How Long Before Smoking Is Made Illegal?

Well, they tried prohibition in the states and that didn't work. Drugs are illegal yet that doesn't stop people getting what they want.

Making smoking illegal simply wouldn't work. Full stop!
 
Smoking will be banned when they find something else to tax us on to get the money back that they lost from the cigarettes.

No care for the people, just what gets them money. They telling you to stop? NHS costs for smokers must be increasing - they dont care about you lol

Then those patches are expensive too, a good way of making money..... not only that they getting tax out of you then but then you're not even using the nhs lol
 
Last edited:
King85 said:
I'd rather see alcohol banned personally, I'd like to see how we could handle socialising with out the need to be drunk and act like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I would hate alcohol to be banned... I like the taste too much :p what i do think is why on earth do we need 5% beer? why not have 3% beer? same goes for wines, why have 15-16% wines when 12-13% will do just fine...

On the socialising side, I do find it weird watching american programs based on under 21 year olds where they are partying with no alcohol :confused:
 
Jokester said:
But the thing is, smokers pay more tax in than they take out for the illnesses smoking cause. On top of that they live less so there's a smaller pension burden as well.

All in all, smoking is good for the government coffers.
Click to expand...
It's very, very difficult to tally the costs and benefits of smoking as an activity.

I'm not in favour of banning smoking - I think it should be each individual's choice. However, I think there should be visible and effective positive encouragement for people to not smoke.
 
Not possible until only a small amount of people smoke, which is nowhere near yet.
A lot of people still smoke, myself included, there would be serious outrage and a bunch of stressed out individuals.

If they banned smoking I'd just grow my own tobacco or find it through other sources.
 
Its very unlikely to be banned, we're more likely to decriminalise certain drugs tham make more illegal, at some stage. I agree with banning these stupid designer versions of recreational drugs because they are really untested substances. But eventually taxing drug users, aswell as controlling the drug trade which would eliminate SO much crime at every level, will prove far to tempting for a government. Its the right thing to do, morally, and for taxation and for reducing crime massively and the crime culture that seems to grow around drugs, teenagers and gangs.
 
wonder if it'll end up like 5th Element when bruce willis gets his cigarettes dispenced to him from a machine in his flat and he's limited to 3 or 4 a day or somming. Plus they have a masssive filter.....
 
drunkenmaster said:
Its very unlikely to be banned, we're more likely to decriminalise certain drugs tham make more illegal, at some stage. I agree with banning these stupid designer versions of recreational drugs because they are really untested substances. But eventually taxing drug users, aswell as controlling the drug trade which would eliminate SO much crime at every level, will prove far to tempting for a government. Its the right thing to do, morally, and for taxation and for reducing crime massively and the crime culture that seems to grow around drugs, teenagers and gangs.
Click to expand...

Thats just daft, if you make drugs easy to get hold of you're gonna get more addicts.
More addicts = more robbing scum.

If you're addicted to a substance you have to get the money to feed that addiction, not many drug addicts can function enough to get a job.

Only thing you weed out then (no pun intended) is smuggling, illegal drug labs and stuff like that. Which will look nice on paper but in practise we'll still be as bad off if not worse off than we previously were.
 
I've always been very anti smoking, but right now the legal position i think is a good one. Where i work there is a smokers area and if i dont want to be bothered by smoke i dont go there, i dont get bothered by smoke in bars or restaurants.

For me i dont think there is any more reason to interfere with smokers lifestyle choices, as much should be done to discourage new people from taking it up, increasing awareness etc. But really they are not bothering me so why would i bother them.

I think the current legal position is a good compromise, and if anything has taken peoples minds off smoking being so much of a problem, possibly allowing it to escape many peoples previous desire to have it banned

Id even say that should we decriminalise some of the safe (comparible to smoking) recreational drugs that it should be treated in the same fashion
 
As people have said, it never will be. As long as the government continue to make money, they'll continue reaping in the money. If people are forced away from Cigarettes they'll contemplate other things which aren't neccesarily legal. Personally, I'm anti-smoking here.
 
The_Sophisticate said:
At first yes, less tax, but then eventually, far less burden on the NHS; fewer smoking related illnesses.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

No it's still a massive loss.


Once all smoking related disease is gone you're going to have to find £6 billion+ in tax to make up for the profit you used to get from smoking (£9 billion in tax each year before health costs).


Then you've got to deal with the increased costs of people living longer and it's burden on the benefits system and NHS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom