should us smokers really be taxed so much

[Derek Smith]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Rovinghawk said:

I don't know what a "non sequituer" is, either. I even looked it up in a dictionary.

does it mean without a filter?

I'm sorry, I don't follow you.

[johnfm]

Fort Jefferson said:

Ilovejapcrap said:

A pack of 20 fags is now 9 quid. Is this really fair?

Que the usual NHS arguments etc.

The TAX on fags pays for the NHS ten times over.

Eh? Ciggie tax raises about £12b.

NHS costs about £95b.

[ADM06]

The estimated cost the NHS is significantly less than £12bn though.
And that's estimated by s such as ASH etc, so likely to be an overestimate.

[bad company]

N

TooMany2cvs said:

bad company said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Funkycoldribena said:

The fact that smoking is bad for you isn't being argued here,it's more the fact that why shouldn't there be non smoking/smoking pubs or a smoking room.Why should the non smokers get it all their way?

Because people would still work there.

Nobody is forced to work there.

Nobody is FORCED to work anywhere, but the law is that you cannot smoke in ANY workplace. There is no law that bars smoking in pubs or anywhere else, explicitly.

bad company said:

I don't smoke but would prefer a smoky pub to a closed pub.

You want to blame anybody for pub closures? Blame PubCos for their practices with beer ties, with rents, with their preference for selling pubs as anything-but-pubs rather than as going concerns.

We all know what the law on smoking is but that doesn't make it right.

There are several reasons pubs are in decline. The smoking ban is certainly one of them. I know several ex regulars at my local who now drink at home.

[NWTony]

Derek Smith said:

What I keep rattling on about is how offensive I find smoking and smokers to be. I think this goes for many people. The smell can be nausiating if concentrated enough. You can smoke if you want to, I don't care. I will support a friend who tries to give up but that's about it.

I don't like people who are impregnated with tobacco smoke sitting beside me. I find it repulsive. I'm sure that smokers don't realise how much they smell. But they do.

I feel certain they don't realise how they make their houses smell, but that doesn't matter to me, especially now that my job doesn't require me to go into other people's houses. They want to smoke indoors? Go ahead.

Boiling frogs is irrelevant. The logical end argument - reductio ad absurdum - is that we should not ban any antisocial activity in case it stops us going out in the sun without a hat on.

Many seem to suggest that not being allowed to smoke in a pub has put them off going despite it being the highlight of their life. Can't you go three hours without a fag?

I can understand druggies. I had a large dose of morphine, back in the good old days, when I had a painful injury and had to be moved. It was lovely, really nice. Overwhelmingly so.

Yet the first taste of smoking is normally one of distaste. Oddly, the person continues to try, despite it making them cough and sometimes vomit, until the addiction switches on and the only reason to smoke is to feed the addiction. The tobacco companies design their fags for this, all rather obviously.

OK, I feel sorry for anyone with an addiction. But that doesn't mean I want them to stand next to me, to let smoke affect my enjoyment, to irritate my eyes, to make my clothes smell and to be the biggest cause of home fires.

The fact that smoking is one of the surest legal ways to kill yourself or to give you long-term chronic illness is neither here nor there. I'll feel sorry for you, but the thought will go through my head that it is self inflicted. You should have seen it coming. I can, however, reassure myself that, according to smokers, their taxes pay for the NHS 1000 time over. Or more.

As others have pointed out I can't quote properly on Pistonheads, but I'll struggle on bravely with this major flaw.

All you are (re)stating is that you find smoking nasty. We all get this. What I've tried to say is that your feelings result the "nastiness" of smoking, it isn't an objective outcome. You think it will be nasty and ergo it is nasty. Parmesan cheese etc. Also, I'm confident that the vast majority of people don't feel anything like as strongly about smoking as you do, most people just recognise that some people smoke and some don't and don't really mind much. Your reaction is an over-reaction and is the abberant one. I mean, if I was as strongly pro smoking as you are anti, I'd have to be demanding mandatory smoking for everyone, in all places - half way through heart surgery you'd have to spark up, surgeon and patient alike.

We can go 3 hours without a smoke, we all just prefer not to. I recently went 24 hours without a ciggie thanks to long haul travel. Mind you if I'm sitting in a pub (garden presumably) sipping a nice pint of some golden ale I'd really rather like a ciggie to go with it.

I'd agree that starting smoking isn't easy! You do have to stick at it to develop a taste, but this certainly isn't a unique property of smoking; beers, whisky etc spring to mind. I'm learning to fly, that takes some getting used to.

[johnxjsc1985]

what about being a fatbd they also smell and cost the tax payer a fortune up to £15billion should we ban chocolate and fast foods
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/obesity_an...

[anonymous-user]

johnxjsc1985 said:

what about being a fatbd they also smell and cost the tax payer a fortune up to £15billion should we ban chocolate and fast foods
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/obesity_an...

Have cigarettes been banned? Is there such a thing as passive eating?

[RYH64E]

johnxjsc1985 said:

what about being a fatbd they also smell and cost the tax payer a fortune up to £15billion should we ban chocolate and fast foods
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/obesity_an...

Smoking isn't banned, it's heavily taxed and there are restrictions on where you can smoke. I'd happily see the same conditions extended to cover foods that are high in sugar and fat. Would that be fair?

[johnxjsc1985]

RYH64E said:

Smoking isn't banned, it's heavily taxed and there are restrictions on where you can smoke. I'd happily see the same conditions extended to cover foods that are high in sugar and fat. Would that be fair?

I agree that foods that are unhealthy should be taxed accordingly but it will never happen will it.
I am a non smoker always have been and until it becomes illegal to buy or smoke cigarettes then we shouldn't treat people like criminals.
Personally I would ban them when I think how much my mother has spent on them over 70 years it must be well over £100k and that is money should could ill afford.

[RYH64E]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I am a non smoker always have been and until it becomes illegal to buy or smoke cigarettes then we shouldn't treat people like criminals.

Who's treating them like criminals? As I said, smoking is heavily taxed and, because of the effects on non-smokers (the stink, and breathing problems to name but two) there are restrictions on where you can smoke. How does that criminalise smokers?

[ADM06]

I don't pay duty on my tobacco. Haven't for quite a while, won't for as long as I can.
Find a friend who goes abroad a lot.

[johnxjsc1985]

RYH64E said:

Who's treating them like criminals? As I said, smoking is heavily taxed and, because of the effects on non-smokers (the stink, and breathing problems to name but two) there are restrictions on where you can smoke. How does that criminalise smokers?

have you read through some of the posts.

[skeggysteve]

I'm a smoker and I accept that I have to pay the tax to smoke. Just like I accept that I have to pay the tax on fuel to drive.
What I don't accept is the way the government waste my taxes!

BTW Derek, I don't smell, my clothes, home and car don't smell. I hate getting into a car that smells of smoke, I hate going into someones home and it smelling of smoke.
But it is their choice so I don't moan about it.

[RYH64E]

johnxjsc1985 said:

have you read through some of the posts.

If that is your meaning then criminalize was a poor choice of word, either demonize, stigmatize or ostracize would have been more apt.

[Crush]

el stovey said:

Have cigarettes been banned? Is there such a thing as passive eating?

Depends

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31168511

[johnxjsc1985]

RYH64E said:

If that is your meaning then criminalize was a poor choice of word, either demonize, stigmatize or ostracize would have been more apt.

it is illegal is it not to smoke in public places ?

[Strawman]

johnxjsc1985 said:

RYH64E said:

If that is your meaning then criminalize was a poor choice of word, either demonize, stigmatize or ostracize would have been more apt.

it is illegal is it not to smoke in public places ?

Open air public spaces it is allowed, for example parks, the street etc. Some enclosed spaces are allowed like Hotel rooms.

[Gandahar]

Ilovejapcrap said:

I'm just saying is it a fair tax

The only fair tax is one we don't have to pay.

I think they should charge online gambling 10x what you pay for a harmless puff or too.

Is that fair on them? No, is it better for the general public we stop people doing online gambling rather than having to at least go out to the local bookies on a wet Wed evening? Yes.

So screw them and screw smokers.

Neither of which I do of course.

Leave my beer alone you mofo's !

It's harmless.

[Derek Smith]

NWTony said:

As others have pointed out I can't quote properly on Pistonheads, but I'll struggle on bravely with this major flaw.

All you are (re)stating is that you find smoking nasty. We all get this. What I've tried to say is that your feelings result the "nastiness" of smoking, it isn't an objective outcome. You think it will be nasty and ergo it is nasty. Parmesan cheese etc. Also, I'm confident that the vast majority of people don't feel anything like as strongly about smoking as you do, most people just recognise that some people smoke and some don't and don't really mind much. Your reaction is an over-reaction and is the abberant one. I mean, if I was as strongly pro smoking as you are anti, I'd have to be demanding mandatory smoking for everyone, in all places - half way through heart surgery you'd have to spark up, surgeon and patient alike.

We can go 3 hours without a smoke, we all just prefer not to. I recently went 24 hours without a ciggie thanks to long haul travel. Mind you if I'm sitting in a pub (garden presumably) sipping a nice pint of some golden ale I'd really rather like a ciggie to go with it.

I'd agree that starting smoking isn't easy! You do have to stick at it to develop a taste, but this certainly isn't a unique property of smoking; beers, whisky etc spring to mind. I'm learning to fly, that takes some getting used to.

Objective? Smokers smell. Rooms in which smokers smoke smell. The smell transfers. You seem to be suggesting that I am open to suggestion as far as to what I like to smell. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but it is guess work.

Most people supported the ban on smoking to an extent. Most people don't smoke.

I'm not pushing for people to do anything, just that they don't do it in or around me.

I think you are in denial in that you seem to suggest that smokers don't smell. They do.

You say you can go 3 hours without a smoke, yet you want to impose your smells on others. A wee bit selfish perhaps?

The argument about how difficult it is to fly won't, of course, fly. If that is the best you can do then there's not a lot of point in arguing.

You make some wild accusation but my point remains: I should not have to suffer anti-social behaviour merely because someone suffers from an addiction. Do what you want around other people. Let them complain, but just accept that you stink, possibly to a level much worse that any body odour outside of vagrants, if you are a regular smoker.

A friend and I got on a train for a 'long haul' to York. We were a bit late so imagine our pleasure in seeing two aisle seats vacant with a middle 20s smartly dressed couple sitting against the window of the 4-seat with table area. I put luggage in the rack whilst my friend sat down, stood up, signaled to remove the luggage and we walked off down the blunt end of the train, probably three carriages, until we found seats where we could talk easily to one-another.

I didn't have to ask why we had to move as the mere act of sitting down was enough to waft the smell towards me.

I'm partially deaf. When there's background noise, such as in a pub, I have extreme difficulty in hearing. I can lip-read to an extent but when I meet new people I can find it difficult. If there's a difficult point I have to lean forward with my hand cupping my barely adequate ear. I tend to resist this with smokers.

[RYH64E]

johnxjsc1985 said:

RYH64E said:

If that is your meaning then criminalize was a poor choice of word, either demonize, stigmatize or ostracize would have been more apt.

it is illegal is it not to smoke in public places ?

If I walk into my local pub and have a crap on the bar, or shag the missus, or light a fire I could reasonably expect to get in trouble, it doesn't mean that crapping, sex, or lighting fires have been criminalized.