proposed UK smoking ban

[Guest Ferret1959]

How do you feel about children smoking?

[tugmistress]

children under the age of 16 should not do it. they should not be able to do it unless they are stealing from parents as they should not be able to buy fags.

i caught my daughter ( she is 13) and went mental at her. i also told her that if she wanted to smoke at 16 that is then her choice and i will not stop her.

[Guest Ferret1959]

Shame, I would do what ever to protect my Son from smoking fags.

At ANY age.

[tugmistress]

the more you try to wrap kids up in cotton wool and 'protect' them, the more they will rebel, i know, i was a kid once! ha ha ha.

at some point your son will move out from home and then how do you 'protect' him?

[*Ant*]

Research by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York has shown that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year.

 

The Treasury earned £8.05 billion in revenue from tobacco duties for the financial year 2002-2003.

 

So would all the anti-smokers be willing to cough-up (pun intended) the shortfall if smoking was totally banned, or would the NHS go bust without us smokers?

[kleinboet]

No Anthony, they WON'T be treating diseases caused by smoking!

 

[ 20. November 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: kleinboet ]

[*Ant*]

So you think if the treasury lost £8.05 billion a year due to the loss of tobacco duty the NHS wouldn't be affected?

[Steve Burke]

Ant, don't forget the hidden cost I mentioned earlier of lost productivity, the extra wealth lost as a result and all the various taxes lost on that wealth (income tax, corporation tax and VAT just to name a few). I suspect that would more than make up the shortfall and then some!

 

Indeed, the following may be of interest:

 

"Research by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York has shown that the (direct) cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year.

 

Other (indirect) costs include the payment of sickness or invalidity benefits to those suffering from diseases caused by smoking and the payment of pensions and other family social security benefits to the dependants of those who die as a result of their smoking.

 

One method of estimating the cost of smoking is to apply the criteria used to estimate the value of the loss of human life. The Department of Transport, for example, put this value at £680,590 in 1997. If this value is applied to the total number of deaths attributable to smoking, the cost of smoking related mortality in the UK in 1997 prices is just under £80 billion."

 

£80 billion is a huge sum compared with the amount of tax on tobacco!

 

[ 20. November 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]

[Steve Burke]

Ferret1959:

How do you feel about children smoking?

One further point I'm surprised that no one has brought up is the damage done to our children by passive smoking. Then of course there's the damage done to unborn children during pregnancy.

 

This damage is both direct due to poor health and reduced life expectancy, and also indirect due to lower academic performance.

 

Indeed, I gather that some US children are intending to sue their parents as a result!

 

But forgetting the legal issue for a moment, do we have the moral right to damage our children by smoking?

[kleinboet]

Anthony - the government would just dream up a new tax to recover their "loss" (probably something to do with motorists - I know they have ONE waiting)

 

[ 20. November 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: kleinboet ]