Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

http://www.itv.com/news/border/2016-...tte-packaging/

No matter what the Government does concerning smoking. It will NOT stop people smoking.

You have have plain packets, showing every ghastly aspect of what happens to people who smokers.

I do not smoke, but its not up to me or the Government to stop people from smoking.

The Government make a fortune from smokers, and now they are wasting money on trying to prevent company selling cigarettes.

EVEN if you were charging £20.00 for twenty, people would still buy them.

And to ban 10 cigarettes, is just stupid. They will simply buy 20 cigarettes instead.

And the government will earn even extra TAX on them.

Cameron and Co must be thick if they try and take on the Tobacco Manufactureers, as l believe they are taking the Government to court over this.

Its like the Sugar Tax. Osborne lost on that - again. The Government will lose on this one

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

This is a war won by increments, and its working. Far less people smoke now than in the 70's for example, it'll take a while, but eventually smoking will be relegated to drug pushers.

As far as costs go, the old view was, what the Govt made in Tax, was spent on treating smokers & smoking related diseases on the NHS.

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

The government makes much more in tax from smokers than it spends treating smoking related disease iirc

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

The biggest help to cutting numbers of smoker's now is e-cigarettes and they are far more effective then the usual rubbish NRT treatments currently handed out by all cessation services though some are now offering an e-cigarettes alternative. Unfortunately EU legislation called the tobacco products directive mainly article 20 will hit e-cigarettes very hard making it much harder for people to make the switch from tobacco and have a significantly less choice in making that switch. This government hasn't got a clue what it's doing in relation to tobacco beyond annual tax increases which clearly have nothing to do with getting people to quit and are all about revenue.

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_106.pdf

40 years ago, 45% of the U.K. population smoked cigarettes, now it's 19% - sorry, Arthur, reality disproves your proposition...

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

It will stop a lot of people

There is a responsibility on the government .The government has responsibility to govern all aspects of our health

The government do not make a single penny from cigarette sales ,they tax the product on our behalf to aid with the cost of running the NHS.Would you rather the government encourage smokers and spend more money on cancer treatment caused by smoking to the detriment of other illnesses.

Some probably would but a lot probably wouldn't .

It's perfectly sensible ,aimed at those with limited income like children .When i first started smoking you could buy single cigarettes ,perfect for my small amount of pocket money

The government won the case

Already won it Arthur

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

I smoke, and I could honestly say that I have no idea what is on the pack, either written or pictorial.

We seem to be following Australia in all things tobacco-related. And they have just announced a year-on-year massive tax increase that will see a pack cross the £20 level in a couple of years. So the revenue loss from those that stop smoking will be replaced by those that continue. A nice way to keep the coffers topped-up.

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

new EU meddling could see the return of the smoker :shocked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36349023

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

As e-cigs really only took off in the last 10 years, and the % of UK population who smoked in 2006 was 23%, probably not...

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

Once the new generation get older and replace the current older generation i wouldn't be surprised to see the statistics for how many smokers there are plummet. I hardly ever see young people smoking anymore and those that do tend to be vaping rather than on cigarettes. Things like smoking and getting blitzed on alcohol are becoming less and less 'cool' to them.

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

The drop in smoking started in the 1970s. Long before any specific measures were introduced.

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

Free (or much cheaper) ciggies to the military during, and after WW2, meant a large rise in the percentage of smokers. Those hooked on nicotine during that period are dying out, so of course the percentages these days are dropping.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Also the big rise in vapers is about to get hit by the TPD. (tobacco product directive) whichcould frive people back to cigs.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Time to the same with beers wines & spirits

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

what take the label off so you don't know what your drinking

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

That new rule is all about ensuring a tax stream for when fags get too expensive. The tax they get from fags will be a great loss when its gone so what better than to tax E cigs now

Re: This will not stop smokers
 

1965 Cigarette advertising was banned in TV in 1965
1969 the Radio Times implemented its own ban on cigarette advertising
1971 Publication of the second ROyal College of Physicians report, "Smoking and Health Now"; this report also received widespread publicity and caused a permanent drop of 5% in cigarette consumption
1971 Health warnings were put on cigarette packets
1971 London Transport increased the proportion of carriages in underground trains reserved for non-smokers from 50% to 75%, and banned smoking on single-deck buses
1972 132 MPs voted in favour of a ban on cigarette advertising, 73 against. In an extension of the existing voluntary agreement, the industry agreed to: include "health hints" on cigarette packs (e.g. "if you do smoke, leave a long stub); cover up specific brand advertisements at televised sporting events; ensure that all brand ads at sports events carried a health warning; ensure that cinema cigarette advertisements, and those sent through the post, carried a reference to the health warning
1974 The second edition of the tar tables was published, dividing cigarettes into high, middle-to-high, middle, low-to-middle and low tar categories
1975 Following discussions with the industry and the department of Health, the ASA agreed to devise a new, stricter code governing cigarette advertising
1976 The HEC launched an anti-smoking campaign aimed at young people
1976 The BBC programme Nationwide launched a widespread campaign to "Stop smoking with Nationwide" which continued for several months
1977 The HEC launched a TV campaign focusing on the rights of non-smokers and smoking by women
1978 The Independent Broadcasting Authority publishes a Code of Advertising Standards which regulates all commercial TV and radio broadcasting. Cigarettes and cigarette tobacco are "unacceptable products" not to be advertised on commercial radio

Source: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_741.pdf

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

Actually, in 1947, a massive (43%) increase in cigarette tax results led to a 14% drop in cigarette consumption among British men.

Also, over 60s have a lower percentage of smokers than other age groups.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PU...g-2015-rep.pdf page 12

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...king-stats.jpg

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Only in the UK are cigarettes at the front of the store, and the pharmacy at the back.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I think tobacco smoking is in terminal decline in the West and the future of tobacco is in Africa and Asia that's certainly where the major tobacco company's see their future profits. Will there be a hardcore left in the West yes of course there will my father is one of them. Even after seeing how successful e-cigarettes were for me and my mother (yes I got her to make the switch) he will not even try one or think about quitting full stop. As that group dies so the smoking figures will hit single figure percentages and in twenty years you'll be more likely to see classic cars then a public smoker.

I'm divided on the subject as while I understand the damage tobacco does and the negative affect it has on society I find many of the things done to smoker's to be distasteful such as bans and restrictions. Tobacco is a legal product and we already limit sale to adults I'd have preferred the numerous governments to have the courage of their supposed conviction and banned it altogether.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Seems a bit barmy.
I seriously doubt anyone started smoking because of the branding on the packet.

I assume you are joking (or have completely lost your mind).

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Answering the original post I'm fine with plain cigarette packaging.

I'd quite like to see cannabis legalised for recreational use, though. Bit of a farce that it's legal in some US states but here a bunch of politicians still have a rod up their arse over it, to the point where we no longer ban things, we explicitly allow them and assume everything else is banned.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

personally i don't see the point in making them plain, i do smoke and it wouldn't stop me.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Just ordered myself a rather natty silver & black leather cigarette case

who says smoking isn't cool ? :monkey:

I suspect the packaging is more about being able to sniff out imported/smuggled cigarettes rather than stopping people from smoking.

Lets face it, if you're addicted to a drug which is apparently more addictive than heroin, is a picture of some diseased lungs really going to think 'actually, no, time to stop'

Time to start raising the duty massively on alcohol also.... not as if you see smokers being rushed in on a Fri/Sat night to A&E because they've smoked so many cigarettes that they've fallen asleep and then choked on their own vomit

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Actually it's to make them less appealing to kids ,your right it probably won't make many people stop but it will probably stop a few starting especially when you include the other measures .

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

How can a packet's design appeal to kids? I've not seen a single one with Spongebob, Barbie, Transformers et al on it.

Anyway they are hidden away in shops now out of everyone's gaze.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

A plain package with a picture of a pair of rotting lungs or cancer ridden gob is going to be far less appealing than a bright shiny packet

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

They have these images on packaging already though.. .not covering as much of the packet however

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I don't see what harm it can do, the only people I see getting their backs up on this are the smokers in denial of what the pictures are telling them.

You'll hear so many smokers tell others "don't smoke it's bad for you I wish I never started" but then are quick to defend there actions when questioned.

I still see parents flouting the law with regards to smoking in the car with kids in I think it's disgusting

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I don't see how changing to plain packaging will affect people buying them though as all shops have to have cigs completely covered up now. well in Scotland anyway, don't know about the rest of the UK.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Plain packets are stupid all the decades I smoked I never cared about the packaging not once did I purchase by telling the checkout operator "I'll have 20 of the one with red stripes vertically on the packet". This is all about those who want smoking gone thinking they have achieved something but in practical terms I doubt it will affect a single smoker. Images are great except that people know smoker's and rarely see the cancer mouth in life I grew up in a family of smoker's a few of them died from smoking related illness and never had any overt signs.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Packaging obviously doesn't matter - that's why the manufacturers spend hundreds of millions on brand identity and marketing; they just like throwing their money away...

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

plus different cigs have different tastes from what I gather from those that do smoke so packaging and make obviously does come into account?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Packaging matters a lot .On a subconscious level you are influenced by the colour and design of the packet ,wording on the packet like 'mild' , 'smooth' or 'special' leads to a false idea of less harm being done ,even describing cigarettes as low tar leads people to think they are somehow safer but in fact smokers of low tar cigarettes die at the same rate as smokers of regular tar cigarettes.
Even though cigarettes have been put behind doors in shops so they cannot be seen the brightly coloured packets are designed on purpose to attract attention and be identified with certain brands ,different shading on the packets for 'lite' cigarettes for example gives people the idea that the cigarettes are safer .If you still don't believe that packaging matters read this

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_1024.pdf

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

What is the point of quoting an old report that is totally immaterial? Tobacco products are now behind closed doors in shops and stores so a smoker will go in and request their favourite brand whatever it is. Or do you think a smoker is going to change their mind once the door is opened?

The "Plain" packets will still contain the brand name.

Total waste of time and money and as said more to do with attempting to stop illegal imports than anything else.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

In case you hadn't noticed i quoted a case study from Lambert and Butler to highlight the fact that packaging does matter a great deal as proven by the makers and still very much relevant .

Tobacco products may well be behind closed doors but not once they have been sold

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_1024.pdf

Nothing at all to do with stopping illegal imports .The manufacturers said that plain packaging would lead to an increase of illegal imports but this argument was dismissed because the current packaging is already counterfeited ,hence the covert markings placed on packets

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Would you like to requote the year of the said case study? As sales of tobacco products have changed drastically since then it would appear to me totally irrelevant unless I am missing something.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Well I never bothered about packaging and speaking to a few smoker's and former smoker's today it wasn't a factor for them either biggest thing that determined choice was taste and nothing else. I'm sure some are influenced by packaging but doubt the figures are that high to make this anything more then a gimmick.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

How about a study from 3 years ago?

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003732.full If packaging and marketing don't make any difference, why do tobacco companies spend $9.5 bllion per year (just in USA) on them?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

The year is irrelevant i quoted the passage to illustrate the importance of packaging design for sales of cigarettes for the benefit of those who are convinced that packaging design does not matter .Standardised packaging will remove all marketing tools used by the manufacturer ,including wording ,colour and quantity.The only difference between brands will be the name of the brand and even that will be in standardised font ,the reason why the government are doing this is because as increased legislation reduces the opportunities for marketing the packaging design becomes more important as highlighted by the quote from Lambert and Butler

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

Teenage smokers do though ,all the studies show that the wording on the package is very important ,if you tell someone who has just started smoking or is under peer pressure to start that the cigarettes are 'lite' , 'smooth' or 'low tar' the belief is that they are somehow better which as we all know is complete rubbish

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Nike should make cigarettes. they'd make a klilling with the kids.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

All the kids I see these days are not smoking they are using e-cigarettes and all seem to be more interested in blowing big clouds which I don't support but if it has to be one or the other I guess e-cigarettes are better.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I have never heard so much crap about the Government NOT getting any money in Tax. total rubbish.

I will be told next that they don't get Tax on petrol etc.

I was told from TWO shopkeepers that when they sell cigrattes, the Government gets a lot of tax out of it. Is this why they put the price of cigrattes. As the more cigarettes they sell, the MORE tax THE GOVERNMENTS GETS.

On Petrol sales, the Government get a staggering 80% in tax.

That's why when you go to a Garage shops, they charge so much money on the product, as they don't get any money on Petrol

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Well Arthur if you look at the rate of tax on cigarettes then you will see the reason why they are so costly.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

:tu: A small sweatband with the Nike tick on each one would make them appear healthy too.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Do you honestly think a young person wanders into a shop with the thought of 'Do you know, today, I think I'll start smoking. Now then, which packet do i like the look of best? No, that one is too blue. I know this silver packet with red on is much more my style'

Underage smoking starts in the most case due to peer pressure from other people, when i started smoking i didn't give two hoots what the packaging was like, it was having a cig in my gob with the cool kids.

Only when i was an established smoker did brand loyalty/packaging come into play.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

It should tell you everything you need to know that despite the income stream the government want shot of smoking.

Besides, have to keep increasing the tax. Smokers seem to keep getting lung and other cancers, needing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of care to try and slow the disease then in palliative care, and then die. Not sure quite how that works. Must be a coincidence.

As fewer people are smoking now need to keep raising the tax to keep the income stream going, given that's evidently in your mind what it's all about.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

So we've established that packaging does matter .

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Do you honestly think tobacco manufacturers spend billions of dollars/pounds on brand marketing if it has no effect?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Yes it does, when someone is an established smoker......

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

For established smokers of course

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

It never did for me when I smoked, first was the peer pressure/cool thing, then a degree of experimenting with different brands, none of which involved buying a fag because of what the packet looked like. Far more important was what it tasted like & to a lesser degree the price/
Then once I found one I liked (in my case it was B & H) I just stuck with it - for the next 20 years or so until I saw the light & quit around 14 years ago.(2002)

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Old article but fairly relevant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...r-alcohol.html

So in order of strain on the NHS it's

Fast/Junk Food
Cigarettes
Alcohol

Yet oddly enough only one of the above is consistently targeted with raised tax increases.

Surely (and this isn't aimed at you directly) if you're argument is to alleviate the pressure on the NHS then all three of the above should be treat the same ways in terms of restrictions/marketing etc.

Big Mac with images of hardened arteries on the carton anyone?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

2 of those 3 used in moderation don't cause major health issues and can be consumed socially without major fear of addiction.

1 of those 3 has no real concept of moderation and carries a bunch of collateral damage. Not aware of that many recreational smokers and certainly none who smoke as a special treat then undo or pre-emptively mitigate any harm to their system through activities like diet and exercise.

The body has ways to deal with bad food and alcohol. The mass of carcinogens and poisons in cigarettes are a different matter.

As an ex-smoker I have no idea why you're trying to defend the habit. Smoking isn't something to be proud of or defend. Not having the willpower or desire to quit is something to be embarrassed about. Smokers stink, make the areas and people around them stink, and force the people around them to inhale their smoke to the detriment of their own health if they want to breathe.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

That's not what the recent research I posted in this thread showed..

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Quote:
Conclusions The results indicate that a shift from branded to plain cigarette packaging could lead to a reduction in positive perceptions of cigarettes among young people.

could = maybe it will maybe it won't could is not definitive .

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

From the other part of my post The power/appeal of branding.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

But definitely worth trying then

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

On your list only cigarettes will kill you when used correctly

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ing-says-labor

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

plain packaging can be quite attractive to shoppers

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

A valid statement, if the plain packaged cigarettes were cheaper than the normal packaged cigarettes....

Anyhow, surely anything that could reduces the likelyhood of people smoking can only be a good thing?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Anybody that buys anything based on packaging deserves all they get. Why not put them in coffin shaped boxes??

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Looks like somebody already thought of it:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2016/05/2.jpg

http://lovelypackage.com/anti-smokin...-pack-concept/

:D

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I disagree with governments telling people how to live their lives. Lets not forget car pollution which kills 13,000 people in this country every year, but this still does not stop us driving our vehicles.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/...estimates.aspx

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Compared to the 100,000 who die each year from smoking-related diseases, it's hardly in the same ball-park, is it.

If tobacco was discovered today there's no doubt it would go straight on the banned drugs list along with cannabis. Allowing the product to exist, while denying its manufacturers any possibility of marketing it, seems perfectly fair to me.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

We are taking measures to curb it though. Less fuel efficient cars are taxed more, there is increasing regulatory pressure on car manufactures to improve their cars and a general move in the direction of electric cars.

I have a feeling, pure speculation, that in time we'll learn that pollution from cars has been a lot worse for us that originally believed. If you see a white building in London you'll see how smeared it is with black tar over time for example.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

When l started working at the age of 15, l started smoking to be part of the 'local kids'. When l was told that my father was dying of cancer caused by smoking.

My father passed away, the Drs, told it due to Cancer of the Lings and the main factor was smoking.

That put me off smoking for about 10 years. I started again, only to be part of the 'workplace' smoking, ie canteens full of smokers.

I got a job delivering to a major hospital in Berkshire that dealt with Heart surgery. I went there one day, and saw patients with Heart disease caused by smoking. That put me off for ever.

I have not smoked for 30 years. I don't think its my job to tell someone that you cannot smoke. What annoys me is that shopkeepers, that sell to kids. and they are quite open about it.

Now shops have to have shutters in front of them.

Smoking is a killer, but what the government should be doing is forcing Cigarettes Manufacturers, to pay money into the Health Service.

Wasn't it Marlboro got sued in America, by a Family who got Cancer via smoking. And the family won the case.

Its no good bringing E-cigarette's to help stop you smoking. Its the will power of the person to stop, when they saw what happens to you bottom.

I will always remember speaking with and OAP once, when speaking to him. He had dark Blue Lips. and he said he smoked 90 fags per day. He had just come from the Gp, who told him to cut his daily fag, by 20. He said. If l had the will power, l would not have started in the first place.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

E-cigarettes save lives whether people quit or not.

Nicotine replacement therapy, be it e-cigarettes, gum, patches, whichever, is clinically proven to improve quit rates.

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Okay. So where do you think the cigarette manufacturers will get the money from to pay into the health service?

Think it might perhaps be from selling cigarettes in the UK?

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Report them. They are breaking the law.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Would alcohol?
http://www.channel4.com/news/alcohol...o-graphic-quiz

'But it's a different story when it comes to hospital admissions: there are a staggering 137 alcohol-related admissions every single hour, compared to 61 for smoking, according to government figures.'

'Smoking has a huge cost to the NHS - an estimated £5.2bn - but boozed-up Britons put a massive dent in the overall economy because of the additional £11bn burden on the criminal justice system. All too often, drinking results in violence, either at home or out on the streets.

'The cost works out at a staggering £1.43m every hour, and according to the report, is enough to keep more than 260,000 police officers on the streets, or 278,000 nurses working in A&E.'

I'm a smoker, and per my previous statements in this thread I know the risks I take and whats likely to happen to me.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the plain packaging or tax on cigarettes.

What i take exception to that something that costs more to the country per hour £2.4m vs £1.7m is seen as morally acceptable and doesn't require the same taxation or regulation as the tobacco industry.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

l don't smoke myself but if one wants to smoke then that's their decision but it amazes me that alcohol is still widely advertised and marketed in this country when in my opinion it should be banned just like tobacco adverts and marketing were as both place a significant financial toll on the NHS in this country.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

There are fewer than 9,000 alcohol-related deaths per year in the UK Den. It is nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco and, unlike tobacco, you can't be harmed by passive drinking. The two don't equate at all.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Yes you are right Chris but it is still quite a significant drain especially on the NHS A&E departments as there are quite a few people out there who sadly cannot drink in moderation like responsible adults who know exactly when their limit is reached and that's when the damage is done.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Yes, people are harmed and killed by alcohol and it puts a strain on the NHS. The problem is, you seem to be arguing for the same regulations as have been applied to tobacco, despite alcohol causing only 10% of the deaths tobacco does.

Regulations must be proportionate. I suggest that the existing restrictions on how alcohol may be bought and sold and where it may be consumed are already proportionate to the risk.

To add further context to this, obesity is reckoned to cause about 30,000 deaths in the UK each year (I.e. more than three times as many as alcohol). About 9,000 of those deaths are people aged under 65. Obesity is a far more serious problem, yet far less has been done to tackle the availability of cheap, high calorie processed foods.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Oh so the issue is the amount of deaths not the cost to the country.......?

Completely agree on the obesity again should be regulated and taxed much more stringently than it is

To quote earlier


'Smoking has a huge cost to the NHS - an estimated £5.2bn - but boozed-up Britons put a massive dent in the overall economy because of the additional £11bn burden on the criminal justice system. All too often, drinking results in violence, either at home or out on the streets.

'The cost works out at a staggering £1.43m every hour, and according to the report, is enough to keep more than 260,000 police officers on the streets, or 278,000 nurses working in A&E.'


So the question begs when the NHS,police etc. Are having their budgets crippled. And there's firm evidence to show that alcoholi in real terms costs the country more than cigarettes (I don't have the figures to hand for obesity but would suggest it's very high also) why are smokers the ones beIng hit the most? Surely it should be all three?

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

I'm surprised the Government doesn't encourage smoking(!)

The vast majority of the price of cigarettes is tax. I believe that smokers should pay extra tax towards the increased cost of their healthcare needs and they do.

For each £1 in tax paid on cigarettes only about 20p is required to pay for the extra healthcare.

Smokers tend to die younger, meaning that after paying more tax than the average non smoker, they don't get to draw their pension for very long if at all- an absolute bargain for the Government.

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Personally l would ban alcohol advertising on TV as in my own opinion it sets a bad example to younger people and l would also clamp down on certain food and soft drink adverts as well which are aimed at youngsters and children as well as they are very easily influenced in my opinion..

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

Now hang on don't come on here talking sense and placing facts in front of a perfectly good arguement ;)

Re: Do you agree with plain cigarette packaging?
 

😂😂😂