»

[that_punk_guy]

Smokers must be the biggest group of whingers there is! I don't think there should have to be laws passed on this issue, but the fact is that addiction turns people in to sorry, selfish *******s.

Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.

Like I said, such a shame that we have to legislate common courtesy.

[bloodline]

Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.

[T_Bone]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Smokers must be the biggest group of whingers there is! I don't think there should have to be laws passed on this issue, but the fact is that addiction turns people in to sorry, selfish *******s.

Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.

Like I said, such a shame that we have to legislate common courtesy.

Tell me about it. Take that damn food outside and let us smokers smoke in peace without us having to put up with your annoying chewing sounds interfereing with our puffing!

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.

You'll want a cigarette after you're finished :-P

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.

Yes, I can see they wouldn't have the patience for a friction induced flame when asking for a light...

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport. Or how about bus. Are people who go to airports choosing to smoke vicariously? Or do they go to airports for entirely different reasons? What about restaurants? What about in the average workplace?

KennyR wrote:

The pollution levels in the average club or pub are so high, if it was a workplace youd'd be forced to wear protective equipment. Otherwise you could sue your company.

The compensation culture has gone mad these days, no one forces anyone in these industries to work in the environment, it is a matter of choice.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Choosing to not work in an unhealthy environment is tantamount to choosing not to work if there are no better places for the worker to work. I have known many people who have worked smokey bars not because they wanted to work in smokey bars, but that they were able to work in a smokey bar when no-one else was hiring. So long as there are people desperate for a job (even for just a short time) there will be people willing to take these jobs but the fact that people still work these jobs does not mean that they are hapy to do so or even would do so given the choice.

[AccyD]

ami500 wrote:
The fact of the matter is here I have an 8 year old car that has 0% CO emissions

Please can you tell me the make & model of this car - if this is true then I will get it as my next co. car.

I would think that the catalytic converter whilst reducing some exhaust gases does not eliminate them completly otherwise why would the IR (in the UK) use the emission figures for taxing company cars?

If you could eliminate the CO2 emmisions completely by doing this then why am I being taxed 28% for my car emitting 214 grams of CO2 for every mile I drive?

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.

True, but if there is a Miss Bloodline then that might make things more interesting....... :-D :-D

[AccyD]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport.

I would think the hundreds of thouands of gallons of airline fuel would make me think twice about smoking in an airport.

[bloodline]

AccyD wrote:

True, but if there is a Miss Bloodline then that might make things more interesting....... :-D :-D

I'm not sure she'd be as keen as me to perform this act, in public :-)

The Catalytic converter converts CO from the exhaust in to CO2. CO is harmful to Humans (poisonous to most living things), CO2 causes the green house effect but is otherwise harmless (and is converted to Oxygen (plus carbohydrates) by Plants).

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
The pollution of cars has no bearing here. It's a necessary evil - although we can tax needless drivers and more polluting cars off the road. Smoking is not necessary. It doesn't transport people. It doesn't keep Britain moving. And the taxes it generates could come from something else just as easily.

Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.

The pollution of cars is exactly right here, you are arguing that my smoking is irresponsible and causes you and others harm by my actions. How does this differ from me deriving benefit from driving my car fast and polluting the atmosphere, either way you are harmed.

You cannot stop your argument when it begins to infringe upon the things you enjoy - either you believe your argument or you don't - which is it??

KennyR wrote:
Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.

Are you suggesting that the Government should intervene in all aspects of business.....you are going down a very long road there and there are many examples I could cite to you which would prove the road is a dead end.

Leave the market to decide, if the non-smokers are so confident of their argument and vote with their feet it won't be long before business follows and bans smoking.

KennyR wrote:
No, just plain, totally wrong. The unions don't get money from claims made, and never have. My father is a union secretary AND a safety executive and has never made a penny from what he does. It's his job and he's proud to do it.

And I'm sure he doesn't recieve a penny for his time, and I admire him for giving up his time so freely, it should be actively encouraged (no sarcasm intended).

But that's not to say that his union doesn't recieve anything for recruiting the people to claim through a particular agency. I have a friend who works for the "official" claims company for the NUM, and he has seen the monies they have paid to the union for the access to their membership lists and the right to advertise as the "recommended partner".

Don't let yourself be disillusioned, the unions are in this to make as much money as possible for themselves. I'm sure the members and activists have the same ideals as your father - and that's to be commended - but please don't put your head int he sand over the realities of life.

Kenny R Wrote:
For a start, there's the NHS bills...

Over my lifetime any NHS bills I incur I will have paid many times over through taxation of my hobby (incidentally I have PMI but that would kill your argument even more as I'm paying for the privilidge twice!!).

KennyR wrote:
The very idea of you smoking when you know what it can do to you and people around you provides me with an excellent example of why you cannot be considered to be totally reponsible for all your own decisions.

Do you drink, do you drive above the speed limit, do you eat too much/too little??

What about these decisions they can all affect you and others around you, do I claim that you cannot make those decisions knowing the consequeces? No. We all have the right to make our own decisions about our choices in life (before you say that the non-smokers don't have a choice they do, they are not forced attend areas where smoking is permitted).

Alternatively, to follow your reasoning, who do you suggest makes the decisions as to what I can & can't do?? Because again we are going down roads which have been tried & failed in the past.

KennyR wrote:
In the same way people would be pretty offended if I decided to use my chemistry knowledge to make poisons and bombs. There are laws against that too. Laws for a reason.

Slightly extreme argument don't you think??

KennyR wrote:
There's always a thin line between social responsibility and freedom, and allowing tabacco companies and pubs and clubs to profit on our death and misery is well over that line.

I enjoy my habit, no one forces me to do it, and I accept that there are risks involved. Why should I let you make decisions about my life??

If I want to buy a legal product what is wrong with someone providing a service to allow me to buy that product, that's not wrong, thats capitalisim and it works. If no one wants to buy that product then Government bans will not be needed but whilst the majority of the public visit smoking bars it is clear where the UK stands on the issue.

[bloodline]

Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.

When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.

No item is taxed as much as cigarettes, so although expenditure may remain the same actual tax revenues will fall (even if you take account of higher profits).

The reduced strain on the NHS will harm non-smokers, at present they are subsidised by smokers, things will only get worse if smoking is banned.

Less cancer specialists, less equipment......sound like a world you would like to live in??

No me neither...

P.S. Hope you didn't take offence at the Miss Bloodline reference - I was only joking.

[bloodline]

AccyD wrote:

No item is taxed as much as cigarettes, so although expenditure may remain the same actual tax revenues will fall (even if you take account of higher profits).

The reduced strain on the NHS will harm non-smokers, at present they are subsidised by smokers, things will only get worse if smoking is banned.

Less cancer specialists, less equipment......sound like a world you would like to live in??

No me neither...

P.S. Hope you didn't take offence at the Miss Bloodline reference - I was only joking.

No offence taken :-) (I would hope you don't take offence at my counter argument).

Anyway, if more moeny was spent on proper items, we get a stronger ecomony. When you buy something that requires 2 people to make rather than a cigarette that requires approx no people to make, then it creates jobs.

You see cigarette tax is a false economy, and it is unsustaiable.

As for the NHS, that will remain the same regardless. If we have to pay more tax that won't matter since we will ahve more money in our pockets due to the strong economy... you see cigarettes really are a bad thing.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
No offence taken :-) (I would hope you don't take offence at my counter argument).

Anyway, if more moeny was spent on proper items, we get a stronger ecomony. When you buy something that requires 2 people to make rather than a cigarette that requires approx no people to make, then it creates jobs.

As per this pageCigarette Tax cigarette taxation is approximately 80% (I appreciate the link is 5 years out of date, but this situation would only have worsened over the last few years).

So for evey £100 spent on cigarettes, £80 goes to the Government (ignoring any profits made by the tobacco companies).

Compare this to "normal" goods, where £100 sales equals around £15 VAT & if you say a gross margin of 10% on the net sales value (a good margin for most companies) then tax at 10% (min corp taxaton rate), you get corp tax of £0.85.

So total taxation of £15.85 versus cigarette taxation of £80. A massive variance wouldn't you agree?? Especially since I have been generous with the calculations to benefit the non-smoker argument.

No good (with the exception of possibly fuel) could achieve the same taxation gains as cigarettes.

Bllodline wrote:
As for the NHS, that will remain the same regardless.

How when tax revenues fall? Can you imagine a Government increasing income tax to cover the £65 difference in taxation, and still remaining in power??

No, I didn't think so.

Cigarettes are good for the economy as a whole and as such any ban will harm your health as much as mine, as lower tax revenues have to be spent on more people's helath & pension benefits.

If I stop smoking I may live longer but will also consume more social security & healthcare benefits making the situation even worse, and reducing the amount left to be spent on non-smokers.

So in effect by banning smoking you may be having a negative effect on your own health!! Life is strange ! :-D