The Smoking Ban - 2 years on.

I find this site quite interesting in pointing out some information on the cost/taxation of tobacco:

http://www.who.int/tobacco/statistics/tobacco_atlas/en/print.html

Although out of date it does highlight that places such as china and india even the US smoke FAR more than our country yet have nowhere near such high taxation penalties. So to say our economy would collapse if smoking was banned seems a big exaggeration, its not like half the tobacco companies are even british anyway.

The NHS/Health argument is probably true that the taxes more than cover the cost, yet it does not take into account the cost to society and not noting the fact that smoking is more popular among poorer social groups which is essentially lowering the standard of life for those people and the surrounding community. Not to mention damage to clothing/wallpaper etc. that the smoke causes.

As noted above if there was a full ban it would only lead to underground black marketing and the cost to enforce such a ban would not necessarily be cheap especially border enforcing and confiscation/destruction.

Fines for smoking if a ban was established would certainly help ease the loss in taxes and tobacco smoke is not the easiest of things to hide yet once again the paperwork and the need to police it would also be more of a nuisance to our already overworked police force.

I personally feel the current legislation is good enough as it is, they can raise taxes on tobacco as much as they like though as im not a smoker. I don't belive any kind of ban could be enforced entirely but perhaps slowly phasing it out with it being a community effort for instance smoking in public being a social no-no. Yet even with education and preventation methods it will always exist as a part of british society.

As someone stated above im also much happier with the choice of being in a smoking or non smoking environment rather than being forced pre-indoor smoking ban.. My only pet hate is on warm days i'd much rather sit outside a pub/bar/restaurant in the sun and have a drink/meal yet with ALL smokers being there its not exactly a pleasant environment.
 
aproctor said:
Fair point, but as most people who have smoking related diseases get them towards the end of their lives i think it's fair to say if they didn't smoke they would have something else, or need something equally expensive further down the line.
Click to expand...

It's up for debate certainly and I'd agree that there is a good chance that as they get older people are more likely to suffer from health complaints - I'm not so certain that we can extrapolate the probable costs though since we are talking about a quite huge number of possible variables coming into play.

However at this point we're getting into somewhat dubious realms of supposition so I'm content to agree that even if someone didn't smoke then by the time they reached pensionable age (say) there is a fair chance that they'd have some sort of health problems regardless.

Dolph said:
abolish it in the current form and replace it with a ban where people cannot help but go, such as pavements and roads. market driven enviroments such as pubs can be encouraged to ban by customer behaviour, hence should not be subject to unnecessary regulation.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I'm not sure that the market can be relied upon to regulate itself but then again I'd guess you can argue that partial intervention is worse than none if it can be shown to lead to no one taking proper responsibility for the situation.

I think that the initial step of banning smoking in public environments such as shops/pubs etc was necessary to overcome the inertia against change - in the ideal market economy it wouldn't be necessary but we don't have that so practically speaking it served the purpose.
 
Humidor was for centuries gentleman's game. It's the best bad habit any man can acquire in his lifetime. It was outlawed because bunch of metrosexual sissies would go to a bar for a giggle by the cocktail with umbrella and then complain about their pretty clothes and moisturiser treated skin not smelling nice. The kids today, eh? /insert picture of Clint Eastwood with squinted eyes and large cigar in teeth/
 
Last edited:
its great. its great to come home not stinking of smoke. when i see old pics of me and mates inside a club with ciggies in hand it actually seems weird now
 
v0n said:
Humidor was for centuries gentleman's game. It's the best bad habit any man can acquire in his lifetime. It was outlawed because bunch of metrosexual sissies would go to a bar for a giggle by the cocktail with umbrella and then complain about their pretty clothes and moisturiser treated skin not smelling nice. The kids today, eh? /insert picture of Clint Eastwood with squinted eyes and large cigar in teeth/
Click to expand...

:D

It's a bit true you have to admit.
 
Mr C said:
the cost to society and not noting the fact that smoking is more popular among poorer social groups which is essentially lowering the standard of life for those people and the surrounding community. Not to mention damage to clothing/wallpaper etc. that the smoke causes.
Click to expand...


I would like to see where you got that from.
 
I think it has been good, from a non smoker. I don't really see the need of any extension really, I can't see the government doing a full ban ever.
 
aproctor said:
What's an ideal market economy though?

You pays your monies...
Click to expand...

One where you have perfect competition and the market regulates itself because demand from consumers directs them. It's not something that I believe is entirely workable myself but at the distinct risk of misrepresenting Dolph my understanding is that is what he thinks we should be aiming for rather than our current system which has some of the elements of a free market economy but also arguable over-regulation and protectionism.
 
Should be extended, I love being able to sit in a pub or bar and not have to leave stinking of fags.

My opinion on extention is only 1 thing really and that is no smoking whilst driving and no smoking in a car at all when children are on board.
 
Lets face facts here. Smokers are nicotine addicts. For historic reasons they are semi-acceptable addicts. They are weak and deserve pity and rehab, like alcoholics, junkies, gambling addicts etc. Anything which helps discourage nicotine addition is a good thing, which is why the ban should be maintained and, when the time comes, cigarettes banned.

Smokers are compelled by their addiction to pay good money for dried leaves, shredded and rolled up in paper, which they put in their mouth and set alight. They then willingly keep a rolled up piece of lit paper and leaves in their mouth until it almost burns their lips. Quite apart from anything else, I just can't take anyone who would do that seriously.

Oh, and I was put off smokers for life when I kissed one for the first time, many, many years ago. It was like licking the inside of an ashtray.
 
dbmzk1 said:
Agree with it in places where food is being served. But it has caused a huge loss in business to pubs and clubs. I know several club and pub owners and all have noted a large and sustained decrease in takings since the ban. Just recently the recession has made it a little harder to judge exactly what is going on, but it is clear it has had a negative effect on business. IMO the government should have made it a choice of the individual establishment rather than an outright ban.

For the record I'm a non-smoker.
Click to expand...



Completely agree.
 
likwid said:
The problem with banning smoking is it would immediately create a huge black market with criminals raking in enormous revenue. As for the country going bankrupt, well in the event of banning of tobacco then the government would clearly need to raise taxes elsewhere. All the smokers would not suddenly have excess money, they would spend it on something else that would actually stimulate the economy.

My opinion on the ban is it's been an extremely positive change to society. Especially somewhere like the UK where pub culture is absolutely central to society, it does seem like another century where youngsters going through their adult rite of passage entering a bar for the first time would walk into a room heavily laden with cigarette smoke.
Click to expand...

There already is a huge blackmarket, the govt lose £4.4bn in taxes a year to black market cigarettes.

God knows what they lose in the black market of other non-legal drugs, but that is beside the point.

Surely these smokers you talk about with excess money, will be paying the higher taxes, and spending their cash on the blackmarket tobacco you mention? Effectively here, you have argued against your own logic!

Yeah its a positive change for all non-smokers. Bearing in mind they represent the largest part of the comminity. Its also positive in that it puts like minded people together in one area for smoking, there they socialise and even make friends of people they wouldn't have previously spoken to.

All in all a win for society.
 
It should be made permanent. I hate breathing other people's smoke, and I do now go to pubs sometimes. I recently went to croatia where they have many tables in restaurants outside and to eat with other people's smoke was horrible.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Sometimes I'm not sure that the market can be relied upon to regulate itself but then again I'd guess you can argue that partial intervention is worse than none if it can be shown to lead to no one taking proper responsibility for the situation.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm a non-smoker, and prior to the ban, I wouldn't go in to excessively smoky environments by choice. If everyone had exercised the same choice if they felt as strongly as I did about it, the market would have handled it. The fact that people clearly don't feel that strongly about it is not grounds for government intervention.

I think that the initial step of banning smoking in public environments such as shops/pubs etc was necessary to overcome the inertia against change - in the ideal market economy it wouldn't be necessary but we don't have that so practically speaking it served the purpose.
Click to expand...

I never had a problem finding a smoke free or reasonably unsmoky bar/pub/restaurant prior to the ban, so I'd argue that it wasn't that necessary.

By contrast, I would be 100% behind a ban on smoking in the street, because I can't exercise my choice in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom