuck with for now.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

And while we're stuck with it. they will carry on profiteering from it. but introducing little things to make it look like they detest the thing that they profit from.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

which is the same thing


They aren't forcing you to buy tobacco ,the same as they they aren't forcing anyone to buy alchohol or drive cars which are equally as dangerous and costly to the NHS .If HMG decided to not let you buy tobacco would you then give up or join the ranks of the criminal underworld ? and would you then be happy to pay more tax than you do now to replace the income lost and to cover the benefits for the loss in jobs from the tobacco industry

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

No it's not.

It'll be cheaper.

You give a very good argument as to why non smokers should be thankful to us smokers. you even did the sympathy job thing too! :)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

try answering the question ....,both of them

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Yes and No. in that order.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

The should ban smoking within a distance for building doors.

Many time have an idiot stop dead at a door way to lit up and then blow smoke in my face. Next time I'll punch them in the back of the head.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

so if smoking was criminalised you would give up ,but would be unhappy about the raised taxes that would result in the ban ,you can't have it both ways you know

The government realise that smoking is costing the tax payer far too much money so they are gradually working towards a ban imo ,the way they are doing it is slowly to encourage people to give up or not start in the first place ,the later being the prefered option ,as this happens the financial load on the NHS will lessen because less people are suffering from smoking related illness ,eventually so few people will smoke (hopefully) that the loss of revenue will be negligable ,only then would a ban be introduced ,

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

I thought they had or has this not been introduced yet