smoking and the pub

[TheDaddy]

Interesting

through taxation smokers make a major contribution (over £7 billion) to the economic health of the nation, far in excess of the cost (estimated to be £1.5 billion) of treating so-called 'smoking-related diseases' on the NHS.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Interesting

through taxation smokers make a major contribution (over £7 billion) to the economic health of the nation, far in excess of the cost (estimated to be £1.5 billion) of treating so-called 'smoking-related diseases' on the NHS.

hmm that "so called" makes me a bit suspicious source?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

hmm that "so called" makes me a bit suspicious source?

Actually that figure maybe 10.5 billion- 1.7 billion, source, anti smoking group but then as they say 'so what'

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Boo Hiss etc. I still think landlords (freehold landlords in particular) should have a choice.

I don't smoke, but I agree. As long as adequate smoking rooms are provided, so those who do object to smoking can get away from it.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It might be interesting to know how much is generated by tobacco tax compared to what smokers cost the NHS, especially as I seem to remember reports stating that the effects of alcohol cost the NHS more than anything else.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
"It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking."

My mum died of smoking-related diseases (probably due to the fact she smoked 60 untipped full-strength a day (at least) from the age of 13; I don't feel any better knowing that she contributed to the tax revenues by doing so, and saved the country pension payments by dying earlier than she needed to.

Sometimes it's not about costs, it's about value.

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Originally Posted by orangebird

Boo Hiss etc. I still think landlords (freehold landlords in particular) should have a choice.

And their staff?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

[URL]



And their staff?

shuld go and get a job in a pub that's non smoking. Not allowing freehold landlords the choice is tantamount to telling what to do in their own home.

Originally Posted by orangebird

shuld go and get a job in a pub that's non smoking. Not allowing freehold landlords the choice is tantamount to telling what to do in their own home.

Wouldn't that be disciminating against non-smokers?

What if all the pubs in a town were "smoking" - would this mean the bar-staff would have to risk their health to get a job?

And what is the difference between freehold landlords and people who run small businesses? - they will be affected as well.

[Jules]

I am a smoker but I am glad this is being introduced. Wont make any difference to me as even in a pub I go outside to smoke

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

What if all the pubs in a town were "smoking" - would this mean the bar-staff would have to risk their health to get a job?

If as many people want a non-smoking pub as the government appears to think, I would be suprised if there weren't several non-smoking pubs in every town..

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If as many people want a non-smoking pub as the government appears to think, I would be suprised if there weren't several non-smoking pubs in every town..

Exactly.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Not allowing freehold landlords the choice is tantamount to telling what to do in their own home.

eh? what does the public in public house stand for then?

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If as many people want a non-smoking pub as the government appears to think, I would be suprised if there weren't several non-smoking pubs in every town..

I don't believe it is about "wanting" non-smoking pubs - it is about reducing health risks, especially to passive smokers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6196910.stm

"Ms Hewitt said the ban would protect everyone from second-hand smoke, while making it easier for smokers to quit.
"The scientific and medical evidence is clear - second-hand smoke kills, causing a range of serious medical conditions including lung cancer, heart disease, and sudden infant death syndrome," she said. "This legislation will help to prevent the unnecessary deaths caused every year from second-hand smoke, and recognises that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure." "

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Wouldn't that be disciminating against non-smokers?

What about discriminating against smokers??????

What if all the pubs in a town were "smoking" - would this mean the bar-staff would have to risk their health to get a job?

You reckon that would be likely?

And what is the difference between freehold landlords and people who run small businesses? - they will be affected as well.

Apart from pubs, I can't think of any businesses where people might live on their premises.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't believe it is about "wanting" non-smoking pubs - it is about reducing health risks, especially to passive smokers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6196910.stm

"Ms Hewitt said the ban would protect everyone from second-hand smoke, while making it easier for smokers to quit.
"The scientific and medical evidence is clear - second-hand smoke kills, causing a range of serious medical conditions including lung cancer, heart disease, and sudden infant death syndrome," she said. "This legislation will help to prevent the unnecessary deaths caused every year from second-hand smoke, and recognises that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure." "

Of course it's about want!!!!!! How many people have posted in this thread about looking forward to it because it may reduce SID??? No-one. It's mainly 'I don't want to smell of smoke' yadda yadda yadda.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
"It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking."

My mum died of smoking-related diseases (probably due to the fact she smoked 60 untipped full-strength a day (at least) from the age of 13; I don't feel any better knowing that she contributed to the tax revenues by doing so, and saved the country pension payments by dying earlier than she needed to.

Sometimes it's not about costs, it's about value.

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

And their staff?

I have had relatives die horribly to, I am not advocating for smoking, just that they get a raw deal, it's all to easy for the government to raise the revenue and then tell us it's for our benefit, notice they fail to point out that they haven't actually lost a penny as such in revenue from the cross channel smugglers due to the taxation increases, so again law abiding smokers are footing the bill for those that choose to evade revenue.

As for staff, considering that there are more cancer causing chemicals in the air in rush hour traffic than in a local pub, where do you draw the line with that argument, ban cars, oh yes they are trying to, purely for our benefit I'm sure and that's without even going into the 'you choose to work there argument' (thank goodness)

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

eh? what does the public in public house stand for then?

It's open to the public at the landlords convenience - but it's still owned and lived in by the landlord. If you're going to argue with me about this, please don't be so facetious. Do it properly or not at all. I expect an awful lot more from you.