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.
 
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?
 
P.s. as a smoker l agree it is anti-social. So is cheap perfume, l have a choice l walk away.
 
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.
 
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.
 
As i referred to in my previous post.In the 16 yesr i have been in my present firm i have the lowest sick rate of all workers.A lot of which are non smokers.Less visits tothe G.P. means less costs on the N.H.S.

Another thing is who will replace the lost 13.000.000 pond in inland revenue that will be lost by the costs of cigarettes??? The non smokers, i think not
 
Helping smokers stop is cost effective. The cost per life year saved of a comprehensive treatment service is about £900. Many health economists and officials rate a treatment that costs from £5,000 to £10,000 per life year saved as very good value for money.
The development of NHS smoking cessation services means that the GP need do no more than give brief advice about stopping, prescribe a treatment and/or refer to the local service, rather than spend time trying to meet all the needs of smokers trying to quit.
Helping smokers stop will reduce the costs of treating other illnesses before they arise, releasing resources for other uses. Smoking is linked to over fifty diseases, of which over twenty are fatal. Stopping smoking significantly reduces the risk of these diseases, with some immediate gains. For example, the risk of some heart diseases and stroke falls by around a half within the first two years after stopping smoking.

Helping smokers stop will reduce surgery visits from patients as they become less vulnerable to colds, 'flu, and other illnesses indirectly linked to smoking.

Helping smokers stop will also help avoid the cost of treatment linked to the effects on smokers’ children. Around 17,000 children under five enter hospital each year with conditions such as asthma and glue ear as a result of their parents’ smoking.


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.

The UK government earned £8,093 million in revenue from tobacco duty excluding VAT in the financial year 2003-04.
The UK goverment (NHS)spent 128,000 million on Smoking related diseases in the financial year 2003-4.


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.


We dont have a national health service we pay for everything from a doctors vist to a flu shot and the weed is cheaper and it is banned in all pubs clubs and resturants in Florida and because of our weather anyone who wants to smoke can sit outside as for overweight or overeating same as smoking its a choice.
 
Anybody read in the LET the other week about the eight year old on 20 cigarettes a day?

That's why we need to do as much as we can to make sure that people are aware of the dangers of smoking, and that there is a service there for them to stop if they need it.
Then, at least if people choose to smoke, I for one won't need to say, 'I told you so' when the inevitable lung cancer kicks in, as it has in one of my relatives.
 
The Health service in France, is a darn sight better than ours, and yes it's free. Less tax is also levied against tobacco there too.


Like previously posted, it's positively rude not to smoke in France.:)
 
Heaven forfend that we should seek to imitate the French.

As for detailing all the health benefits of not smoking I doubt a smoker would be swayed by them. The addiction has too strong a hold. They often find a way to rationalise the habit citing the revenue earned from taxing their cigarettes as a prime example of why we should not try to dissuade them. In the end it's merely an excuse and they know it but won't admit it.

I've tried to persuade someone close to me to quit and for a while during a brief period of success this person was full of self righteous admiration. Alas it didn't last and now the excuses come forth and I have tired of the discussion. If someone really doesn't want to quite they will find any available excuse to justify not doing so.

If you must smoke then please do so in the privacy of a closed room which I do not have to enter. If there is one thing I cannot stand it is inhaling second hand smoke and the smell of stale tobacco. Oh, that's two things. lol
 
l' m afraid l'm going to have to withdrew your invitation to tea then. :)

lnformed choice is always more preferable to censorship, which never really works, it just goes underground like a rabbit with a weed addiction.
 
No, but you can stand outside, lol!


Just read baz's journal, memories of 'sharing the odd herbal cigarette.'
Ah, the ex-smoker, hence the reams of unsubstantiated facts and figures. ASH?
 
Last edited:
"As for detailing all the health benefits of not smoking I doubt a smoker would be swayed by them. The addiction has too strong a hold. They often find a way to rationalise the habit citing the revenue earned from taxing their cigarettes as a prime example of why we should not try to dissuade them. In the end it's merely an excuse and they know it but won't admit it."
This year, the smoking cessation service for Hyndburn, Ribble Valley and Blackburn with Darwen have already seen more than 1,400 people who want to give up. Public opinions are changing.
 
Public opinion is changing. Historically l think they will look back at tobacco and smoking it, as madness.
 
garinda said:
Public opinion is changing. Historically l think they will look back at tobacco and smoking it, as madness.
Click to expand...
Could well do, but there are still a lot of young people taking up the habit
 
l am neither young or old, but l am in a strange predicament. l've been told by the Specialist l can't stop smoking because of the drugs l'm on. Now l have had the choice taken away from me, l of course want to stop! Typical me.
 
garinda said:
l am neither young or old, but l am in a strange predicament. l've been told by the Specialist l can't stop smoking because of the drugs l'm on. Now l have had the choice taken away from me, l of course want to stop! Typical me.
Click to expand...
That seems strange coming from a specialist in the health service?
When I said young I meant the 14/15/16 year olds
 
I haven't had a ciggy for 8yrs and it was the hardest thing I ever did, I tried everything from hypnotism to acupunture from cutting down to patches, nothing worked except cold turkey and even 3yrs later I could easily have gone back to smoking, I watched my mum die of cancer didn't make me want to stop, so I agree if you don't want to you won't and I admire anyone who does, second hand smoke doesn't bother me anymore I just don't like it, but the biggest thing I noticed and it must have been so obvious when I smoked was the smell of my clothes and my wardrobe as a smoker you just don't notice it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top