Is Simmo Running Amok Tonight?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
:lol: I don't think he's seen this yet . In practise takings are down 25% in Irish pubs so far but that's not going to reverse the decion here , Scotland and Northern Ireland in turn might be more difficult to pass theough . Apparently 70% are against it in Scotland :P
 
and here's a thought for you - I was discussing this matter with my girlfriend last night and got round to the increase in tax which would be required if a complete ban was put on smoking. Making the incorrect assumption that all costs associated with smoking related diseases would disappear immediately once a ban had been put in place, I would estimate that PAYE tax would have to rise by 5% in order to cover the losses incurred.

For my girlfriend, this would mean a rise of approximately £60 per month in her tax bill. Someone on £20,000 per annum would have to pay an additional £70 tax per month. A person on £60,000 per annum (can't be bothered working out the higher tax rate figures) would have to pay an additional £230 tax per month.

If the government find their bollocks and introduce a total ban, and if they believe it to be such a health risk, then this is surely the path they should go down, then I will be quite happy to stop smoking (well not happy, but I'll do it), will you be willing to pay the price for it?
 
Good point, well made, Simmo.

Being a non-smoker myself I am quite prepared to put up with the limited and over-stated risk of passive smoking, so will a lot of others if they see how much it will cost them when the Government try to recoup the lost revenue in other forms of tax.

Colin
 
No government would be stupid enough, even the present American one, to ban smoking altogether. It may have been 85 years ago but I doubt whether anyone will forget the consequences of the Volstead Act which prohibited the manufacture, transportation and sale of drinks with more than a 0.5% alcohol content throughout the USA.
 
Precisely Brian, they and those non-smokers lobbying for smoking to be banned in public places want to have their cake and eat it - the government wants the votes of non-smokers and to give off the appearance of being health conscious, non-smokers want the pleasure of being able to eat in restaurants/bars without having to breath in other people's smoke.

Neither of them want to pay for it.
 
I think that's a bit unfair, Simmo; I am a non smoker & I'm not particularly bothered about a ban but I think there should at least be a ban on smoking in eating areas, it should be a matter of courtesy that smokers don't smoke around people who are eating. It is very unfair & arrogant of smokers to assume that everyone should have to put up with their smoke every time they light up, particularly when food is involved. As I said, I'm not really bothered about a total ban on smoking in public places but I'd also like to point out to anyone saying that the risks of passive smoking are overrated, I am also an asthmatic & if ventilation isn't adequate in a smoky place I have breathing difficulties also - is this overrated?
 
Since the Pub ban came in here on smoking Pub takings are down 16%, but the consumption of alcohol is largely unchanged - people are drinking more at home. This trend was already underway before the ban. Also since the ban - cigarette purchases are down 17%, the tax shortfall accruing for 6 months was $128m. The government are delighted as it will mean a good reduction in healthcare spending in the long term.

Let me reiterate. I think this is the best, and best supported piece oflegislation this state has seen since free education in 1968.
 
SL, I'm all for segregated eating areas - I'm not overly keen on smelling other people's smoke whilst I'm eating myself. That wasn't the point - the point was that if smoking had never happened then residents in Britain would be paying around 5% more PAYE (or more likely distributed amongst other things). I am unsure as to the details in Ireland, but I am aware that in the UK, tax revenue is considerably greater than the costs incurred for smokers healthcare.

So I, and my fellow smokers, subsidise to a fairly large extent, the amount of tax which non-smokers have to pay. My point is that if you no longer wish for us to subsidise you, Mr Non-Smoker, then you'll have to cough up some dough. Oh that's right, I forgot, you want us to continue to subsidise you, but you don't want to see or smell us doing it.
 
So maybe that would be the best option - ban smoking in public eating areas? Unfortunately, although most people I know who smoke are considerate enough not to smoke around people who are eating, not all smokers give it a thought/give a damn (delete as applicable!). Where I work, smokers have to go to smoking areas but I have one colleague in particular who as soon as the office clears (around 5pm in the winter) he lights up & chain smokes continually, with all the smoke going on my direction & it drives me loopy! He doesn't look to see whether I'm eating & ignores me coughing & struggling to breathe too...it's enough to drive anyone mad!

I do think that your idea of smokers subsidising non-smokers is somewhat flawed & besides, do you really think that banning smoking in public places will make smokers give up? I seriously doubt it.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Dec 9 2004, 12:01 PM
I do think that your idea of smokers subsidising non-smokers is somewhat flawed & besides, do you really think that banning smoking in public places will make smokers give up? I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...
With regard to the chap in your office, try kicking him in the stones and stubbing his cigarettes out in his eyes whilst repeating the mantra "go outside to smoke, go outside to smoke". That should do the trick.

Why do you believe it is flawed? Not all of the tax collected from cigarettes is required to cover the healthcare costs which are also required. If this money was not collected then the government would require to obtain it from elsewhere. Seems like a subsidy for non-smokers to me.

And no I don't believe that banning smoking in public places will cause that many people to give up - I do believe that if the government believe it to be such a health risk that they are prepared to take this step, then they should ban it altogether. Not doing so is simply a half hearted response to the health issue designed to keep as many people happy as possible. And the reason for this half action? Because they can't afford to lose the extra money which we provide, and non-smokers aren't willing to pay for it.
 
I think that the argument is flawed in a couple of ways - the argument regarding a 5% PAYE hike is pure conjecture, & it simply wouldn't/couldn't happen....could you see anyone tolerating it? Also, you could use the same argument to say that motorists are subsidising non-drivers by paying car tax, tax on petrol, tax on car purchase prices et al or that drinkers are subsidising non-drinkers with the tax on alcohol or that home owners are subsidising non-home owners with mortgage taxes & on & on....it just doesn't hold water with me, I'm afraid!

As for the suggestion for the chap at work, I might try that, cheers! I'll let him off his spectacular chain smoking performance last night though as the poor bloke is pretty nervous whilst awaiting the birth of his first grandchild!
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Dec 9 2004, 12:31 PM
it simply wouldn't/couldn't happen....could you see anyone tolerating it?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be a question of people tolerating it, it should be forced on them, like the ban of smoking in public places is being forced on me.

Your comparison with other products is exactly correct, but no-one is saying that you can't drink in pubs/restaurants, which can cause serious health risks to others, no one is suggesting that you can only drive your car in bubble environments which stop their harmful emanations polluting the atmosphere, no one is suggesting that you can have a mortgage only if you use it solely in Milton Keynes.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Dec 9 2004, 02:42 PM
no one is suggesting that you can have a mortgage only if you use it solely in Milton Keynes.
Click to expand...
Thank the Lord for that!!!! :lol: :lol:

I realise you feel aggrieved at being told you can't smoke in public places but it could also be argued that non-smokers feel aggrieved at being forced into breathing in the smoke of those that are smoking around them.....I'm afraid that this will be another argument that goes around in circles!
 
I would suspect that funds equivelent to a 5% PAYE tax hike is probably a decent guess as to the total that would need to be raised in the event of a total ban on tobacco. Not only would the Government lose out on revenue from import duties, but there would also be an extra burden on the State Pension and Health Services due to prolonged life.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Dec 9 2004, 12:51 PM
non-smokers feel aggrieved at being forced into breathing in the smoke of those that are smoking around them.....I'm afraid that this will be another argument that goes around in circles!
Click to expand...
And they are absolutely right to do so, so they should get their hands in their pockets and lobby the government to stop us doing it altogether. But you're right about the circles, so I shall withdraw. For now.
 
Interestingly the 'liberal trendies' have usually supported the legalisation of marijuana -possibly because they used it at uni.- so nicotine is banned and pot is legalised. Interesting scenario. May be consenting adults only in private places. Oops! That is not acceptable you can't and shouldn't treat people like that.

As usual a set of standards determined by the preferences of those that have the ear of the government, in principle no different from the loathsome foreign policies of the US.
 
Here's another slant on the arguement . Apparently NHS staff are going to be empowered to judge whether it would be "economicaly viable " to treat smoking related illnesses . In other words " You brought it on yourself so sod off " Smokers pay more into the NHS than any other group of people . Smokers subsidise other areas aside from oncology . I agree with Simmo . Either ban it and stop being hypocritical
 
I would agree Brian and with good reason . One of the main reasons why this county's drug problems havn't been solved is that terrorism takes many forms . IMO the only thing that is hurting our community is the mafia sub culture. Persons who justify their cause as being political are being exposed as common criminals and dealers . Extortion is widespread and when are the psni going to have the funds sort that :ph34r:
 
Probably - but the argument for legalisation for the reduction in crime of most kinds, the health hazards through badly polluted drugs and the consequent cost of these is, to my mind, unanswerable. However, I understand that no politician is going to stick his neck out on the subject, though there are some - in all three major parties - who agree.
 
Back
Top