Ban on smoking in cars carrying children backed by Lords

[weltweit]

Quite. Even the inflated worst case scenario, that the health fascists claim that smokers cost the NHS, is way below that figure.

“Smoking costs the NHS up to £1.7 billion each year" Source: Department of Health report "Smoking Kills.[1998].” The benefits are £8bn in tax revenues and a significant reduction in pension costs because smokers die younger.

 

[spanglechick]

My child is 38. Next!

Well, unless you're being deliberately obtuse, it would also be odd to riot for the right to poison you grandchildren, or any other child who happens to be in your car.

 

[ruffneck23]

Although it's just legalising common sense I'm for it, I'm just worried how far it will go.

Still I'm doing the Alan Carr course in a couple of weeks so hopefully il be a bitter ex smoker like the rest of you

And that's something I actually want

 

[weltweit]

“Smoking costs the NHS up to £1.7 billion each year" Source: Department of Health report "Smoking Kills.[1998].” The benefits are £8bn in tax revenues and a significant reduction in pension costs because smokers die younger.

BTW I know that 1998 figure is out of date but I expect if anything it will have come down in the intervening years as there are fewer smokers these days.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Well, unless you're being deliberately obtuse, it would also be odd to riot for the right to poison you grandchildren, or any other child who happens to be in your car.

Did you miss the part that I highlighted in red?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Being honest, I haven't paid UK tobacco tax for about ten years. I buy my tobacco in Belgium at a third of UK prices. I did pay tax for the previous 35 years though.

 

[Frances Lengel]

you're all poisionining your childrden with your car fumes anyway so fuck off with your hipocrcrisy.

 

[Teaboy]

you're all poisionining your childrden with your car fumes anyway so fuck off with your hipocrcrisy.

There is a debate to be had about the effect of general air quality of health comparing it directly with cigarette smoke is getting a bit carried away. Perhaps if they banned smoking outdoors or car companies started putting the exhaust pipe in the back seat you could have a point.

 

[Frances Lengel]

There is a debate to be had about the effect of general air quality of health comparing it directly with cigarette smoke is getting a bit carried away. Perhaps if they banned smoking outdoors or car companies started putting the exhaust pipe in the back seat you could have a point.

Hmmm,, like those germans did all those years ago. Fact is though, industrial pollution is everythwhere but blame and tax it on the individual -piece of piss.

 

[weltweit]

Smoking is addictive, as long as they maintain taxes at a level where people can just afford to keep buying they will continue to smoke, they are addicted.

If government wanted to stop smoking it could ban the sale or smoking of cigarettes. Simples.

 

[8ball]

If government wanted to stop smoking it could ban the sale or smoking of cigarettes. Simples.

Yeah. Like it did with heroin.

 

[8ball]

Yeah, a lot of petty fuckwittery hatches in Brussels...

Well, I more sort of meant that across Europe people are far more comfortable with ignoring Government fuckwittery but what you say is also true.

Another thing that should be privatised - I could provide fuckwittery services for a tiny fraction of cost. It's practically a hobby of mine.

 

[weltweit]

Yeah. Like it did with heroin.

Oh I think if heroin was legal there would be a lot more people toying with it.

If they banned cigarettes, there would be some sort of black market and some illicit smoking but it would not be on anything like the scale that it is at the moment. And the health of the nation would compensate for the £8bn tax shortfall they all had to pay in increased taxes.

 

[8ball]

You don't work in drug policy, perchance?

 

[weltweit]

You don't work in drug policy, perchance?

I am an addict, like the treasury.

 

[ruffneck23]

Smoking is addictive, as long as they maintain taxes at a level where people can just afford to keep buying they will continue to smoke, they are addicted.

If government wanted to stop smoking it could ban the sale or smoking of cigarettes. Simples.

but think of the taxes , thats why it allowed , sod adults and childrens health , its simple , but you have a point and the callous cunts wont do just that.

 

[8ball]

I am an addict, like the treasury.

Maybe if you ask the Government nicely they'll ban whatever you're addicted to.

Hang on, I thought cocaine was already banned.

 

[weltweit]

but think of the taxes , thats why it allowed , sod adults and childrens health , its simple , but you have a point and the callous cunts wont do just that.

Absolutely. They price fags at such a level that us addicts can just afford to continue, while raising billions in tax revenues, but then permit "do gooders" to make our lives misery with guilt trips and restrictions from every direction. It stinks. There should be a ban!

 

[fredfelt]

I don't think the law needs to get involved here. In terms of public health I think this is largely irreverent.

Emissions from cars has a huge and real impact on public health, especially the developing hearts and lungs of kids. However any measures which will have any real impact will undoubtedly be unpopular, it will be seen as a war on the motorist and therefore ignored. Meanwhile politicians go for the easy feel good policies where they fucking around the the margins.

 

[8ball]

Absolutely. They price fags at such a level that us addicts can just afford to continue, while raising billions in tax revenues, but then permit "do gooders" to make our lives misery with guilt trips and restrictions from every direction. It stinks. There should be a ban!

If you mean they should ban just you from smoking, then there may be a point in there. Otherwise it's a bit of a cunt's trick.

 

[ruffneck23]

They wont ban it for a long time, not until the legalisation of marijuana comes in for a start

ie : get rid of one, allow another which is better for you, allegedly , but true, and will keep you down in case of a revolution and reap in the taxes. dont know why its so compliacted

 

[weltweit]

If you mean they should ban just you from smoking, then there may be a point in there. Otherwise it's a bit of a cunt's trick.

Hmm

 

[weltweit]

Fags are designed so that about three quarters to an hour after you have smoked one, your drug levels reduce and create a craving for another one. It is this process that creates the pack of 20, because that is about how many a normal smoker will smoke in a day if in response to their reduced nicotine levels they do light up another fag.

Normal smokers will smoke 20 a day whatever the price as long as it is affordable. So Government pricing a pack at £6.00 just generates that amount of revenue for the taxman, it won't have an effect on consumption because we are dealing with addicts here. An addict can't chose to only smoke 5 on one day, they have to maintain their nicotine levels throughout their waking hours.

So the government is just maximising revenue. Smokers would not suddenly smoke more if the price of a pack was reduced to £3.00. Smokers would still in the main smoke 20 a day but the revenue for the taxman would be drastically reduced.

That folks is just sick, milking addicts for all their disposable income, while pretending to help them reduce their habit but actually doing no such thing. I can't imagine many things more unethical.

 

[spanglechick]

Well, unless you're being deliberately obtuse, it would also be odd to riot for the right to poison you grandchildren, or any other child who happens to be in your car.

Or your house?

Did you miss the part that I highlighted in red?

happy?

 

[spanglechick]

Hmmm,, like those germans did all those years ago. Fact is though, industrial pollution is everythwhere but blame and tax it on the individual -piece of piss.

Thing is, transportation and industrial pollution are a by-product of other, quite essential functions. Smoking doesn't achieve anything very much.

 

[weltweit]

Thing is, transportation and industrial pollution are a by-product of other, quite essential functions. Smoking doesn't achieve anything very much.

Smoking raises about £8,000,000,000 a year in taxation for the treasury. That is fairly positive!

 

[weltweit]

Smoking raises about £8,000,000,000 a year in taxation for the treasury. That is fairly positive!

Correction, Government annual revenues from smoking are : £12,300,000,000

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

 

[spanglechick]

Smoking raises about £8,000,000,000 a year in taxation for the treasury. That is fairly positive!

and how much tax revenue do cars and lorries generate in road tax, tax on fuel etc? how much tax do our industrial manufacturers pay? and ON TOP OF THAT they're also actually damn near essential. Smoking only has its tax revenues going for it.

 

[weltweit]

and how much tax revenue do cars and lorries generate in road tax, tax on fuel etc? how much tax do our industrial manufacturers pay? and ON TOP OF THAT they're also actually damn near essential. Smoking only has its tax revenues going for it.

I am not saying smoking is essential, or more essential than anything else, just that it earns a lot of money for the treasury which is why it is tolerated. In effect, the chancellor is as addicted to smoking as smokers are!

 

[spanglechick]

I am not saying smoking is essential, or more essential than anything else, just that it earns a lot of money for the treasury which is why it is tolerated. In effect, the chancellor is as addicted to smoking as smokers are!

sure - but what i'm saying is that pollution from transport and industry in the outdoors, which frances was implying was equivalent to smoking in cars with kids, is a completely different ball game.