More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)

[Taf]

Originally Posted by dazzer89

£12 for a gallon of fuel?

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

[dazzer89]

Originally Posted by Taf

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?

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

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

Originally Posted by Taf

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

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by dazzer89

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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by dazzer89

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

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

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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.

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.

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.

[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

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

So ban it then.

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

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

See above.

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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

[Ignitionnet]

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not heroin

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.

[mertle]

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.