More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

In the future you can look back and say..

They banned smoking in public spaces.
They banned smoking in public buildings.
They banned smoking in company cars/vans.
They banned smoking in cars containing children.
They banned tobacco advertising.
They banned tobacco vending machines.
They banned cigarettes being displayed in shops.
They banned colourful tobacco packaging.
They went after people selling cheaper tobacco from abroad.

But they didn't ban tobacco. because they took a great big cut of the filthy killer drug that people died and suffered from.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12687458

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I would have no issue with them banning tobacco, However if they are to ban tobacco then they will get pressure from the smokers for alcohol to be banned as well.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Hmmm.... not sure that those who smoke and drink will want to lose both life's little pleasures.. ;)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

There is no way the government will want to lose there drug money ;)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Would you have an issue with the increased taxes you'd have to pay though? If they ban smoking, the government's going to lose a large chunk of their income. A chunk that will have to be replaced from elsewhere.

Personally, if people know the risks and are happy to kill themselves, I say let them.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

The upcoming Budget should be interesting..... any bets on how much smokers and drinkers will be hammered to "balance the books"?

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12651455

So up from 0.088% to 0.190%... a HUGE percentage of the population! No wonder smoking is attacked so much. :dozey:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

It'll get to the stage one day where even the non smokers will say that they're just profiteering from the drug money.

By making the packaging unattractive the only thing allowed on the packaging will be "THESE THINGS WILL KILL YOU" *
they remove all responsibility from the makers and from the government for the sale and the allowing of these things to be sold. so in effect you can't sue anyone for the ill effects that these things will give you.
they say it's personal choice. if you choose to take the risk, they'll profit from that risk.

but they won't allow 'other killer drugs' to be sold.
because they don't profit from them, or because they're bad for people?

* one of many warnings.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

You forget that Passive smoking kills 600,000 a year which sounds a lot, but that figure is worldwide, so it's out of 6,000,000,000..

Compare that to 3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents just in the UK.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

For once, an excellent point.

It's a fairly pointless move, but I'm not against it.

People who still wish to continue smoke, will, and so they should.

So it has no impact.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Patently untrue. At the time the causal link with lung cancer was established, about 80% of men smoked. Now it's a little over 20%. It has fallen steadily as restrictions on it, and education about it, have grown tighter and more sophisticated.

There is every reason to expect the ban in public places, and now the proposal to ban display, to reduce the level of smoking in our society still further. And there is no basis for suggesting, as you have done, that there will be no impact.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I can't see if you're for or against my statement that smoking causes cancer in a tiny proportion of the population in the UK.

Passive smoking "causes" 600,000 worldwide deaths by cancer out of a world population of 600,000,000... therefore 0.1%.

3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents in the UK... how many die as a result of car accidents worldwide out of the 600,000,000?

:dunce:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I am actually surprised it is so low..

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Your calculations for the rates of both tobacco and road deaths are flawed. To average across the population of the entire world you need to be confident that the exposure to the risk is reasonably uniform.

The risk will be higher where the exposure is higher; therefore I would generally expect a higher rate of smoking-related deaths in less developed countries that tend to have higher smoking rates, and a higher rate of road deaths in more developed countries where more of the population are exposed to cars.

Naturally, in both cases, the risk will be mitigated by whatever safety legislation is in force. In the UK, for example, the use of seat belts in cars and the careful control of who can smoke, and where, might reasonably be expected to make a difference.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

So why did more women take up smoking in the 60s and 70s?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

A very good question, but one which misses the point slightly. These changes are generational. We're looking at a major, population-wide decline over 60 years, so an increase within part of the population during a span of less than 20 years has to be seen within that limited context.

Smoking was historically less aimed at women; there's some useful info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_smoking

... which while slanted at the USA is I think still relevant to the UK situation. It suggests that around the 1950s, fewer than 40% of women were smoking and the tobacco companies were marketing at women aggressively. This would account for the counter-trend rise in female smoking rates.

Of course, it might also demonstrate the power of marketing in the face of medical warnings, thereby adding weight to the current proposals to eliminate what remains of tobacco marketing in this country.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

The Americans :(

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Absolutely. Marketing it on US TV involved placing it in many of the popular shows that were eventually broadcast over here. They made it glamorous for women to smoke.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

True, but the reason I posted that was because I thought the stats posted in the original BBC article are a bit suspect. It claims 80% of men smoked in the 50s, and then goes on to say that by 1975 45% of adults smoked, which tells only half the story. Sure smoking decreased in men over that period, but it increased in women. Whether the stats are presented in that way because that's all that's available or because the picture (mass decrease in smoking) is more compelling, I don't know, but it's a fact that levels of smoking in the population did not fall from 80% in the 50s to ~45% in the 70s. They did in men, but levels actually increased in women.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Did you not see this post

Both alcohol and nicotine are drugs and the goverment profits from the money made from the sale of those drugs

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

They're no better than the local drug dealers. any responsible government would ban the nasty drugs. I don't care how many millions of pounds they make from peoples suffering.

life and health is more important! :)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I was referring to the fact that they are still available for sale and to buy.

I would argue very small - unless your including the cost.

That is more relevant, it is all about the education.

There is nothing sophisticated about banning things and hiding things from view.

My point, as I said above, was to the impact of the person buying the ciggarettes, there isn't one. If they want to buy them they can, as before, without restriction.

Instead of all this tokenism, why don't they just ban them outright? Now that would have an impact.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Actually I think balancing the need to eliminate smoking with the recognition that a lot of people are already addicted to it is quite important. Simply banning it would be irresponsible.

It is more important to have a generation of people growing up who have chosen not to smoke in the first place.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

They know people are addicted to the drug. but why can't they alleviate some of the stress and show some compassion by making them cheaper?

irresponsible?
not really. these people are addicts. addicts through the allowing of the product to be sold to them in the first place.

Let them pay more then?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

And would lose the politicians quite a few votes. And would cost the treasury a few quid. And would encourage an illegal trade in tobacco.

Smoking is a hot potato.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I'm not calculating it, Stuart stated it, but I would like to know just what percentage of people worldwide get killed in car accidents as opposed to "get" cancer from tobacco smoke?

Just to get a relative figure of risk for my own mind.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Or they didn't want to make criminals out of a load of addicts of one of the most addictive drugs known and incentivise criminal suppliers by providing them a huge customer base.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Yeh, you could say that. but then you see how much money they make out of the drug by keeping it in production. it wouldn't be so bad if they weren't profiteering so much out of it all.

the budget comes and they say something like, we're going to increase our cut by 10p a packet.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Well I've read through it and it seems an epic fail by HMG.

Where is the legislation to stop adults buying cigarettes for under 18's?

Where is the legislation to stop under 18's from attempting to buy cigarettes?

The Police can confiscate alcohol from under 18's, why is there no mention of powers to enable them to confiscate cigarettes as well

Criminalising all smokers is a non-starter but is there any reason why under 18's shouldn't be criminalised?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

They take a 77% cut from the sale of tobacco every year.

that's 11,000,000,000.00.
it costs the NHS around 2.5,000,000,000.00 a year for smoking related illnesses.

If the aim is to reduce the 11 billion pound profit. then put them cigs back on the shelves and advertise them more. this country needs that money. what are you thinking?!

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

You should remember Gary that the government don't benefit from any of the taxes raised on cigarettes ,you do, along with everyone else ,all the government do is raise taxes for our benefit ,to pay for services for us so you are just as guilty as the government .Of course if you feel that strongly about it you could deny yourself any of the services provided by HMG out of principle because they are all tainted with drug money;)

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

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

They were proposals made by Labour just three months before they lost the election - so no, they won't have had time to do anything about them.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Thanks for the clarification Chris ,I know what Hom3er is saying and also find it irritating ...and i smoke ,I would also imagine that a group of lads stood outside a pub doorway smoking with drinks in hand would be intimidating to passers by or potential customers

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

There seems to be more skunk than tobacco in the rollies around here these days.

The government could make a right packet if they legalised all the other crap that shortens lives. Imaging all the new jobs it would create. Crime would fall, prisons wouldn't be as full. It could also help lower a bulging population.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

why stop at cigs in plain packs ?? lets have books with no title's in plain covers- grey clothes that all look the same -black only cars -only one size of shoe etc etc etc

imo its time for HMG and the other do-gooders to keep their sticky beaks out of peoples lifestyle choices , its time for some to get a life of their own and stop interfering in the lives of those they disapprove of .:mad:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Good post.
I think too many people can't live their own life without guidance from authority. they depend too much on others to make decisions for them.

the sad thing is. we allow to be nannied so much, that it's become the norm.
we know no other way.

I have turned on my TV for the news. to hear what the new rules in my life are for today.

I want to to stand up and say enough is enough kind of thing. but people just look at me with scorn in their face.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I think its a utterly bad idea this... main reason say 1million people out of the 8million that smoke in the UK stop smoking that would create a shortfall in tax income of about 4 million a day (that is calculated that everybody smokes 1 pack a day) now I dont know if the gov would be able to counter balance that with anything else but it could be higher fuel duty, more duty on booze, higher income tax and so on.

---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 ----------

oh forgot what about a tax on fattie foods ie Macdonalds, kebabs, KFCs and the lot as that causes more health issues then smoking.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

We could always charge for education at primary and secondary schools.
We could abolish the council tax (because we don't really know what it's suposed to include anymore anyway) and charge seperately for each thing.
sweeping your street £1 per week. emptying the council bins in your street £1 per week. emptying your household bins £1 per kilo and various fines for not having the lid shut properly or leaving the bin out too long etc..
there's loads of stuff we could do. the main thing we need to do to raise money is introduce more fines.
even fining somebody for being out after say 2am in the morning. if they haven't got a licence (there's one. make people pay for licences for certain things) if they haven't paid for the licence to be out after 2am and they haven't got a good reason for being out, then fine them the going rate of £80.
we could even turn the streetlighting off to discourage people. that in itself will save money.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Is that an attempt at satire?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

No, it's an attempt at making money.

---------- Post added at 09:52 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

Very true. even the shopkeeper could intentionally sell you counterfeit B&H. that could pose a health risk to the unsuspecting public.

the criminal you buy your cheap tobacco from can now provide you with counterfeit and very toxic tobacco. under the guise of a plain packet.

well done the government.

Gone to check to see if there's any cool and funky looking cases flooding ebay yet.

Ones with flashing LEDs would be a good seller. schoolkids could sell them for a profit. and if you wanted one you just need to fill it with cigarettes and probably smoke them.

You could look at it as reverse psychology. where something that is forbidden/illegal/hard to get hold of suddenly becoming attractive?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

His grandparents were probably in their late 20s.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I just shut my eyes and tried to remember what the pack for my favourite brand of cigarettes looks like.

I've been smoking them for about 4 years... but couldn't recall what was written/displayed on the pack apart from the name.

I then tried to write the name in a font similar to that on the pack.

I failed miserably.

I wonder if this white pack nonsense is actually an advertising gimmick?

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Would they have a price list on display, or do you have to stand there and ask how much are the B&H? what about the Embassy, how much are they? do you have them ones that, ooh I can't remember what they looked like now.. the ones with a blue packet with a bit of red in them. how much are they?

LOL we got these ones and we got these ones. and you say they both look the same both being white. what do they taste like?

I expect the cheaper ones will be the best seller. especially if they all come in white.

put them in your cool and funky LED case and you're the man! :)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

If they are bothered about it that much why have the Government given the HMRC an extra £900million to tackle fake Tobacco? Aaaah that's right they need their £7billion each year in duty don't they?

What are they going to lump it on to when and if the duty from tobacco drops to below £1billion a year, £5 a pint anyone or £12 for a gallon of fuel?:confused:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Perhaps they could come in white packaging, but the fag papers could come in all sorts of bright colours with gold tips like Sobranie Cocktail of years ago?

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/03/47.jpg

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Correct, will they strip the signs out of MacDonalds, KFC, Burger King and move them away from populated areas??

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

That's next year's budget.....

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

The pink ones will put me in touch with my feminine side.:D

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

Thought it was this years with how it's increasing on a daily basis.:cool:

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I'd say it's not just fake tobacco. it's more of protecting their source of income and stopping those that bring and sell the cheaper stuff from abroad.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 ----------

They'll have to. fat people need the help of the government too.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

indeed, it wont be easy.

There is a huge difference tho between a typical drinker and smoker.

Most people who drink alcohol just do it in leasurely time and in a controlled manner.

The typical smoker cannot stay away from the stuff. Everywhere I have worked, smokers have breaks every hour or so, everyone who smokes in my family struggles to not smoke when I am around (my eyes too sensitive to it), so the difference between the 2 is a gulf. Generally speaking passive smoking affects everyone near a smoker whilst alcohol only harms others in a few cases.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

We go round the houses with the 'what about alcohol' fallacy every time a smoking thread comes up on this forum.

Even if alcohol was singularly responsible for every act of crime and depravity ever committed, it would not alter the fact that tobacco is a dangerous, addictive drug that in and of itself needs to be dealt with.

As it happens, the sale of alcohol is already far more tightly regulated than the sale of tobacco is. The more relaxed regime around its advertising and consumption might just have something to do with the fact that, as Chrysalis says, alcohol may be addictive to some people whereas tobacco is addictive to almost all.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

[QUOTE=DocDutch;35190426]I think its a utterly bad idea this... main reason say 1million people out of the 8million that smoke in the UK stop smoking that would create a shortfall in tax income of about 4 million a day (that is calculated that everybody smokes 1 pack a day) now I dont know if the gov would be able to counter balance that with anything else but it could be higher fuel duty, more duty on booze, higher income tax and so on.

QUOTE]

Simply because the government receive tax from cigarettes doesn't mean they don't have a obligation to remove the danger on behalf of the people that elected them .The alternative is to keep the staus quo and allow 1000's of people to die each year just to maintain the level of income from tobacco

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

Personally, I'm starting to find the whole "government needs the tax" argument a bit tiresome now, because it is continually offered as if it's some sort of self-evident truth with no proof required to back it up.

£8 billion sounds like a lot, but the NHS alone costs well over £100 billion a year. The government would obviously prefer not to have to find a further £8 billion of savings overnight, but it would not be vastly difficult to do.

Smoking is not simply banned outright because too many people are addicted to it. It can't be banned outright until the number of addicts is manageably small. That will take some years to achieve and plans such as removing tobacco from sight are designed to move us towards that aim.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

So ban it then.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

It's not heroin,

Most people that I know, that have given up - myself included, only feel the craving for a cigarette when around other people that are smoking.#

It's the social thing.

Nicotene is well out of the bodys system in a couple of days. It's not a "physical" after that period it's mental.

Just ban it, everybody freaks out for a few days then that's it.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

See above. ;)

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I also think a total ban would be counter productive..it would merely lead to more toxic non-regulated tobacco products being available via 'pushers' very much like prohibition in the US led to substandard alcohol being sold by criminal gangs.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

haha in those 3 days poll style riots etc. from smokers.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

1 in 5 adults simultaneously coming off one of the most addictive substances on the planet, that'd be interesting.

---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

Indeed - many studies indicate it to be more addictive than heroin.

Physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal actually last for months. I know there's some myth about how once there's no nicotine in the body any more you magically have no physical withdrawal symptoms but that's complete nonsense. That's like saying any drug's withdrawal is over once the drug is metabolised fully which is ridiculous, physical withdrawal lasts for as long as it takes the body to adjust to no longer having the drug present which in the case of nicotine is a period measured in months rather than days due to the variety of effects on the brain.

Re: More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)
 

I dont think it will work.

Young will still smoke as its trendy.

The other is advertising still exists everywhere but its not direct how much of bearing is this free advertising.

You watch TV/Films actors and actresses smoking.

I wonder if there is link to some people seeing there favourites light up makes them want to be the same. Its in human culture they see these stars in trendy gear want to emulate them in fashion. See them drive a nice car want to have the same. We all copy our idols in one way or another.

Problem is what can you do about it if there is a link.

I read that the fear it will drive it underground. My mum smokes she worried with unmarked she wont know what the hell she smoking.

She has her favourite berkley blue.

The other is the bull that if both parents smoke you follow. What load claptrap not if youve seen both parents cough there guts you dont.

It put me and my sister off for sure. Both never tried it never will. I cant anyway through health would finish me off.