cigarettes only sold in 20s now

[Qwerty]

and the day we all have to pay a shit load more tax, to make up the shortfall

80% of the price is tax. Twelve billion a year i believe. When I see someone buying them I just think at least there's 8 quid going into the pot.

 

[Market Where?]

There is fuck all value in something that raises taxes that are required to be spent further down the road in cancer/heart/lung treatment and the rest of the misery they create.

Smoking causes premature deaths. Why people justify this in financial terms I don't know.

Nobody is denying any of that. Should we be equally legislating against everything that causes premature death?
And as Frijj hasn't answered my earlier question - if everybody in the UK stopped smoking today how much would the NHS save in 20 or 50 years time?
Or why do poorer smokers die more prematurely than wealthier smokers or U.K. smokers more prematurely than Japanese smokers? It's almost as if there are some other factors at play but by having one big bad tobacco to blame we don't have to open that pandorras box. I wonder why people would want that.....

If you want to call billions raised from tobacco value, then sure there's value.

That isn't value to me, because I see cigarettes as absolutely pointless things. The product itself has no value. You cannot just slap a tax on a demonstrably harmful, addictive and expensive product and call it 'value'.

Ok so there is some value derived from tobacco both in the UK and other countries. How about some of the cultural impacts - Native American culture and the impact on art as two examples?

 

[The Archer]

Nobody is denying any of that. Should we be equally legislating against everything that causes premature death?
And as Frijj hasn't answered my earlier question - if everybody in the UK stopped smoking today how much would the NHS save in 20 or 50 years time?
Or why do poorer smokers die more prematurely than wealthier smokers or U.K. smokers more prematurely than Japanese smokers? It's almost as if there are some other factors at play but by having one big bad tobacco to blame we don't have to open that pandorras box. I wonder why people would want that.....


Ok so there is some value derived from tobacco both in the UK and other countries. How about some of the cultural impacts - Native American culture and the impact on art as two examples?

In 2012-13 tax & VAT on tobacco raised £13bn. I'm not sure how much that will have changed as it seems fewer people and smoking but cigs are more expensive.

In 2015 it was estimated that smoking cost the NHS between £2bn & £6bn depending on what criteria they were using.

If people live longer they will inevitably have complaints that require treatment, the argument is whether treating them for a smoking related diesease costs more than other illnesses resulting from old age.

 

[Frijj]

Nobody is denying any of that. Should we be equally legislating against everything that causes premature death?
And as Frijj hasn't answered my earlier question - if everybody in the UK stopped smoking today how much would the NHS save in 20 or 50 years time?
Or why do poorer smokers die more prematurely than wealthier smokers or U.K. smokers more prematurely than Japanese smokers? It's almost as if there are some other factors at play but by having one big bad tobacco to blame we don't have to open that pandorras box. I wonder why people would want that.....


Ok so there is some value derived from tobacco both in the UK and other countries. How about some of the cultural impacts - Native American culture and the impact on art as two examples?

What relevance at all does smoking cigarettes in the UK, in 2017, have on Native American art?

What a bizarre comment.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I'd like to see some scientific evidence about just how much passive smoking you'd have to be exposed to for it to actually have a detrimental impact on someone.

Go and look for some then.

Nobody is denying any of that. Should we be equally legislating against everything that causes premature death?
And as Frijj hasn't answered my earlier question - if everybody in the UK stopped smoking today how much would the NHS save in 20 or 50 years time?

Over 20 years, not a lot, a lot of smoking related illnesses take time to develop. Over 50 years shit tons.

Or why do poorer smokers die more prematurely than wealthier smokers or U.K. smokers more prematurely than Japanese smokers? It's almost as if there are some other factors at play but by having one big bad tobacco to blame we don't have to open that pandorras box. I wonder why people would want that.....

Probably because they are more likely to partake in multiple unhealthy behaviours, shit diet, less exercise, more alcohol consumption etc. Are they dying of smoking related diseases earlier, or just dying?

Anyone who is in this thread defending smoking's effects on health are f***ing idiots.

 

[aukq]

Check out this square

the worst kind of winger. the non smoker.

 

[Some Random Guy]

What relevance at all does smoking cigarettes in the UK, in 2017, have on Native American art?

What a bizarre comment.

He's the last of the Marloboriche and you are spitting on the graves of his ancestors pale skin.

 

[Pants]

Tobacco does nothing. It produces no value whatsoever. It has no place in society, none.

Wrong and wrong. You might not value it, but plenty of people do.

Being gay produces no value. I suppose you want that banned anarl.

 

[Market Where?]

What relevance at all does smoking cigarettes in the UK, in 2017, have on Native American art?

What a bizarre comment.

Your the one who said smoking had no value at all.
Presumably you are aware of the studies into smoking and Parkinson's disease and smoking and oesteoarthritis.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Wrong and wrong. You might not value it, but plenty of people do.

Being gay produces no value. I suppose you want that banned anarl.

My collection of lesbian porn disagrees with you.

 

[GK]

TrIng to be a clever fuck by posting actual facts??
I have never denied that smoking is harmful to health - link one post where I have. My point has always been that the health impacts are exaggerated. And it is not accidentally done. Firstly and really not that importantly there are a shitload of people making shitloads of money out of being anti tobacco. Secondly and much more importantly by having a unique number one health risk it means governments can take a position as being active on health issues whilst ignoring the evidence and all the other issues. It's easy for them and let's corporations carry on making billions from adding anything I to the food chain that makes it cheaper and toxifying the environment with all sorts of shite.
And look how successful it is. Someone like you in the health sector immediately links smoking with cancer - nice and emotive - when pulmonary disease affects more smokers than all cancers combined. Then you talk about Big Tobacco - so what is the average income of someone working in the tobacco industry? And how much do governments take from tobacco compared to tobacco companies?

The health impacts of smoking aren't exaggerated mind.

 

[Frijj]

Your the one who said smoking had no value at all.
Presumably you are aware of the studies into smoking and Parkinson's disease and smoking and oesteoarthritis.

The effect will be minimal or totally outweighed by greater risks of cancer, and if it's most likely the effect of nicotine, replaced by vaping. Therefore smoking is back to nil value.

Wrong and wrong. You might not value it, but plenty of people do.

Being gay produces no value. I suppose you want that banned anarl.

No, and you can take your straw man and do one.

 

[Market Where?]

Go and look for some then.


Over 20 years, not a lot, a lot of smoking related illnesses take time to develop. Over 50 years shit tons.

Probably because they are more likely to partake in multiple unhealthy behaviours, shit diet, less exercise, more alcohol consumption etc. Are they dying of smoking related diseases earlier, or just dying?

Anyone who is in this thread defending smoking's effects on health are f***ing idiots.

Smoking rate reduction will have zero impact on NHS costs in the future. In fact you could make a decent argument that all the focus on tobacco will actually make health issues worse as we ignore all the other impacts in pursuit of the unique killer.
Who is defending smoking effects on health?

 

[Frijj]

Smoking rate reduction will have zero impact on NHS costs in the future. In fact you could make a decent argument that all the focus on tobacco will actually make health issues worse as we ignore all the other impacts in pursuit of the unique killer.
Who is defending smoking effects on health?

Nobody is ignoring the negative health impacts of other things. The NHS don't just focus all their efforts on smoking, neither does the govt.

 

[Market Where?]

The effect will be minimal or totally outweighed by greater risks of cancer, and if it's most likely the effect of nicotine, replaced by vaping. Therefore smoking is back to nil value.



No, and you can take your straw man and do one.

It doesn't matter how minimal it is there is still a value. I am not arguing the net - I am saying your point that there is zero value is bollocks.

Nobody is ignoring the negative health impacts of other things. The NHS don't just focus all their efforts on smoking, neither does the govt.

So smoking isn't this "unique" health risk?

 

[GK]

I quit the cigarettes in february. I'm 45, have been smoking since my teenage years, and the health impacts were massive. That said, i now have colitis and have been in and out of hospital for it. It was a cancer scare so I'm pleased its "only" colitis. But if i started smoking again the colitis would disappear. Smoking protects you from colitis and nobody knows why.

 

[Frijj]

It doesn't matter how minimal it is there is still a value. I am not arguing the net - I am saying your point that there is zero value is bollocks.

Well if that's the only value you can scrabble around in the dirt for, you have it.

In fact, since smoking is clearly such a positive, valued thing, why don't you take it up?

After all, the risks are minimal. The nuggets in the tobacco brigade on here will tell you that.

 

[Market Where?]

The health impacts of smoking aren't exaggerated mind.

So how many people do you personally know of your age or younger who died from smoking?

 

[Some Random Guy]

Smoking rate reduction will have zero impact on NHS costs in the future. In fact you could make a decent argument that all the focus on tobacco will actually make health issues worse as we ignore all the other impacts in pursuit of the unique killer.
Who is defending smoking effects on health?

Really? Zero impact? You do understand that up until a couple hundred years ago lung disease didn't really exist don't you?

Obviously industrialisation had a part to play in that too so I'm not laying all of that at tobacco's door. To say there would be no impact is just daft.

 

[Frijj]

I quit the cigarettes in february. I'm 45, have been smoking since my teenage years, and the health impacts were massive. That said, i now have colitis and have been in and out of hospital for it. It was a cancer scare so I'm pleased its "only" colitis. But if i started smoking again the colitis would disappear. Smoking protects you from colitis and nobody knows why.

Smoking doesn't, nicotine does. It's the nicotine. Smoking is just the delivery mechanism.