Smoking ban

johnboy183

There has been a debate today in parliament about the merits of plain packaging of cigarettes. Will it cut down on the number of people smoking and improve the health of the nation? Perhaps. But surely the better question to debate is should we ban cigarettes altogether? That would improve the nations health, allow precious NHS resources to be invested in other areas. It can't just be the influence of the tobacco manufacturers that allow smoking to continue and the income it generates for the exchequer. Smoking is one of the biggest killers out there and is legalised/endorsed by successive governments yet they ban/criminalise class A drug use etc. And let's not forget about the dangers of alcohol...

...rant over

scottishgeek

An total ban on smoking would result in an immediate drop in tax going to central government whilst the cost of healthcare for smoking relayed illnesses would remain an burden, albeit a decreasing one, for many years to come. That is of course if they are able to eradicate all the smuggling that would inevitably carry on thus affecting health for even longer.

P.S I am not a smoker myself.

wiznaeme

Would children have less access to cigarettes if they were only sold in multiple packets, as they are at duty free? Just a thought.

arran77

A ban on the sale of cigarettes is never going to happen, the government will not allow it because of the massive tax revenue it generates for them, I know that there is then the argument that the cost to the NHS would also potentially fall over time but that would be a very long way off even if a ban came into force tomorrow.

Anyway even if you made the sale of cigarettes illegal you would just force it underground and this would mean the government would loss out on the tax front and also the NHS would still be under pressure because of having to deal with the consequences of smoking - a loose loose situation

johnboy183

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

arran77

johnboy183 wrote:

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

Well it is a little at odds with what a hospital is trying to achieve isn't it

Prisons banning it, well surely if you're in prison you're there to be punished so why should you be allowed to smoke, and don't anyone even mention human rights :evil:

bianchimoon

The worrying thing is people like Farage, if UKIP ever got into power would try to scrap the smoking ban in public places (people voted for a monkey mayor for hartlepool! and Boris for London)

shmo

Once smoking and alcohol are banned, I can only imagine the next thing to go will be driving. Course that'll be after making all cars a generic shape and a paint job that displays graphic images of crash victims, but finally cycling will be allowed to flourish. Unfortunately that won't last long as the next thing to go would be any food that that isn't completely nutritionally balanced for a sedentary lifestyle so no one will have energy for cycling after that.

It'll also probably be around that time we'll be visited by representatives from another planet who will quickly conclude that human society is retarded and never come back again.

DavidBelcher

bianchimoon wrote:

The worrying thing is people like Farage, if UKIP ever got into power would try to scrap the smoking ban in public places (people voted for a monkey mayor for hartlepool! and Boris for London)

Nigel Farage is just worrying, full stop.

David

morstar

I hope to god they don't make smoking illegal.

I don't smoke and never have since some misspent teenage years. However, criminalising the activity doesn't stop it, it just makes it more expensive, less safe and deprives the government of the tax revenue.

We should be de-criminalising drugs full stop in order to destroy the crime structures that thrive on illegal drug consumption.

Frank the tank

Banning something be it smoking, drinking or taking drugs does not stop people doing it.

I've never been a smoker but I've always enjoyed having a pint, and IMHO drinking (alcohol) is a far more social evil than smoking will ever be.

I enjoy being able to go out and come home not smelling like a used ash tray, but in the days when I did it was a choice of my own free will. How many people this weekend alone will end up in A&E or just get battered in their homes due to some drunken lout. Five ciggies won't earn an innocent a good hiding but five/six pints can.

verylonglegs

All this citing of tax revenue from smokers, what are the figures for this? I'm curious as of about 20 or so smokers at work I rarely see any of them with anything other than imported duty free tobacco to make roll-ups.

ballysmate

arran77 wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

Well it is a little at odds with what a hospital is trying to achieve isn't it

Prisons banning it, well surely if you're in prison you're there to be punished so why should you be allowed to smoke, and don't anyone even mention human rights :evil:

Seen hospital patients stood outside in the depths of winter in just night clothes, puffing away on fags. Some have even had drips still attached.
Being the caring guy that I am, I have felt that they should be turfed out and the beds given to people who want to get well.
Maybe not a rational thought, but there you go.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

arran77 wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

Well it is a little at odds with what a hospital is trying to achieve isn't it

Prisons banning it, well surely if you're in prison you're there to be punished so why should you be allowed to smoke, and don't anyone even mention human rights :evil:

Seen hospital patients stood outside in the depths of winter in just night clothes, puffing away on fags. Some have even had drips still attached.
Being the caring guy that I am, I have felt that they should be turfed out and the beds given to people who want to get well.
Maybe not a rational thought, but there you go.

The medical treatment they may have required may well have had damn all to do with smoking for all you know.

arran77

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

arran77 wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

Well it is a little at odds with what a hospital is trying to achieve isn't it

Prisons banning it, well surely if you're in prison you're there to be punished so why should you be allowed to smoke, and don't anyone even mention human rights :evil:

Seen hospital patients stood outside in the depths of winter in just night clothes, puffing away on fags. Some have even had drips still attached.
Being the caring guy that I am, I have felt that they should be turfed out and the beds given to people who want to get well.
Maybe not a rational thought, but there you go.

The medical treatment they may have required may well have had damn all to do with smoking for all you know.

I'd say this was the case for most people being treated in hospital, it's also worth remembering that being in hospital can be a very stressful experience and for some people smoking will be a good way to alleviate that stress

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

arran77 wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Guess I agree with most comments so why then are they banning patients from smoking in hospitals and ultimately prisons from February(ish)?

Well it is a little at odds with what a hospital is trying to achieve isn't it

Prisons banning it, well surely if you're in prison you're there to be punished so why should you be allowed to smoke, and don't anyone even mention human rights :evil:

Seen hospital patients stood outside in the depths of winter in just night clothes, puffing away on fags. Some have even had drips still attached.
Being the caring guy that I am, I have felt that they should be turfed out and the beds given to people who want to get well.
Maybe not a rational thought, but there you go.

The medical treatment they may have required may well have had damn all to do with smoking for all you know.

Very true, Frank. That is why I admitted it was not a rational thought.

johnboy183

Smoking does help alleviate stress and I'm all for that. I'd still like the health sectary to explain why a hospital/prison/public space smoking ban but not an outright ban? Yes people will still smoke but ultimately it will die out. If you don't see it and find it difficult to obtain, then surely the urge for that 2nd 3rd 4th cigarette won't happen? Yes reasonably obvious when someone has been smoking but I guess it will be difficult to police and enforce.'and in all honesty I'd rather the police concentrate in catching real criminals. And yes booze is probably a bigger problem

MountainMonster

I'm a smoker and i'd be pretty happy if they were banned. I hate the bloody things, but every time I quit I always manage back on them after a few months because my whole family and friend base smokes.

johnboy183

Try try again. Just say No. Seek help from NHS. Your health and lungs will thank you for it. All platitudes I know but give it another go 'cos maybe this time will be the time

scottishgeek

verylonglegs wrote:

All this citing of tax revenue from smokers, what are the figures for this? I'm curious as of about 20 or so smokers at work I rarely see any of them with anything other than imported duty free tobacco to make roll-ups.

Here are some figures for you from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association themselves:-

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publicati ... m-tobacco/

And figures show smoking diseases cost the NHS £5 billion in 2005-06:-

http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=cos ... 0diseases#

Not found any more recent figures though.

finchy

MountainMonster wrote:

I'm a smoker and i'd be pretty happy if they were banned. I hate the bloody things, but every time I quit I always manage back on them after a few months because my whole family and friend base smokes.

You need some new friends. And a new family. There aren't any smokers in my immediate family. Would you like us to adopt you?

Bobbinogs

johnboy183 wrote:

Smoking does help alleviate stress and I'm all for that.

I saw this quoted a few times the other day and I am not at all convinced. Smoking relieves the stress for nicotine addicts who are desperate for nicotine. If you want to see stress, check out a smoker in a meeting that is over-running. The non-smokers in the same room don't seem to have the same stress levels at all.

As others have said, banning smoking will just drive it underground. Smoking is gradually on the way out but there will always be a hard core in the appropriate social demographic group.

Frank the tank

Appropriate social demographic group. I'm sure I know what you're implying, fact is smoking crosses all social groups/classes/boundries some smoke top quality cigars whilst quaffing V.S.O.P. Cognac, other smoke roll ups swigging extra strong lager. I'm sure the lungs of these two groups can't tell the difference.

johnboy183

Bobbinogs wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Smoking does help alleviate stress and I'm all for that.

I saw this quoted a few times the other day and I am not at all convinced. Smoking relieves the stress for nicotine addicts who are desperate for nicotine. If you want to see stress, check out a smoker in a meeting that is over-running. The non-smokers in the same room don't seem to have the same stress levels at all.

Whether it's a physiological or psychological need, all smokers tend to return far more relaxed post ciggy than pre

Bobbinogs

johnboy183 wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Smoking does help alleviate stress and I'm all for that.

I saw this quoted a few times the other day and I am not at all convinced. Smoking relieves the stress for nicotine addicts who are desperate for nicotine. If you want to see stress, check out a smoker in a meeting that is over-running. The non-smokers in the same room don't seem to have the same stress levels at all.

Whether it's a physiological or psychological need, all smokers tend to return far more relaxed post ciggy than pre

Yepp, totally agree with you but my point is that smokers get really stressed when they need the fix and that smoking then relieves that stress, whereas non-smokers don't get the stress in the first place.

Regarding "social demographic group" I accept that smoking affects all the groups but it definitely seems to be more prevalent in the traditional blue collar set.

In addition, at my local convenience store I am often amazed at the number of folks who appear to be living right on the breadline who still finish their shop with a "...and two number 5s on the scratchcards and 20 L&B". So, that's £10 of food and the same on completely disposal rubbish, IMO.

Pross

I really don't understand the thinking behind having non-branded packaging. I'm sure no-one has ever taken up smoking because they liked the white packet with a blue stripe. If a smoker has a choice of a different brand to usual or no cigarettes I'm pretty certain they will take what's on offer.

Wheelspinner

Pross wrote:

I really don't understand the thinking behind having non-branded packaging. I'm sure no-one has ever taken up smoking because they liked the white packet with a blue stripe. If a smoker has a choice of a different brand to usual or no cigarettes I'm pretty certain they will take what's on offer.

I think that's quite true. Our previous government introduced this here a couple of years back and as yet I don't think there's much evidence it's had any additional impact on the incidence of smoking. They also made it a requirement that *all* shops had to have the packs locked away, not on display. So, if you can't see what the pack looks like, how does it influence which one you buy???? I think the "logic" was that the fancy pack was no longer a status symbol to be casually displayed in public or some such drivel.

Conversely, the manufacturers have gone quiet on complaints about the plain packaging, which might be a sign they don't suffer too much as a result. I recall a study some years ago done after the ban on sports sponsorship for tobacco companies, which showed no appreciable drop in sales at all, no real shift in market share for the major brands in the market, and the only outcome was more profit for all of them with no huge expenditure on promotions. They were quite happy about it really.

Saw a report somewhere from British American Tobacco, which listed their global revenue as about 25 billion pounds I think, of which about 18 billion was passed on to the various governments in tax and excise. I've heard they've often referred to their business as "Tax Collection, with a sideline in manufacturing"...

finchy

Pross wrote:

I really don't understand the thinking behind having non-branded packaging. I'm sure no-one has ever taken up smoking because they liked the white packet with a blue stripe. If a smoker has a choice of a different brand to usual or no cigarettes I'm pretty certain they will take what's on offer.

If branding and design had no influence on people's decision to buy product X, companies wouldn't spend so much money on it.

Wheelspinner

johnfinch wrote:

If branding and design had no influence on people's decision to buy product X, companies wouldn't spend so much money on it.

Yes, but if all products are packaged the same way, then will the decision be to not buy any of them? How does the plain packaging reduce the total sales of all brands combined? It may shift someone's purchase from one to another, but do they stop buying just because the pack is plain?

finchy

Wheelspinner wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

If branding and design had no influence on people's decision to buy product X, companies wouldn't spend so much money on it.

Yes, but if all products are packaged the same way, then will the decision be to not buy any of them? How does the plain packaging reduce the total sales of all brands combined? It may shift someone's purchase from one to another, but do they stop buying just because the pack is plain?

I think the idea is to make smoking less attractive to children and teenagers, rather than getting current smokers to stop.

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

I really don't understand the thinking behind having non-branded packaging. I'm sure no-one has ever taken up smoking because they liked the white packet with a blue stripe. If a smoker has a choice of a different brand to usual or no cigarettes I'm pretty certain they will take what's on offer.

I agree, it won't be long before it's cool to have a plain white box in your hand..
BTW what happens with the warnings/pics off tumours etc?