Smoking ban

[Phone]

Sportsman,

 

How about loose wimmun?

 

Phone

[barry luxton]

Banning doesn't work, it just goes underground and breeds crime. Look at drugs in the UK today.

 

 

For the record I don't believe in banning anything (pretty much)

I would legalise currently banned drugs and tax them.

I would let licensed premises decide whether to be smoking or otherwise.

I would let people make an informed choice about how they want to kill themselves.

 

Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

 

It's not the banning that is the problem, it's the weak punnishments. I would pay extra taxes for realistic punnishment.

 

1 spliff= 1000.00 ( even parking offences attract stonger at present)

 

line of coke= years prison, no early release

 

deal of herion, for supply= 5 years lock up, no early release

 

one i forgot, m p caught theiving from the public purse= string em up.

Edited November 19, 2011 by barry luxton

[Phone]

barry,

 

Now your talkin'! Strict enforcement of the 2nd Amendment. A little swift justice is all that's needed. Although just locking up may not always be enough. Second offense, alter the gene pool.

 

Phone

[corydoras]

Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

 

It's not the banning that is the problem, it's the weak punnishments. I would pay extra taxes for realistic punnishment.

 

1 spliff= 1000.00 ( even parking offences attract stonger at present)

 

line of coke= years prison, no early release

 

deal of herion, for supply= 5 years lock up, no early release

 

one i forgot, m p caught theiving from the public purse= string em up.

Talking drivel; A quick haircut from Madame Guillotine.

[Ken L]

Are you saying my post is Bu**shi*??

 

Yes. I have yet to see a compelling demonstration that the revenue raised from smokers is greater than the cost of caring for the consequences of their addiction.

I'd love to see a proper study on the subject but even pulling the few figures that I can find and doing a quick "back of a fag packet" calculation, I seem to be able to pretty much negate the claim that smokers are some sort of pillar of government funding.

 

BTW: £2 Billion of the quoted £11.1 Billon income from smokers was VAT - Which the exchequer would have got anyway if the smokers had spent their money on something else.

 

That's due to inconsiderate arseholes. I've been hit in the face by fag butts whilst riding my motorcycle. So? I've also been hit by sandwich packets whilst riding my motorcycle...what next, ban sandwiches? On top of that, riding an open vehicle without eye protection is just irresponsible...as long as you're prepared to accept that responsibility.

 

I agree about the inconsiderate arseholes. Ash, fag butts, McD's wrappers - I see just about everything tossed out of windows by drivers. The trouble with ash though is that its so light and fine that glasses don't do much good and my first eyefull was despite wearing a rather nice set of Bolle clear safety glasses.

I don't tend to bother with them now unless I'm doing a run along a faster road where you could easily loose an eye to a pebble or it's bright enough to need shades. Any sort of moisture on the road or in the air makes glasses fog up very quickly so for city riding, they can be more of a hazard than a help anyway.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Ken L

[chesters1]

Well, it costs the NHS £5 Billion a year to treat smoking related illnesses.

Then there's the £2 Billion a year cost to industry though smoking related absence.

Then of course, there's the cost of disability benefits (DLA and IB/ESA) for those with smoking related COPD, Heart Disease, Atherosclerosis, Oral and Lung Cancers and many other related conditions. Sadly I can't find a figure for that but suspect that it will be well into the billions. Not forgetting the cost of carers allowance for the relatives of those claiming the disability benefits.

Edit: And the cost of disabled persons tax credits for those working whilst claiming smoking related DLA.

Then there's the cost of local authority care for those disabled by their smoking and again I can't find figures for that.

 

All in all, it looks like the case for smokers supporting the economy is a bit thin.

 

 

Very funny. There are tens of thousands of people can't smoke in their very own personal proberty because to do so would contraviene their rent agreement and see them turfed out of their home. I see them smoking on their own doorsteps in the middle of winter.

 

Back on topic.

In the last 12 months, I have twice been temporarily blinded whilst cycling on busy roads because someone has flicked ash out of a car window in front of me. I would happily see smoking in cars banned tomorrow.

never believe stats from those that benefit from those stats?

 

anyone come to the conclusion if you die young from fags you save the NHS money treating you for age related diseases ,there's more than one way to juggle stats

should we ban the over 70's they cost the country a fair bit in the NHS and in council care costs

 

 

your car/ash related problem isnt to do with smoking in cars but the all ready unlawful act of littering

 

the lung problems are not all fag related and compared to now (when the smoking habit was widespread in our pensioners) as fewer people smoke then the cost will decrease significantly as they die and some other boogy man will have to be found to extract tax or supplement charities vast incomes

Edited November 19, 2011 by chesters1

[Ronaldo]

Good job keep it

[Now there's a right un.]

Yes. I have yet to see a compelling demonstration that the revenue raised from smokers is greater than the cost of caring for the consequences of their addiction.

I'd love to see a proper study on the subject but even pulling the few figures that I can find and doing a quick "back of a fag packet" calculation, I seem to be able to pretty much negate the claim that smokers are some sort of pillar of government funding.

 

BTW: £2 Billion of the quoted £11.1 Billon income from smokers was VAT - Which the exchequer would have got anyway if the smokers had spent their money on something else.

 

 

 

I agree about the inconsiderate arseholes. Ash, fag butts, McD's wrappers - I see just about everything tossed out of windows by drivers. The trouble with ash though is that its so light and fine that glasses don't do much good and my first eyefull was despite wearing a rather nice set of Bolle clear safety glasses.

I don't tend to bother with them now unless I'm doing a run along a faster road where you could easily loose an eye to a pebble or it's bright enough to need shades. Any sort of moisture on the road or in the air makes glasses fog up very quickly so for city riding, they can be more of a hazard than a help anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ken at no point have I said that Tobacco revenue is higher than the NHS bill.

 

But a national patch scheme would cost less long term than all the advertising about how bad smoking is.

 

Thought when you were talking of Bullshine it was some sort of illegal hooch tbh.... :P

 

Someone said Government should legalize drugs and to that I have to agree. Then when all the little junkies come for their hit you catch them and deposit them on Anthrax Island for a year or two.

 

I do however like the tougher punishment.

I don't smoke but my wife does and she was shocked to find a £150 fine landing on the door mat one day when she was accused to have dropped a Cigarette butt......it turned out it was her sister. However, my wife is very careful nowadays.

 

My friend in the 90's went to America and asked for 20 Fags from a local shop........... :oops:

 

Cory you're getting over excited. Guillotine indeed..............lol

 

 

I think that after they have nailed Tobacco the next target will be Alcohol.

[barry luxton]

Talking drivel; A quick haircut from Madame Guillotine.

 

now your talking

[Ken L]

a national patch scheme would cost less long term than all the advertising about how bad smoking is.

 

The thing is, you can already get patches and gum on the NHS and as something like 80% of prescriptions (that figure dates from before the welsh decided they should all be free) don't get paid for anyway, a national patch scheme is already in place for everyone except people in England who are employed.....