Re: Fags out.
 

:o suppose youd better get me a mac too, you cant have a pint bout a ciggie if your a smoker :rolleyes:

Re: Fags out.
 

The weather does come into all of this. l respect non-smoking friends who prefer l smoke outside their houses. However l don't go to stay with my best friends in Scotland much anymore, especially in the winter.
P.s. A 'rainmate' is something you don't see much anymore. lt was popular with ladies who'd just had a 'set'. lt was an unattractive plastic hood that came in a little case the size of a condom. l'm working on new designs for when the bans imposed. Leaves both hands free, for suppin' and faggin', thus you won't need your large brolly!

Re: Fags out.
 

[QUOTE=garinda]
P.s. A 'rainmate' is something you don't see much anymore. lt was popular with ladies who'd just had a 'set'. lt was an unattractive plastic hood that came in a little case QUOTE]
Ah...........mi gran used to wear one o them:D

Re: Fags out.
 

It looks like you're wearing one at the moment, Park!!

Re: Fags out.
 

Don't waste the money getting me a rainmate, just buy me an extra pint, I reckon the smell of me drying off in the pub after getting soaked whilst having a fag will make 'em prefer the aroma of ciggies!
:s_basque:

Re: Fags out.
 

I think where possible pubs should have separate no-smoking areas.

Whoever thinks it works in Dublin obviously hasn't read about the boatloads of Micks coming over to Holyhead for their night out! - or the publican who has bought a double decker bus and parked it outside the pub for his smoking clientele.

Do tell me though, if smoking is banned generally and everyone gives up, how we work out the economics -

There are reckoned to be 12 million smokers in this country.
The tax on 20 cigarettes is over £2 (yes, chokes you, dunnit)
If each smoker smokes, on average, 20 cigarettes a day .....

that is £2 x 12 million every day going into the Exchequer from smokers, i.e. £24 MILLION A DAY.

That makes £8,736,000,000 every year, by my reckoning.

Where is Gordon Brown going to find that, then?

****** standing outside, everyone round my place, bring a few cans, or we'll club together and buy a barrel! - non-smokers who prefer to can drink in the back bedroom.

Re: Fags out.
 

Re: Fags out.
 

pendy, top arithmatic.
i couldn't be arsed working it out but iknew it would be a lot.
where would all the revenue come from? perhaps we should tax smiling and should we frown lets tax that too.
reminds me of the taxman by the beatles..... but so i digress. i like to smoke. i agree about food outlets but pubs? no way .
as sage noel gallagher once said, " all i need are cigarettes and alcohol"

Re: Fags out.
 

wasnt there something in the paper about Wetherspoons profits being down by a fifth since Tim Martin announced they were going to start the smoking ban early? i run a club and 99per cent of the cudtomers smoke so hope it doesnt come in, its a dying trade anyway, might as well let the customers choose to die of alcholism or cancer themselves, they are all adults after all!

Re: Fags out.
 

I hate going to pubs, as a non smoker myself i find it very unpleasent to breath in cigarette smoke.I won't allow smoking in my house.

And as a smoker i will agree with you totally on that.Your house is a private thing.I smoke in my house but do not smoke in anybody elses unless i am allowed to.
However i do not agree with all this non smokers.
As an example i am a smoker and overweight.I should be a bigger risk for sickness to any company.However from persanol experience i find the skinny non smokers have had 600% more sick days than i have had in the last 10 years.

Re: Fags out.
 

It says that cigarettes are a deadly product. Even when used as directed, they kill their customers -- not overnight, of course, but over the long term. Cigarettes are also highly addictive, so once a person begins smoking, it's very difficult for them to ever quit, further worsening the negative health outcome.All of this is quite true. Cigarettes are indeed cancer sticks. Inhaling cigarette smoke is the closest thing to suicide other than jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or leaping from a tall bank building in downtown Manhattan. From a logical, reasonable, public health point of view, cigarettes should definitely be outlawed. They have no place whatsoever in a civilized society, and in fact, they are impairing the growth of society by reducing the longevity of our adult population and adding significantly to our overall health care costs. But then we have the libertarian argument which says that people should have the free choice to do whatever they want, even if it harms their own body. We let people engage in dangerous sports, for example -- dirt biking, mountain biking, and snowboarding -- and they're responsible for their own health outcomes in those endeavors, aren't they? Well, not exactly. When people get injured in sports, their injuries are often covered by insurance which pays the medical bills.
Suppose the government banned nicotine -- would that mean that nicotine products would vanish over night, and no one would have access to them? Of course not! All it would mean is that a huge black market of cigarettes would develop, and we would further enrich the drug dealers who are now peddling crack cocaine marijuana, and other controlled substances by handing over a huge, multi-billion dollar industry in the sales of tobacco products.
I have an alternative solution to all of this, one that keeps the free choice in the hands of the users, and yet reduces the financial impact on the public at large. And this stems from the question: why should society have to pay for the health care costs of people who choose to commit slow suicide by consuming tobacco products? If a person is going to give themselves cancer, and if they're going to do so deliberately, day after day, year after year, is that a cost that should really be borne by their neighbors and fellow citizens? It doesn't seem fair. When there are some people taking care of their health and avoiding smoking, why should those who smoke demand that everybody else pay for their health care costs? So no National health service for any smoking related diseases, pay up with private health care.

Re: Fags out.
 

Tax from cigarettes far out weighs the cost of health care for smokers, plus think of all the savings in pensions you don't have to pay out on!

Cars kill more people and cause more pollution world wide than cigarettes. Ban them?

Re: Fags out.
 

P.s. as a smoker l agree it is anti-social. So is cheap perfume, l have a choice l walk away.

Re: Fags out.
 

That is a valid argument on the face of it, Bazf - BUT - suppose they made tobacco products illegal. With the loss of revenue from cigarettes and tobacco I very much fear there would no longer be a Health Service. That is the very reason why tobacco will not become a banned substance.

Income tax rates are lower now than at any time since I have worked in the department and what isn't generated from that source must be recouped from elsewhere. The government-generated hysteria against smoking is a good ploy to enable the chancellor to levy higher and higher duty on tobacco without a public outcry. What a coup if the very people who are maintaining the NHS could be denied its services into the bargain.

Re: Fags out.
 

Yes, a fair comment Bazf, but you have the same problem over there in the USA don't you, and from experience the weed is cheaper over there than here in the UK.

Don't you also have a major problem over there with the diet thing, over eating over weight as we have here in the UK, would you deny them national health service as well.