Govt want to reduce smoking...
Cressers
Posts: 1,329
...by 50% by 2020. You'd think that smokers would have reduced themselves by 50% by then...
But seriously, havn't things come to a dangerous stage when the Bully Nanny State takes upon itself the power to dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product?
But seriously, havn't things come to a dangerous stage when the Bully Nanny State takes upon itself the power to dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product?
0
Comments
-
Yep, choose what you want to do, I don't think anyone can say smoking isn't dangerous nowadays, so you make an informed choice now.0
-
-
dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product
happy for them to do this for as long as smokers place such a heavy burden on the NHS.0 -
Westerberg wrote:dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product
happy for them to do this for as long as smokers place such a heavy burden on the NHS.
Smokers are a net contributor to the Tax Take, through duty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8238919.stm for a brief synopsis, numbers are roughly £8bn taken in tax on tobacco vs £3bn in costs of treatment."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
So far
Taking drugs
Smoking tobacco
Drinking Alcohol
next
Drinking Coffee
Eating sugar
??
I'd like to see them set a target of reducing ignorance by 2020
They should invest in education (not just exam pass preparation) and see the other problems tackle themselves.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Westerberg wrote:dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product
happy for them to do this for as long as smokers place such a heavy burden on the NHS.
Smokers are a net contributor to the Tax Take, through duty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8238919.stm for a brief synopsis, numbers are roughly £8bn taken in tax on tobacco vs £3bn in costs of treatment.
So by that logic - their push to reduce smokers by 50% still leaves them with a good £4 billion in revenue vs £3 billion in costs.
It's a shame that governments need to rely on revenue from these things and can't just do the 'right' thing and outlaw it all together. But hey - if I was still a smoker I'd probably be upset by government interference if they did that...0 -
If the government wanted to reduce smoking quickly they could do so by putting so much tax on a pack of cigarettes that no-one would waste their money on them. The problem is that they know it is a net revenue generator. Essentially they want to be seen to be doing something even though it is a measured effort.
I see something similar with the congestion charge in London. The placing of the congestion zone edges and the current cost per day have resulted in not much of a reduction in congestion. Lots of money is generated though to pay for other transport schemes even after taking out underlying costs. If they actually wanted to eliminate congestion in London they could make it £50 per day, ban all private cars between 8am and 8pm in the "zone" and reduce the number of taxis (which seem to cause most of the congestion). Of course that won't ever happen because it isn't going to raise money.0 -
Why? How far should the Govt be allowed to go in pursuit of this goal.stonehouse wrote:The more they can do to reduce that foul habit the better IMHO.
What measures would you deem acceptable (and why)?A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
I only smoke when I'm on fire.0
-
Crapaud wrote:
Why? How far should the Govt be allowed to go in pursuit of this goal.stonehouse wrote:The more they can do to reduce that foul habit the better IMHO.
What measures would you deem acceptable (and why)?
This is an interesting question, particularly when you consider the other direction as well, why should they bother banning any substances? After you assume some things need to be banned, it becomes a case of line drawing. Which will always be up for interpretation.0 -
If people want to smoke themselves to death in full knowledge of the risks, then I say let them, as long as they're not hurting anybody else. We are all adults after all.
I agreed with the smoking ban because it affects people who choose not to smoke.
Presumably the 'encouragement' will be a combination of price increases and increasingly-disturbing commercials. This will discourage new smokers, whereas the 'I've-smoked-all-my-life' brigade will carry on regardless.0 -
GiantMike wrote:If people want to smoke themselves to death in full knowledge of the risks, then I say let them, as long as they're not hurting anybody else. We are all adults after all.
I agreed with the smoking ban because it affects people who choose not to smoke.
Presumably the 'encouragement' will be a combination of price increases and increasingly-disturbing commercials. This will discourage new smokers, whereas the 'I've-smoked-all-my-life' brigade will carry on regardless.
I do chuckle at the "I've smoked all my life and it's not done me any harm" people.
1. You don't know how healthy you'd be if you'd never smoked
2. All the people who have smoked and died as a result aren't around to say "I'm dead"!0 -
Smokers may face tougher bansGiantMike wrote:... Presumably the 'encouragement' will be a combination of price increases and increasingly-disturbing commercials. This will discourage new smokers, whereas the 'I've-smoked-all-my-life' brigade will carry on regardless.The Guardian wrote:... Smokers could be forced to light up away from the entrances to public buildings under government moves aimed at ensuring that no more than one in 10 Britons smoke cigarettes. ...
My emphasis.The Guardian wrote:... Tomorrow's announcements will encourage cars and homes to remain smoke-free, but Burnham will stress that the state does not have a right to intervene in a private space, even to protect children. His department plans to "work with the public sector, business and the public to communicate the dangers of smoking in the home and the car". ...
Edit to add:... Health Secretary Andy Burnham said: "We've come so far and now we'll go even further, to push forward and save even more lives. ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Got no problem with them being forced away from entrances to building. I can't work out why that wasn't introduced in the original Bill. What's the point in banning smoking inside if all the smoke wafts in or visitors have to walk through the smog to enter a building? The problem with smoking is the direct impact it has on others. OK, alcohol and drugs can have a serious effect on others through the actions of those using them but only smoking has that direct link.0
-
GiantMike wrote:If people want to smoke themselves to death in full knowledge of the risks, then I say let them, as long as they're not hurting anybody else. We are all adults after all.
Easy to say. But it does hurt other people. Try telling my missus who's Mum has recently died of a heart attack at 62 that it doesn't hurt her. I know no-one can say with nailed on certainty that her smoking caused or even contributed to her death but medical opinion says smoking increases your risk and I find it hard to accept it wasn't a contributory factor for someone who otherwise led a pretty healthy lifestyle.0 -
What direct link? To what? I presume that you mean 'passive smoking'. There is no credible evidence that proves, even tenuously, that passive smoking has any effect. When was the last time you've heard of anyone dying, or coming down with a serious illness for that matter, from passive smoking? It's just more misinformation from amongst the increasingly bizzare claims of the puritanical anti-smoking zealots.Pross wrote:Got no problem with them being forced away from entrances to building. I can't work out why that wasn't introduced in the original Bill. What's the point in banning smoking inside if all the smoke wafts in or visitors have to walk through the smog to enter a building? The problem with smoking is the direct impact it has on others. OK, alcohol and drugs can have a serious effect on others through the actions of those using them but only smoking has that direct link.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
What direct link? To what?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980
Does this count as credible evidence?0 -
Crapaud wrote:What direct link? To what? I presume that you mean 'passive smoking'. There is no credible evidence that proves, even tenuously, that passive smoking has any effect. When was the last time you've heard of anyone dying, or coming down with a serious illness for that matter, from passive smoking? It's just more misinformation from amongst the increasingly bizzare claims of the puritanical anti-smoking zealots.
Two words: Roy Castle
Never smoked, died of lung cancer, but happened to spend a lot of time performing in smoke filled clubs, but oh yes, as a smoker it's no doubt a coincidence you dispose of, carry on in your deluded world of self-deception.
Personally, I'd rather not have to take the risk that you may be wrong. If we're wrong and passive smoking doesnt cause deaths, no-one extra dies. If we did nothing based on your assumption it does no harm and later find out you're wrong, more innocent people die through no fault of their own.0 -
Crapaud wrote:When was the last time you've heard of anyone dying, or coming down with a serious illness for that matter, from passive smoking? It's just more misinformation from amongst the increasingly bizzare claims of the puritanical anti-smoking zealots.
of course, a Death Cert will never list cause of death as "Passive Smoking". What you will read is: Lung Cancer, Emphysemea, Bronchitis etc......0 -
Yes, the risks are well known. Yes, only fools ignore them.
But as a father whose 16 year old has just started smoking, anything which can be done to reduce young people from starting in the first place must be applauded.0 -
Slow1972 wrote:
Two words: Roy Castle
.
I thought Roy Castle died from Ear Cancer after years working in a Trumpet factory?0 -
Two words: Roy Castle
So what, not exactly scientific evidence is it. :roll:
As far as I'm concerned since everyone knows smoking is dangerous the government have two options:
1) Keep it legal and except people will live with the risks
2) Ban it
Anything else is just p*ssing taxpayers money down the drain, usually to those ad and marketing types, as if they need more money.0 -
Cressers wrote:
But seriously, havn't things come to a dangerous stage when the Bully Nanny State takes upon itself the power to dictate your behaviour by prohibative taxation and imposing other difficulties on obtaining a legal product?
Tax duty accounts for over 80% of the price of a Litre of fuel and whenever the driving test is updated and seems to become more difficult
so the same strategy has not really worked for cutting the number of cars on the roads.
Better to vicerally educate smokers, make it mandatory to visit the Post Mortem of a smoker for every 500 fags purchased. Show someone first hand the sh1t that comes out of a dead nicotine addict and you'd halve the number overnight.0 -
Why is it credible? It's a meta anaylsis and relies on the quality and methods employed among the different studies being comparable.Westerberg wrote:What direct link? To what?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980
Does this count as credible evidence?
More from the BMJ, this time from 2003:[... Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Meta-analyses have combined these inconclusive results to produce statistically significant summary relative risks.4–8 However, there are problems inherent in using meta-analysis to establish a causal relation.9–14 The epidemiological data are subject to the limitations described above. They have not been collected in a standardised way, and some relative risks have been inappropriately combined. Because it is more likely that positive associations get published, unpublished negative results could reduce the summary relative risks. ...... Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse. ...Conclusion
The results of the California CPS I cohort do not support a causal relation between exposure to environental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and the other studies of environmental tobacco smoke and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Some nifty pidgeon-holing there Slow1972, well done.Slow1972 wrote:... as a smoker it's no doubt a coincidence you dispose of, carry on in your deluded world of self-deception.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
The world population is out of control, reducing smoking could well reduce deaths, there should be no smoking laws or bans, if they want to kill themselves let em.0
-
very disingenuous response Crapaud. Why on earth is that study not credible??!
The conclusion to the BMJ meta analysis states:
"Conclusion: The epidemiological and biochemical evidence on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, with the supporting evidence of tobacco specific carcinogens in the blood and urine of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, provides compelling confirmation that breathing other people’s tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer. "
Even your own quoted paper states:
" Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke"
You said:There is no credible evidence that proves, even tenuously, that passive smoking has any effect.
:roll:0 -
+1Crapaud wrote:
Some nifty pidgeon-holing there Slow1972, well done.Slow1972 wrote:... as a smoker it's no doubt a coincidence you dispose of, carry on in your deluded world of self-deception.
Yes but that's just fluff, as is the Roy Castle statement. The key point is, as I stated:
"Personally, I'd rather not have to take the risk that you may be wrong. If we're wrong and passive smoking doesnt cause deaths, no-one extra dies. If we did nothing based on your assumption it does no harm and later find out you're wrong, more innocent people die through no fault of their own."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying ban smoking altogether, go knock yourself out I say. The ban inside public buildings and work places is far enough as far I'm concerned, but just because medical research hasn't yet proved conclusive (because as a poster says the plethora of other contributory factors to smoking related ilnnesses make that very difficult) doesnt necessarily mean its not true.
The only caveat to the ban gone far enough point is that I personally find the thought of a parent smoking in the presence of children in the home abhorrent, purely on the basis oset out above, that if you're wrong and passive smoking can cause various illnesses, you are potentially contributing to your children's own downfall. But its no different to parents who stuff their kids with sh*te and them get obese, drink heavily or take drugs when pregnant etc
As other posters say I wouldnt spend the money trying to deter people either. It's well publicised enough, if people still take the risk then so be it. Just let's not pretend that statistically it doesnt contribute to premature death in some people compared to if they hadn't smoked and let's not pretend there isn't an associated impact on the people surrounding them when that happens.
When you go and collect a death certificate it gives cause of death, not all the risk factors that contributed to it. So if someone is fat, over weight, with high blood pressure and smokes and dies of a heart attack the death certificate says the cause of death was the heart attack, it doesnt then say that being an obese smoker with high blood pressure significantly increased the risk of it and probably contributed. All you "hear" is that they died of a heart attack.0 -
Why, so it does!Westerberg wrote:... Even your own quoted paper states:
" Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke" ...
Did you not read to the end of the sentence?
Don't make me quote it again.... Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse. ...
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Ban smoking and legalise prostitution. Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Crapaud wrote:
Why, so it does!Westerberg wrote:... Even your own quoted paper states:
" Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke" ...
Did you not read to the end of the sentence?
Don't make me quote it again.... Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse. ...
err, yes mate, I did. You are steering the argument towards mortality rates now whereas you stated that passive smoking caused no ham whatsoever and that people who beleivedd otherwise were zealots and bizarre. :roll: I think you have a major chip on your shoulder(a smoker perchance?) :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:0
