It would cause hyper inflation and that precious packet of cigs that you keep banging on about would probably cost about £10,000.
Doe's any one know???
- Thread starter skullblits
- Start date
It would cause hyper inflation and that precious packet of cigs that you keep banging on about would probably cost about £10,000.
You have to love the hypocrites who drink yet condemn smoking. Alcohol causes far more trouble than any other drug on the face of the planet. Just go out on a Friday night to see what I mean. Young men and women lying in a gutter throwing up. What a sight eh!
Any other drug? did people get shot for you to sip on your real ale?
If this is what smoking does to people then I think the tax on it needs to be increased
I agree.
All of the posts by skullblits in this thread are painful to read. Random capitalisation of letters, apostrophes consistently used incorrectly and decidedly dodgy spelling throughout.
I really can't see how all of that can be overlooked because he claims to be dyslexic, there are plenty of dyslexic people who still put effort into making sure their writing contains minimal errors.
The two are not mutually exclusive...
You're frequenting the wrong places.
Nobody comdemns smoking or drinking. What is frowned upon are the people who smoke and drink irresponsibly and who have no consideration for others.
People who smoke in public places are disgusting IMO. At least people who drink in public don't spray/spit their alcohol beverage back out into my face like smokers do with their cigarettes and puffs of second hand smoke.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I haven't got the stats, but from what I remember hearing the cost of treating Smokers is more than made up for by the tax on the products. I'd guess the same is with Drink. So whilst banning smoking would (eventually) mean it would cost the NHS £0 to treat, they would have a net loss as the get more in as tax currently than they spend.
The other big NHS costs I'd guess is fatties, and self inflicted/sports injuries.
Whilst I don't smoke myself, and I quite like pubs without smoke, I kinda feel sorry for the tobacco companies in the way that the government is waging war against them. I don't agree with all the stupid labels on the packets (people know it's bad for them already), all the F1 teams lost loads of money when they were no longer allowed to accept advertising from tobacco companies, etc. Imperial Tobacco (the UK's biggest and behind only Philip Morris and BAT IIRC), HQ'd in Bristol, employed around 100,000 people in 1979... and today employs 38,000 people.
Way to go UK, lets go and trash a great industry and get people out of jobs. Just like how now we've got a war against the motorist from the lefties and greenies, and then people complaining when Honda & Ford announce redundancies as their sales are down
.
</rant over>
The other big NHS costs I'd guess is fatties, and self inflicted/sports injuries.
Whilst I don't smoke myself, and I quite like pubs without smoke, I kinda feel sorry for the tobacco companies in the way that the government is waging war against them. I don't agree with all the stupid labels on the packets (people know it's bad for them already), all the F1 teams lost loads of money when they were no longer allowed to accept advertising from tobacco companies, etc. Imperial Tobacco (the UK's biggest and behind only Philip Morris and BAT IIRC), HQ'd in Bristol, employed around 100,000 people in 1979... and today employs 38,000 people.
Way to go UK, lets go and trash a great industry and get people out of jobs. Just like how now we've got a war against the motorist from the lefties and greenies, and then people complaining when Honda & Ford announce redundancies as their sales are down
.</rant over>
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Whilst I don't smoke myself, and I quite like pubs without smoke, I kinda feel sorry for the tobacco companies in the way that the government is waging war against them. I don't agree with all the stupid labels on the packets (people know it's bad for them already), all the F1 teams lost loads of money when they were no longer allowed to accept advertising from tobacco companies, etc. Imperial Tobacco (the UK's biggest and behind only Philip Morris and BAT IIRC), HQ'd in Bristol, employed around 100,000 people in 1979... and today employs 38,000 people.
Way to go UK, lets go and trash a great industry and get people out of jobs. Just like how now we've got a war against the motorist from the lefties and greenies, and then people complaining when Honda & Ford announce redundancies as their sales are down
</rant over>
Are Imperial Tobacco making significantly less cigarettes now? I'd have thought much of the reduction in staffing numbers is through increased automation so was somewhat inevitable rather than it necessarily being a direct result of the policies at the time. If that's the case then it's rather like blaming EU safety regulations for job losses when car manufacturers make greater use of robotics in production because it reduces cost and errors.
I'd also query the point about it being a great industry - it might have employed a lot of people at one point and been a product that was consumed by large numbers of people but I don't know if that automatically makes it great. It is a product that has negligible benefits to the consumer at best and is, in many cases, quite detrimental to health.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
No sitations. I'd wager that it's both the trend towards automated production, combined with lack of sales due to government war.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
Its shocking isn't it, and its often a contributory factor in many a sorry sight, still at least it doesn't result in wars / genocide the way religion does
Each to their own eh ? 