Posted May 25, 200817 yr Plans to ban the open display of cigarettes in Scottish shops have been welcomed by the UK health secretary. Alan Johnson said it was important to stop children from taking up smoking. But he told BBC One's Andrew Marr show that Scottish Government plans to ban 10-packs of cigarettes would "have to be looked at". Ministers last week announced a raft of plans to restrict and enforce tobacco sale in the drive to cut smoking - one of Scotland's biggest killers. Other proposed measures, some of which would need the co-operation of Westminster, included tobacco licensing and a move to plain packaging for cigarettes. Mr Johnson said the UK Government was considering similar moves. He said: "Banning vending machines, where you can't have any control over the age of the person who's buying it, happened in many other European countries a long time ago, with startling results there." The health secretary went on: "The ability to buy 10 cigarettes - I'm going to have to confess I started smoking very young when I was a kid, and you could get 10 woodbines, and you could get thrupenny singles. Well they've taken thrupenny singles away. Whether you should still be able to buy 10 cigarettes or whether you should insist that you can only buy 20, that's an issue we need to look at." It is two years since Scotland led the UK in banning smoking in enclosed public places, and six months since the legal age for buying cigarettes was raised to 18. Mr Johnson's comments were welcomed by anti-smoking group Ash - but pro-smoking organisation Forest has dismissed the Scottish plans. Smoking in Scotland is responsible for about 13,000 deaths and 33,500 hospital admissions each year at a cost of £200m to the health service. Source: BBC news The Scottish Government are looking into introducing a smoking permit, which you would have to buy annually to prove you are over 18, and without this permit you cannot buy cigarettes over the counter. Is this going too far?
May 27, 200817 yr I've always been in favour of the permit idea - but only if the money charged for them goes back into the NHS. Which, is actually nothing compared to what the NHS would spent on you if you were admitted for smoking-related problems. It also stops those who don't smoke but buy cigarettes for underage kids getting the cigarettes, because obviously those who don't smoke won't waste their money on a permit. Anyways, I think removing the open display isn't viable. Children are more influenced by the adults and the peers in their life, not because they see cigarettes in shops - why not just ban smoking in public completely and restrict it to private homes? It's good to see measures to cut down on smoking, though some of which have little reasoning and this is another idea which is pointless. Bring on the permits I say :smoke:
May 27, 200817 yr I've always been in favour of the permit idea - but only if the money charged for them goes back into the NHS. Which, is actually nothing compared to what the NHS would spent on you if you were admitted for smoking-related problems. :rolleyes: where do you think the colossal tax from cigarettes goes? :rolleyes: Yes.... that's right - into the NHS. The NHS both you and I contribute to. I think smokers pay quite enough for the healthcare they may or may not receive as a result of smoking, don't you? As for this proposal in Scotland - it's bizarre - but yet another example of nanny-state Britain, a country that doesn't seem to be happy until it's penalised every single person living here for one thing or another.
May 28, 200817 yr Althoguh I'm seriously thinking of quitting smoking (on my own terms though Holyrood!) I think these ideas are f***ing horrendous, unworkable and bound to create yet another mountainload of paperwork. Smug non-smokers should ask themselves if they'd be happy to have to apply for a permit to drink alcohol in the future as this is where it's all going. Look at the media coverage devoted to 'binge drinking', education on the number of units in drinks etc. recently. We're only a few decades away from drinkers being hounded out too.
May 28, 200817 yr Smug non-smokers should ask themselves if they'd be happy to have to apply for a permit to drink alcohol in the future as this is where it's all going. Look at the media coverage devoted to 'binge drinking', education on the number of units in drinks etc. recently. We're only a few decades away from drinkers being hounded out too. Very good point Rich... I dont really see how it can be justified to target smokers for these punitive measures.. I mean, a PERMIT FFS!!!!! Another "stealth tax" if you ask me.... Are the police seriously expected to waste their time by checking if every single person they see smoking has a fukkin' PERMIT????? And, er, are they going to be allowed to knock on doors where house parties are going on to check permits...? Christ, it's almost like NAZI GERMANY.... "Wo is ihre Papier bitte...?"..... And who's gonna send out the reminders that permits need renewing...? More paperwork, more bureaucracy, more money wasted on hiring some bunch of Civil Servant stooges to administer this bullsh!t THAT NO ONE ACTUALLY WANTS.... How much is the NHS really gonna gain from this...? Erm, NOWT, it'll surely cost more to administer than whatever revenues might be raised.....
May 28, 200817 yr As much as I loathe smoking I really can't see any permit scheme having any credibility or being workable. Any possible financial gains would be lost in fultile administration. am at a loss to suggest anyway of stopping people from smoking, although it is recognised that if you can get to 18 years old without smoking you are significantly less likely to smoke in later life. more tax is, quite frankly, greedy. Cigarette taxes already support the NHS and out weight the monetary cost. Like any addiction prevention is better than cure. These measure don't really address prevention.
May 28, 200817 yr I think smokers pay quite enough for the healthcare they may or may not receive as a result of smoking, don't you? Perhaps. But those who don't pay the colossal tax for the fags who have their health damaged by smoke, such as children, passive smokers etc, is the tax from fags enough to cover their smoke-related healthcare aswell? Probably not. At the end of the day healthcare for smokers and even non-smokers is a complete waste because smoking doesn't really achieve anything (awaits a response about drinking not achieving anything). I think the cost of healthcare because of smoking is far greater than the tax that comes from fags. Though I have no evidence to support this.
May 28, 200817 yr At the end of the day healthcare for smokers and even non-smokers is a complete waste because smoking doesn't really achieve anything (awaits a response about drinking not achieving anything). No need, you've already said so yourself! Neither achieves anything, but both are done for pleasure.
May 28, 200817 yr I think the cost of healthcare because of smoking is far greater than the tax that comes from fags. Though I have no evidence to support this. you are wrong but like many non-smokers I do not expect smokers to 'kill' themselves to subsidise my anti-biotics.
May 28, 200817 yr Source? here's an interesting article... http://fumingwomen.blogspot.com/2007/07/sm...ike-coming.html
May 28, 200817 yr Perhaps. But those who don't pay the colossal tax for the fags who have their health damaged by smoke, such as children, passive smokers etc, is the tax from fags enough to cover their smoke-related healthcare aswell? Probably not. At the end of the day healthcare for smokers and even non-smokers is a complete waste because smoking doesn't really achieve anything (awaits a response about drinking not achieving anything). I think the cost of healthcare because of smoking is far greater than the tax that comes from fags. Though I have no evidence to support this. Here's some facts and figures for you as to just HOW much tax revenue is raised from smoking..... http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx Okay, this information was gleaned from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association website, but they are quoting directly from HMRC sources, so I would say the info is pretty legit... So, let's lay this argument to rest about smokers not contributing pretty bloody heavily to the NHS.... Well, indeed, that's assuming of course the money raised from taxing fags is indeed going to the NHS and not actually plugging the HUGE GAP in the country's finances left by our own dear Mr Broon when he was the Chancellor...... -_-
May 28, 200817 yr Source? try a little research - you made the first sweeping statement. This whole argument has been done before - no doubt russt will supply you with all the information you will need. If smokers want to smoke - let them - just don't do it near me or mine please
May 28, 200817 yr try a little research - you made the first sweeping statement. This whole argument has been done before - no doubt russt will supply you with all the information you will need. If smokers want to smoke - let them - just don't do it near me or mine please Yes but my point was based on my personal assumption and I stated I had no evidence. I was just asking you to provide justification for, 'you're wrong' comment..
May 29, 200817 yr It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking. http://www.accidental-light.com/?p=207
May 29, 200817 yr :rolleyes: where do you think the colossal tax from cigarettes goes? :rolleyes: Yes.... that's right - into the NHS. The NHS both you and I contribute to. I think smokers pay quite enough for the healthcare they may or may not receive as a result of smoking, don't you? i dont believe for 1 second that all of the tax from smoking goes into the nhs, tbh i bet only a fraction does, after all... theres a war to pay for. id like to see some truthful statistics on this, just how much money is spent on healthcare for smokers against what the care actually costs...
May 30, 200817 yr i dont believe for 1 second that all of the tax from smoking goes into the nhs, tbh i bet only a fraction does, after all... theres a war to pay for. Well, this is NOT what the money raised by taxing cigs should be used for IMHO... Whatever money is gained from tobacco should be ploughed directly into the NHS.... I really couldn't give a sh!t if that means we cant afford "the war" or whatever, we shouldn't even bloody well be IN Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place, let the Yanks pay for it, it's their fukkin' mess...... -_-
June 17, 200817 yr Plans to ban the open display of cigarettes in Scottish shops have been welcomed by the UK health secretary. Alan Johnson said it was important to stop children from taking up smoking. But he told BBC One's Andrew Marr show that Scottish Government plans to ban 10-packs of cigarettes would "have to be looked at". Ministers last week announced a raft of plans to restrict and enforce tobacco sale in the drive to cut smoking - one of Scotland's biggest killers. Other proposed measures, some of which would need the co-operation of Westminster, included tobacco licensing and a move to plain packaging for cigarettes. Mr Johnson said the UK Government was considering similar moves. He said: "Banning vending machines, where you can't have any control over the age of the person who's buying it, happened in many other European countries a long time ago, with startling results there." The health secretary went on: "The ability to buy 10 cigarettes - I'm going to have to confess I started smoking very young when I was a kid, and you could get 10 woodbines, and you could get thrupenny singles. Well they've taken thrupenny singles away. Whether you should still be able to buy 10 cigarettes or whether you should insist that you can only buy 20, that's an issue we need to look at." It is two years since Scotland led the UK in banning smoking in enclosed public places, and six months since the legal age for buying cigarettes was raised to 18. Mr Johnson's comments were welcomed by anti-smoking group Ash - but pro-smoking organisation Forest has dismissed the Scottish plans. Smoking in Scotland is responsible for about 13,000 deaths and 33,500 hospital admissions each year at a cost of £200m to the health service. Source: BBC news The Scottish Government are looking into introducing a smoking permit, which you would have to buy annually to prove you are over 18, and without this permit you cannot buy cigarettes over the counter. Is this going too far? Utterly ridiculous While I find smoking a vile habit there should be far more focus on drinking not smoking in terms of any public display bans How many men beat the $h!t out of their wives after too many cigs ? How many chavs smash up bus shelters or attack members of the public after too many cigs ? How many people puke in the streets after too many cigs ? How many people end up in hospital on a friday or saturday night through smoking ? Yes smoking is vile but far more money and educational programs should be spent on combatting drinking and reducing drinking in the UK
June 18, 200817 yr don't worry craig. the SNP have a new set of stupid proposals to cut drinking up here as well. from what i can remember, drink prices are going up by 35p a unit and u need to be 21 to buy in offies and supermarkets. i imagine pubs and clubs are next on their hit list.
Create an account or sign in to comment