I wish you could sue smokers!

avinabacca

Rockporkchop wrote: »

Presumably all the smokers would become drinkers or compulsive eaters or take up some other expensive and health threatening habit to waste their cash and make up the shortfall in revenue.

Possibly.

Possibly not, though - not with their new, "smoke-free", healthy bodies. What then?

And what about the people in manufacture, distribution and retail whose jobs depend on the tobacco trade?

Not for one second saying smoking's a good thing - but it would be useful to hear some solutions looking at smoking and the tobacco industry in the UK using a wider picture, rather than the "uurgh, all that cig-smoke don't 'alf make everything pong!" level of discourse......

vyle

dizzyg wrote: »

We have to use them in all weathers, huddled under umbrellas and braced against the wind. We have spent time claiming our territory and don't complain about it. But as soon as there is a little sunshine all the non smokers sit outside and complain about us being there.

I welcomed the smoking ban and don't even smoke in my own home anymore. Don't begrudge us the little space outside we have.

If other smokers were like you it wouldn't be too bad. I just got home from town and three women were standing around me, smoking, blowing the smoke into the bus shelter where I was sitting. It was horrible and my eyes are still itching now, even though I got up and stood outside the bus shelter. God help their babies.

But when you say you HAVE to go outside in the winter...you don't. You do if you wish to smoke, but why smoke? That's the key point, youre not being forced to do anything, youre choosing to. And not smoking in your home, the one place where nobody could have a logical argument against you smoking is bizarre. What is it about smoking at your house that you find objectionable?

hoyles10 wrote: »

You have to love the anti-smoking brigade, talking about having a poo on someones shoes because you can't do it on the bus has to be the worst point against smoking I have ever heard, but thanks for making me chuckle on a very dull day.

I don't smoke.... I however do wish my life was as perfect as some of the other non-smokers who clearly never ever do anything to annoy people (Apart from posting silly arguments on internet forums)

Yes, it was silly, but the point is that smokers are choosing to do something outside and in as callous a way as possible when they could do it at home, the only place where it's suitable to perform unsavoury acts. They then act butthurt because people don't like being made to smell of smoke, get sore throats and generally have their day made that little bit worse, because somebody can't wait to set fire to their face.

duchy wrote: »

Frankly I find abuse of alcohol to be a far greater concern and would welcome a ban on that instead. It makes people smell horrid, it makes for an unpleasent enviroment, it costs the NHS millions but by the users and their victims of violence and drink driving and wrecks lives emotionally and socially........so why isn't it banned ?

Everyone can abuse something. If I'm sitting in a pub having a quiet drink of cider with a friend, next to a non-drinker, the non-drinker isn't being affected in any way.

If I was a smoker and sat next to the non-drinker and their lemonade, that person would leave the pub smelling of an ash tray, and if they've got as sensitive a throat as I, they will find that they've also lost their voice.

I don't think alcohol should be banned, but anybody who abuses alcohol should be refused treatment on the NHS, absolutely.

dizzyg_2

QUOTE
But when you say you HAVE to go outside in the winter...you don't. You do if you wish to smoke, but why smoke? That's the key point, youre not being forced to do anything, youre choosing to. And not smoking in your home, the one place where nobody could have a logical argument against you smoking is bizarre. What is it about smoking at your house that you find objectionable?


I will make no excuse for the fact that I smoke.
If i want to smoke I have to go outside.
I will be more careful with my wording next time. Apologies.

As for smoking in my own home, I do not live alone and therefore choose to smoke in my garden rather than impose my bad habit on anyone else (I know its a bad habit but nobodys perfect). :rolleyes:

DrScotsman

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

But why don't the non smokers who dont like the smoke just go back inside??? or better still, go home?? I personally find it offensive when someone smells of BO or has a loud annoying voice, but I keep it to myself because I am POLITE.

Can I just get this right. You seem to have made several posts saying you are a smoker. You have also made several posts saying how baaaad Aspartame is.

Even if you are an Aspartame-is-bad believer, you cannot possibly believe that its "effects" are worse than the effects of cigarettes.

Splash your money on cigs and then avoid buying cheap drinks because they'll cause problems? Why are you on MSE? I'm completely speechless.

You should have to past some sort of test to become a smoker.

Volcano

avinabacca wrote: »

I think any academic will, to a greater or lesser extent, cut the results of a study to suit the funding body. The BHF are paying the piper, and the tune's being played accordingly.

Eeek! Maybe an obscure non-entity desperate for cash, but unlikely from a senior Oxford research team.

Fact remains, though, that income from tobacco revenues outweigh the cost of smoking to the Treasury - glib comments about "tweaking" taxes aside, it would be interesting to see real proposals on how this shortfall might be made up, were this to disappear overnight.

Any ideas yourself?

There'd be no shortfall:

£8bn sales of tobacco (of which 80% VAT) = £6.4bn to the taxman.

£8bn not spent on tobacco, but spent on other goods (17.5% VAT) = £2.4bn + £5bn health saving = £7.4bn.

Probably not that simplistic unfortunately. You have a point though that tobacco drives a huge industry: oncologists, nurses, funeral directors (:D) but joking aside, it is a considerable amount of money moving about that the government appears loathe to lose.

littleowl

Rockporkchop wrote: »

Presumably all the smokers would become drinkers or compulsive eaters or take up some other expensive and health threatening habit to waste their cash and make up the shortfall in revenue.

I don't understand why all these smokers are on a MSE site, all trying to find out how they can save a few quid here and there when they are sending thousands of pounds up in smoke every year!

Why should you presume any such thing? I take it you live a pure life with no supposed vices? Do you drink, spend too much money on clothes, music, holidays whatever else? Yes - I have no right at all to ask such questions and you have no right at all to make such presumptions!

wannabepennypincher

For all the fuss people are making about passive smoking I wonder how many are planning to give their cars, air pollution can causes many of the short term symptons of passive smoking, if you didn't come home from the bus stop stinking of fag reek you'd come home reeking of exhaust fumes.

As for alcohol "not being as bad" because you only have 1 cider and aren't harming anyone- that's fair enough but you are likely in the minority- how many people do not think they have a drink probelm- yet the binge drinkers ruin my weekend as I live close to town and have to listen to the police sirens, screaming and yelling, fights and they spending the next morning hoping someone hasn't thrown up in my doorway.

Smokers are the only group of addicts that will hold their hands up and say fair enough I'm addicted to smoking which is bad and because of this we are patronised, called weak willed and blamed every time a baby coughs.

Last but not least how dare people say we can't visit a money saving site isn't it obvious we need to save money to continue to pay for our fags?

larmy16

I heard they are trying to impose the smoking ban now in Iraq.:rolleyes: Isn't it great that they have their priorities in the right order? If anyone could do with a fag - it's the Iraquis.

The Turks are taking to the streets over the ban. They have more guts than the Brits. The bar owners are seriously worried about their businesses if the ban gets passed.

PS. I heard all this being discussed on the radio.

Rockporkchop

littleowl wrote: »

Why should you presume any such thing? I take it you live a pure life with no supposed vices? Do you drink, spend too much money on clothes, music, holidays whatever else? Yes - I have no right at all to ask such questions and you have no right at all to make such presumptions!

It was meant as a tongue in cheek comment but now you come to mention it, no I don't drink or have any life threatening vices. I have children to think of. Oh I do bite my nails but last time I checked, no-one died from passive nail biting so I think I am OK.

Volcano

larmy16 wrote: »

Isn't it great that they have their priorities in the right order? If anyone could do with a fag - it's the Iraquis.

I'd imagine the last thing thing they need is to burden their fragile health service with a few million tobacco-induced, diseased citizens.