General rant about cig bans & tax issues.

[The Flying Mouse]

Tax collected per year for tobacco = 8 Billion pounds.

Money spent per year on tobacco related illnessess = 3 Billion pounds.


The 5 Billion pounds is what is left over AFTER you've accounted for smoking related illness Deb.

[Deb]

Depends what they put down to smoking related illnesses really. I'm sure my step mums strokes wont go down in the statistics as smoke related but it sure as hell was. How many more are there like that.

[The Flying Mouse]

Deb, you can go to a doctors with your arm hanging off and with an alligator chewing on your left leg, and the first thing the doctor will ask is do you smoke?

Believe me, if an illness is down to smoking, they're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYy onto it.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Deb

neil have you thought that maybe it's just Liverpool thats suffering from this lol.

Can't quite grasp what you mean by this Deb.

[Deb]

Thats bollox. There is no way ever single illness related to smoking is correct and that them figures are correct either. I could use a thousand examples but I can't be arsed.

[Deb]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Can't quite grasp what you mean by this Deb.

I mean you seem to be the only one seeing it as a major problem, so maybe all the problems are just in Liverpool

[The Flying Mouse]

You mean that Liverpool, and Liverpool alone has suffered under the smoking ban?

[Deb]

Take it how ever you like. My comments have for the most part been in humour and tongue in cheek. But I do sense you don't like the fact i'm not agreeing with you here.

[Battybarb]

I am a non smoker and i can see both sides,a lot of people only have a fag with a drink,but it is nice after going in the pub now not to have clothes smelling of smoke,i think the ideal solution would of been to have like in the part of Spain where my sister in law has a villa.one pub is non smoking then the next pub is smoking,then at least everyone has a choice.It is true it is not just the smoking the nanny state is trying to control and it certainly wont be the last,bet the next thing will be you will only be able to have two pints..lol

[RadioMaster]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Non smokers do have the right to be able to go for a beer or a meal without suffering second hand smoke.
That is a given.

But I argue that smokers have that same right.

But the big difference here is that smoking in a pub is bothering non smokers big time, but is non-smoking bothering smokers?
So you have to decide who's right to express their personality is more important.


A little different view on this:
Over here the smoking ban in countries as the UK is always mentioned as a good example.
Because it is strict and doesnt allow exceptions (as far as i know).
While here it is completely different: For one or two years the government is trying to establish a smoking ban.
1st problem: we have 16 states, and this is somethning that has to be decided by the state-government (right word?), so you have 16 different laws on smoking in bars and pubs, some strict, some without any ban and a lot in the middle.
2nd problem: Theres a lot of bars complaining that they would run out of business if a smoking ban was established, especially the small ones who cant afford to build a seperate smoking room. So there is a lot of discussion going on for this, before the government will decide what to do.
3rd problem: there are many exceptions to the rule, the biggest that's debated right now is the Oktoberfest, which's organizers are also afraid that they will lose a lot of money if a smoking ban is established.
4th problem: Among the smokers the ban isnt really popular (of curse), and there are upcoming elections in a few states, so you have it, for example, in Bavaria, that the biggest party is promising the cancel the smoking ban again, just to get better election results.
So all in all you have a system that's different in every other city, and people from other countries most of the time dont even know if theyre allowed to smoke or not. And not even the status quo is safe, as the non-smoking-laws keep being changed all the time.

And from this point of view id rather like to see a strict smoking ban like in the UK.

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by Deb

well said yet again

Thats another thing i've noticed, how many pubs are adding outdoor smoking areas. neil have you thought that maybe it's just Liverpool thats suffering from this lol.

i wasnt gonna post aagain seeing the way this was heading but i would like to point out an example where everyone had fun.


Deb: remember the pub we went to see the slaves at??
That place had a lovely sheltered place for the smokers, where they could have a smoke and not miss the music, in fact i seem to remember it was nice enough that i sat out there with M for quite a while.

Just thought i would throw in an example of one of the many many pubs/clubs which have adapted rather than go all anal and complain. Once again if there is a drop in business for any pubs/clubs which is DIRECTLY and not just finished off by the ban then there are two parts to blame, the smokers who just wanna complain about something and the establishments who wont make the neccessary changes to accomodate everyone.

Many towns didnt have alternate venues/sections for non smokers or those that did try had the sections so close together that you might as well have been been sitting with the smokers. Smokers choose to smoke, we didn't. Life is much better for the evryday person.

And i'm sorry but the fact that alot of money tax wise comes from smokers is the most ridiculous reason i've ever heard in my life for people to smoke or be able to ignore everyone elses wishes. That just means we need a better government who doesnt throw money we dont have at stupid bloody ventures/schemes.

[KebLou]

Quick question, you are quoting the number of pubs which closed last year but are not quoting how many opened... So how many new pubs or old pubs opened/reopened? Also I don't think the smoking ban can be to blame for most of those closures as the smoking ban came in July of last year(2007) which would be almost straight away 50 odd pubs closed down in July because of the smoking ban, before the smoking ban should really have an affect on businesses in that way.

I also disagree with that people would now rather stay in that go out and get rained on every five minutes just to have a cigarette. Everywhere you go where there is pub there are masses of people standing outside even when it is pouring with rain just to have a cigarette. The only place I haven't seen that is at my local pub in the village, but then normally there is about 10 people in the pub and there were less before the smoking ban. Personally I find myself going into pubs more now that the smoking ban is in place because I don't go home feeling incredibly ill from all the smoke and then having to spend a whole week trying to recover.

[daveake]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Tax collected per year for tobacco = 8 Billion pounds.

Money spent per year on tobacco related illnessess = 3 Billion pounds.


The 5 Billion pounds is what is left over AFTER you've accounted for smoking related illness Deb.

This 5 billion doesn't of course disappear - it just gets spent on other things. So for every one of the businesses you mention that are suffering a loss as a result of the smoking ban, another business benefits.

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy for smokers to continue to fund the rest of the economy via taxes. So if they're spending less on tobacco because of the smoking ban, then we should put the tax up to compensate. Then they can continue to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, happy in the knowledge that their funding of government spending continues undiminished. Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

[KebLou]

Originally Posted by daveake

Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

Brilliant, I actually agree with that especially that second part. It mystifies me as to why people have to stand directly in the doorway to do anything, it's just plain annoying.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by KebLou

It mystifies me as to why people have to stand directly in the doorway to do anything, it's just plain annoying.

Now that deserves a whole new rant thread of it's own! Why do people think it's acceptable to stop in a doorway and dither, chat, smoke, talk on the phone, pick their nose etc etc etc. One of the little things in life that really annoys me ... get out the ~~~~ing way!!!

[Deb]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

But the big difference here is that smoking in a pub is bothering non smokers big time, but is non-smoking bothering smokers?
So you have to decide who's right to express their personality is more important.

My thoughts exactly RJ

Originally Posted by djfierce

Deb: remember the pub we went to see the slaves at??
That place had a lovely sheltered place for the smokers, where they could have a smoke and not miss the music, in fact i seem to remember it was nice enough that i sat out there with M for quite a while.

Yep It was like a social gathering lol.

Originally Posted by daveake

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy for smokers to continue to fund the rest of the economy via taxes. So if they're spending less on tobacco because of the smoking ban, then we should put the tax up to compensate. Then they can continue to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, happy in the knowledge that their funding of government spending continues undiminished. Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

I love this

[SamCat]

What i think you have to ask is why isn't tobacco banned at all If a new drug was discovered today that was highly addictive and caused hundreds of different medical problems it would be declared illegal immediately In Victorian times cocaine and heroin were readily available and were even sent to the trenches in the 1st WW yet these are illegal now. Governments know they can make shed loads of money from tobacco taxes so why ban it, after all it takes years to kill the smoker whereas other drugs kill a lot quicker!!

[samurai7]

Very good point, Emma. And as we're going down that route, why is alcohol legal as well? fags n beer are just taxable drugs. And I'm saying that as both a smoker and a drinker

what baffles me, is why they are both legal, yet other substances that are significantly less dangerous are controlled...

[Pudding]

No good can come of smoking, so we should tax the b@st@rds as much as we can.

I wonder how many would complain if there was a tax on soap???

Pud

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by SamCat

In Victorian times cocaine and heroin were readily available and were even sent to the trenches in the 1st WW yet these are illegal now.

lucky ~~~~~~~s lol sssshhh (only messing)

[Monstro]

Originally Posted by Pudding

I wonder how many would complain if there was a tax on soap???

Pud

VAT do ya?

[RadioMaster]

Originally Posted by samurai7

what baffles me, is why they are both legal, yet other substances that are significantly less dangerous are controlled...

not really an argument, you cant justify a drug being legal with the fact that there are more dangerous drugs legal. A drug is still a drug, and so is dangerous.

Would be the same thing if you allowed people to be stabbed with knifes, with the argument that it couldnt be that bad if youre also allowed to own a gun.

But the result (in both cases) stays the same: youre dead

[Monstro]

the thing that gets me is that smokers, drinkers and drivers are just easy targets, bung a couple of pence on the tax levels here and there and it's done and we're also an easy target for those who want to snipe. What Neil said is right, you walk into the Dr's with any ailment and it's immediately put down to smoking and in the GP's eyes you're nothing but a waste of money. I had a somewhat overheated discussion with a GP some time about ago about this, replying to her comments about smokers being a drain on public spending I mentioned the fact that nigh on the biggest drain was the benefits system and as long as GP's were issuing mickey mouse sicknotes to anyone that walked in complaining of an ailment that most people would just get on with this wasn't gonna change. Don't think she appreciated it but the look on her face was worth it.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Deb

Take it how ever you like. My comments have for the most part been in humour and tongue in cheek. But I do sense you don't like the fact i'm not agreeing with you here.

Problem is Deb, I don't know how to take that one

It just seems like a very out of context thing to say.
Perhaps it was a dig at me for having a different opinion, or was it a dig at Liverpool itself?

I just don't know what prompted that particular remark halfway through what I thought was an open and healthy debate


Either way, it's water off a ducks back to me .

And i'd have to be a little green in the gills to start a thread like this here and get pissy over people not agreeing with me


But back on point...........


Yes, smoking is a horrible habit that's a pain in the backside (coming from a smoker here) but can anyone give me a reason why places cannot allow smoking if they so choose.

None smoking pubs for those who don't wish to sit in a smoky pub.
Smoking pubs for those who want a ciggie with their pint.

What is wrong with that?
Except perhaps, that most pubs would go smoking if they had the choice

[Deb]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Problem is Deb, I don't know how to take that one

It just seems like a very out of context thing to say.
Perhaps it was a dig at me for having a different opinion, or was it a dig at Liverpool itself?

I just don't know what prompted that particular remark halfway through what I thought was an open and healthy debate


Either way, it's water off a ducks back to me .

Ok looks like I have to spell this out...

You see me to be the only one thinking along the lines you are that all the pubs are shutting and the trade is doing so badly. So as you are in Liverpool and we aren't then maybe it's only Liverpool thats being affected.