MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Hilary buy Chelsea's fags for her?

seven-day-weekend

Should Hillary buy Chelsea her fags????

No, no, and again no! If she loves her daughter she should not encourage her to smoke. If Chelsea buys them anyway well that's up to her, but Hillary should put her foot down and insist that all smoking is done away from the five-year-old.

When our son visits us here, he will not bring cigarettes back from Spain for anyone. When he says no, most people think he is joking. They soon find out he is not when he refuses to take their money.

I'm going to start following his example. If peole are going to smoke they can buy them themselves, AND pay the taxes.

Nutmeg_2

I wouldn't encourage anyone to smoke, especially my daughter. My daughter does smoke but I never bring her back any duty frees. She would only smoke more often if there were 400 fags waiting to be used. It's hard enough knowing what she is doing to herself without me helping to make her ill!

Lizzie_B_4

Is this "Knock the smoker" time? I smoke, I am intelligent - I am not a "wastrel", I am intelligent, run my own business and am paying enough tax already, I choose to smoke - an addiction - probably - but my right! Albeit, not around others who dont!

Also, not around children etc, because they do not have a chance to say "please don't".. However for a balanced view of the'dubious' dangers of passive smoking, read the "Forest" web site, before you believe unbalanced and naieve propoganda!

I applaud anything to stop this "Money grabbing" government, taking yet more money through tax! So yes, buy them abroad - better to give money to Friends and Family than this Government. If everyone does give up - watch your taxes rise! The revenue 'in' vastly outweights expenditure 'out' on the NHS!!

reehsetin

we had this debate about getting ciggies for my brother, i was against it as stocking up he wont quit because he'll have loads he 'has' to finish
so no, especially if she smokes in the house

Clueless969

A principle is a principle. I hate smoking, have never been a smoker and would never give in to the emotional blackmail involved in this scenario.

The daughter smokes that's the daughter's problem.

The daughter wants cigarettes, that's the daughter's problem.

If the daughter cannot see that smoking in the house is bad for all concerned, that is the daughter's problem.

If the daughter does not love her child enough to stop smoking in the house, that is the daughter's (and ultimately the child's) problem.

Why should the mother compromise her principles, just so the daughter can save a few quid?

Would you recommend bringing back cheap booze for an alcoholic, just to save them a few quid?

Mouseman

There does indeed seem to be a LOT of smoker bashing on this one!
I'm amazed by those that believe tobacco tax is levied to decrease the number of smokers; as someone above pointed out - where does this revenue come from when the scheme works and Britain becomes smoker free?
Also the notion that smokers are taxed to pay for smoke related illnesses. It has been well documented I believe that tobacco tax income more than covers expenditure in this field.
To Clueless969 above, I quite liked the alcoholic analogy; I feel it far closer in nature than the heroin idea from earlier - however, if it was an alcoholic who was perfectly stable (in that their addiction affected nobody else negatively) then yes, I see far less problem to buying them cheap booze than is implied. Otherwise I agree with your sentiment that one's principles should not be changed.
In answer to the question, I probably would buy the cigarettes from abroad. If the idea of increasing uptake with a stockpile handy was true in this case, the mother can ration them to her daughter. I'd also not want the ankle biter exposed to the smoke but don't see these two dilemmas as easily connected as previous posters have.

Chuffy

I thought Bill enjoyed a cigar with his friend Monica anyway.

reecebot

What does this actually have to do with money?

If you don't like someone doing something, you don't make it easier for them to do it, do you?

clivebryan61

Absolutely not. Don't let them blackmail you...

MSE_Archna wrote: »

Here's this week's hypothetical situation for you to cogitate on:

Should Hilary buy Chelsea's fags for her?

Hilary is nipping off to Spain for a long weekend; her daughter Chelsea wants her to buy 40 packets of cigarettes as they're a fraction of the price over there and she'll save serious cash. Yet Hilary hates smoking and especiallyhe fact Chelsea smokes in the house where her 5 year old son (and Hilary's grandson) little Bill lives; however if she doesn't buy them Chelsea will buy them elsewhere and they'll be much more costly.

Enter the Money Moral Maze: Should Hilary buy Chelsea's fags for her?

Previous MMDs: Should Victor use his local pharmacist?, Should Frodo give Sam the money?

Norma_Scott

I have the same dilema with our daughter in law, she smokes and we are totally opposed to smoking, although she does not smoke indoors or around her children. We feel we are possibly making her smoke more if we buy 200 cigs when we go to Spain, but then on the other hand it saves her a lot of money. If we could be sure she would only smoke the same amount we would definately buy them for her.