Under the Counter Cigarettes - Bad for consumers in its present form

custardy

darkpool wrote: »

so how about McDonalds? we stop them advertising because of fat people?

maybe stop football as well? after all some people have serious gambling addictions and bet on football matches.

you trust politicians to do what's best for us?

I have posted many times on being happy with fat tax etc. stopping Mcdonalds advertising would be fine with me
perhaps start with banning it from kids channels/kids targeted programming.
as can be seen by the growing weight proble in the UK,something has to be done. many people are incapable/unwilling of helping themselves

well stopping a sport due to betting. seems a strange way of approaching it?

s_b

I thought the nanny state idea was kicked out with tony blame, but this govt too seems insistent on telling us whats good for us and hiding/taxing it if its against their beliefs,i voted this govt in to kick start the economy back on track and stop making false jobs in government, to keep unemployment figures down, not to tell me i cant buy 3 bottles of wine for a £10 if i want to.
Wine is €1 a bottle in italy if you want to buy it at liddle and i dont see italion kids going nuts on it
we would be better spending our taxes on policing our country than stopping freedom of choice

aldredd

Nobody is stopping you from smoking merely discouraging you from doing so / trying to stop people starting something that will probably lead to their own death.

bell123321

There are suppose to have a price list available. At Sainsbury's they have one mounted and one under the desk to pass to customers if they ask. Also it is not in the new law for Tesco not to be allowed to open the doors. The new law means they can only open one door at a time and to open the door if you look under 25 they have to ask for ID before opening the doors. The law doesn't state you need to buy before they open the doors. I only know this as I have done the legal workbook on the new changes.

anatomical

EycplUK wrote: »

I feel that putting cigarettes out of sight will help, if not for this generation but the next. Think of the saying "out of sight, out of mind". If the younger generation grow up with no advertising of cigarettes, do not see their presence in every supermarket, do not see people smoking in restaurants and public places then it becomes less of a normal habit and less people will be inclined to take up smoking in the future.

Do not think so my friend !
This kind of legislation has been in effect for over 3 years in Thailand and smoking rates have NOT decreased !
To be honest i cannot see what difference it will make here niether !

3 years is not enough to make the difference I was describing, 15 year olds now would still have grown up with smoking being a normality for many people, so when they reach 18 and can smoke it would feel fairly normal pick it up. However, for 5 year olds there is plenty of time for new regulations to prevent cigarettes being shown in shops and for their presence to be decrease. This effect cannot change smoking rates within 3 years as they would not be old enough to buy cigarettes in 3 years time.

I still can't understand why people are comparing trying to reduce smoking with fatty foods and alcohol. In moderation both of those things do no harm, and can actually have health benefits. Smoking has absolutely no positive health effects and harms people around you through passive smoking. This is not a product of the "nanny state", this is trying to prevent people from giving themselves and others horrible diseases.

Give this article a read. "Evidence from the US indicates that more young children are killed by parental smoking than by all other unintentional injuries combined." Please tell me how it is a bad thing that the government are trying to reduce smoking, I cannot see it myself!

davidlizard

anatomical wrote: »

I see your point. Simply quantified in terms of money it would appear beneficial to keep smokers smoking. However, the amount of hours used by medical professionals treating smoking related illnesses detracts from the care of other patients, leading to a strain on the NHS. While the NHS spends 5bn on smoking related illnesses, the 7bn recovered by the government from taxes is not simply put back into the NHS. This is why stop smoking ads are usually NHS funded, it is them who feel the strain not the government. I should have phrased my thoughts a little better.

(Remainder snipped).

What also needs to be factored in to this is that whilst 5bn is spent on smoking related diseases, many smokers still die early. As nasty as this sounds, this means that the NHS is not having to spend money on them when they are in their 80s and 90s on genuine old-age type illnesses, or treatment of any other illness they might get in later life.

There is also the costs of pension funds that rely on people dying earlier in life.

Jules22

Wouldn't it be good to go back to the days of self responsibility, you know, when we made our own decisions and stood by them.

But didn't this Government re-name this 'The Big Society' and they are now back tracking by turning it into a Nanny state.

People who use LEGAL substances such as tobacco and alcohol pay the tax on them and know the long term effects. Leave them alone, its their responsibility.

anatomical

Jules22 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be good to go back to the days of self responsibility, you know, when we made our own decisions and stood by them.

But didn't this Government re-name this 'The Big Society' and they are now back tracking by turning it into a Nanny state.

People who use LEGAL substances such as tobacco and alcohol pay the tax on them and know the long term effects. Leave them alone, its their responsibility.

And what about all the people who are harmed by passive smoking? As I quoted above, "Evidence from the US indicates that more young children are killed by parental smoking than by all other unintentional injuries combined." People obviously aren't taking their responsibility strongly enough.

If tobacco were to be discovered now there is no way it would be made legal. It is only legal because it was introduced hundreds of years ago before the side effects were appreciated, and the amount of people who still smoke despite their knowledge of these side effects means it cannot be banned outright and needs to be phased out.

EycplUK

And what about all the people who are harmed by passive smoking?

Where are people getting harmed by passive smoking now please ? Not in Pubs , clubs and workplaces so where ?
Are you seriousley trying to tell us that people smoking outside is going to give you " Passive smoking disease`s " ?
More chance of getting poisioned by car and truck fumes !

Derivative

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The difference being, it's possible to eat chocolate and drink alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle. It isn't possible to smoke cigarettes in the same way.

Chocolate is not healthy. It is basically nutritionless and has high amounts of saturated fat. Neither is alcohol healthy unless you consider studies in the Daily Mail as fact (those daft 1 glass of wine studies - failing to take into account the obvious willpower bias there).

I don't smoke. Never have, never will (okay, I've had one to see what it was like. Bit naff really.). Family members have died due to smoking related illnesses. That doesn't mean I want to impose myself on others by preventing them doing what they enjoy.

It's not a "passive" move to make people feel shame when they buy a product. To have it behind closed doors as if they're buying something shady, that others shouldn't be allowed to see.

Whether or not you think smoking is good or not shouldn't be relevant to this issue.

Should we board up the windows of McDonalds, Greggs, hell, even Tesco (can't have people seeing sweets now, can we?) Why does tobacco deserve special treatment just because you die a few times faster?

You know what - skydiving is hazardous to health, and besides the entertainment factor, hardly benefits society. Why not ban it?

Ban motorcycles - they're too fun really, and dangerous!

While we're at it, ban TV. Except BBC News - we wouldn't want Sky News, bloody right wing claptrap.

The above look ridiculous to you? Good. That's what smoking laws look like to me.

We have a nationalised health service, so we have justification to tax unhealthy activities, provided the funding is ringfenced to go to the NHS. That's all.