Smoking ban......(Hmmmm)

[gpick24]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Yes.

Skivers are skivers, whether it`s for an unofficial fag break or standing around chatting, it`s down to their supervisor to stamp it out.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by ossy kid

As someone who never smoked but had to put up with being "smoked" just to socialize, I totally agree with smoking bans in public areas however, your car, your home, your canoe?? are not public areas, common sense and respect should dictate who you smoke around in these places.

Are you sure a car isn't a public area?
The Interior Of Your Car Is A Public Place | JONATHAN TURLEY

A legal ruling by Justice Waller and Lord Justice Rose on February 25th 1993 stated that the interior of a private car on a public highway is,
for the purposes of the Act, a public place.

Dangerous Dogs Act - The struggle against Breed Specific Law

[ossy kid]

Does that mean a bit of leg'or and chips on the back seat is illegal?

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by ossy kid

Does that mean a bit of leg'or and chips on the back seat is illegal?

Short answer is Yes (for the purposes of the sexual offences act).
Like most things we enjoy the government will find a way of restricting it

[DtheP47]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Every town center you walk round is littered with take away cartons, plastic bags, chewing gum, Mars Bar wrappers, Coca Cola cans etc.

Are you denying it's you?

Give them their own little smoking room with a pint and an ashtray and they won't make a mess or bother anyone! Just like the good old days!

Anyway, doesn't it give you a warm glow seeing how the smokers are saving you all that extra income tax?

VAT- that's nothing.Try smokers tax!

You are talking out of your brown starhole Gordon.. you'll be advocating we all toss our zero rated apple core in the street just to keep the street sweepers in gainful employment next.

[Accyexplorer]

We get a huge amount of tax per year from ciggies ,but does the extent of tax generated pay for the smokers healthcare?

Should smokers receive NHS treatment for smoking related illnesses? If so,should they be forced to pay more taxes due to the costs they impose on non smokers?

Children (may) suffer from a range of (secondhand) smoking related heath problems but if smoking was banned in cars with kids , would these health issues be eradicated?

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by DtheP47

You are talking out of your brown starhole Gordon..

How do you know the colour?

Have we met?

[Margaret Pilkington]

No.. Yes....No...and No.
If the NHS were to ration or charge for illnesses that could have been caused by lifestyle choices then more than just smokers would be paying for treatment.
Those who are daibetic could be seen to have contributed to their illness by adopting junk food diets....drinkers would be charged if they fell down and broke a limb while under the influence...and imagine the bills for those who develop mental illness from smoking weed. Girls who went out and got a bun in the oven after a one night stand would be charged for their maternity care(or sexually transmitted disease). I am sure there are more things that could be added to my not so extensive list.

The administration of such costs would be a nightmare. For goodness sake get real. The NHS cannot even get its act together to charge those who use the NHS and are from overseas(this should be easy to administrate) so what chance do they have of charging for such things?

Children of smokers may not be subject to second hand smoke in cars if anyone takes notice of this legislation...but they will still be subject to second hand smoke in their homes...and over a much longer period of time.
If smoking is such a serious helath issue for the government(personally, I don't think they really care, but they just have to LOOK like they do) then they would ban it on health grounds, close down the factories that make cigarettes and issue all smokers with nicotine replacement therapy of their own choice.
But we all know that the revenue from smokers is so large, that they couldn't possibly do that.

[Less]

Add any contact sport or pastime that could cause accidental harm during it's per suit and triple the bill if that person is also a smoker.

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

We get a huge amount of tax per year from ciggies ,but does the extent of tax generated pay for the smokers healthcare?

Should smokers receive NHS treatment for smoking related illnesses? If so,should they be forced to pay more taxes due to the costs they impose on non smokers?

Government income from tobacco tax- £12.1 billion.
Cost to NHS- £ 2.7 billion
Profit?- £ 9.4 billion
The tax represents 2.3% of total Govt income!

These are figures from ASH!
It should be Govt policy to encourage smoking, even subsidize it. It's a hugely profitable industry.

[Accyexplorer]

If smokers die younger (like we're lead to believe)
How much do smokers save the NHS by popping their clogs early, before they get alzheimer's etc and become in need of years of care or before they claim their share of old age pension due to passing away from smoking related illness's?

In 2009 Smoking cost the NHS £5bn a year.
one in five deaths in the UK in 2005 could be attributed to smoking.
For those that like original ink
Smoking costs NHS £5bn a year

[Margaret Pilkington]

Your figures and Gordon's are at a variance.

I don't really value statistics from anyone(however reputable the source) unless I can see the criteria for inclusion into the study, and also who commissioned the study and why it was commissioned.
Most studies are commissioned by bodies who want to show that their theories are true...and then the criteria and questions are formulated to reflect the outcome that was wanted by the commissioners.

These facts have to be borne in mind when looking at statistics.
In my book statistics are just another way to bamboozle and lie.

[Margaret Pilkington]

As to your questions about the savings that are accrued as a result of people not getting to pension age.....well, just pluck a figure out of the air...there is a 95% chance that you will be close to anything that government figures would suggest.

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Your figures and Gordon's are at a variance.

I don't really value statistics from anyone(however reputable the source) unless I can see the criteria for inclusion into the study, and also who commissioned the study and why it was commissioned.
Most studies are commissioned by bodies who want to show that their theories are true...and then the criteria and questions are formulated to reflect the outcome that was wanted by the commissioners.

These facts have to be borne in mind when looking at statistics.
In my book statistics are just another way to bamboozle and lie.

I was using ASH figures because they're anti smoking so are unlikely to underestimate.
But, hey ho, if it's £5 billion it's still a £7 billion profit- not even the banks can match that profit ratio.
As you say, Margaret, people use the statistics which suit their purpose.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

I was using ASH figures because they're anti smoking so are unlikely to underestimate.
But, hey ho, if it's £5 billion it's still a £7 billion profit- not even the banks can match that profit ratio.
As you say, Margaret, people use the statistics which suit they're purpose.

Yes, Gordon...I got that loud and clear. Ash is the least likely to underestimate the figures. It is just me with my cynical head on.......

I have looked at so many research studies for my work, and when you looked at the commissioners and what they wanted to portray....it always worked out that the figures proved what they wanted them to prove...but only because anything that was likely to disprove was excluded from the study by the criteria and questions.

It was a research scientist that told me always to look a bit deeper.