More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

The Americans

Originally Posted by Gary L

The Americans

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

Did you not see this post

Originally Posted by Sirius

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

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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

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!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Patently untrue.

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

It has fallen steadily as restrictions on it,

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

and education about it,

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

have grown tighter and more sophisticated.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gary L

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!

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.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

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

Let them pay more then?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

.... Simply banning it would be irresponsible....

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.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your calculations for the rates of both tobacco and road deaths are flawed.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

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.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

[Julian]

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?

[Gary L]

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?!

Originally Posted by Gary L

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.

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