>Where I live, practically everything is now smoke-free, by law in many cases. It is now even illegal to smoke in your car if you have children in the car, becausae of the threat of second hand smoke to children.
>It's about time non-smokers were protected against that. Restaurants and bars are all now smoke-free as are work places. Now it's enjoyable eating a meal or having a drink, whereas before it was not, and these places have found that their business has increased because more poeple can go there and not have to endure the stink.
>Kissing a smoker is like licking an ash tray.
If people stop smoking, everyone will have to pay more tax on something else.
Here in Japan, cigarettes cost 320 yen (US$3, GBP 1.50) a pack. About 205 yen is tax. Some people think that the price should go up to 1,000 yen (about US$10, GBP 4.80), because that's close to what they cost in the US or UK. The extra tax raised would go directly to the health service, and then old people could get free treatment. Even if half of smokers quit, the increase would be substantial.
Smokers have to register and get a special card to buy cigarettes from a vending machine now; how the registration information is used is causing some debate, because it's thought that medical staff can find out if a patient is a smoker, and then revise charges or service accordingly.
Warnings on cigarettes are usually advice on how to be a considerate smoker: don't throw your dog ends on the floor, don't blow smoke at other people. Any advice on health is usually in the small print. Most buildings have designated smoking areas, and workers are entitled to a 5-minute break every hour.
I smoke. I don't intend to stop anytime soon.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornI'm not sure that's really true. Smokers tend to die a lot younger. They may actually have lower medical costs. If you include social security costs in the mix as well, the government may come out WAY ahead by encouraging smoking.
The cost of medical care due to smoking is much greater than the revenue received by government from taxing tobacco.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by jackjonesThere is no raw deal. If it were possible to smoke and have the entirety of what they ingest remain completely in their system then the free will argument would be legitimate; however, that is not the case. There is enough harmful byproduct in the form of exhaled smoke and waste material from the cigarette so as to constitute the very real probability that the smoker is endangering others. Exhaled smoke does not choose where it goes.
do they get a raw deal?,what happend to free will?ðŸ˜
In terms of rights and free will, I have a huge issue with what is a legal drug and what is not. It has never made sense to me that the deadliest drug delivery system on the earth is legal. I think that if tobacco products can be legal then make the rest of them legal also. If you're going to have illegal drugs then make tobacco products illegal as well.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornAbsolutely not true. One of my favourite recent papers:
The cost of medical care due to smoking is much greater than the revenue received by government from taxing tobacco.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029&ct=1&SESSID=123695590953eda388a1c0e6606db39e
Your average smoker may take more money out of the health service/year than your average non-smoker but:
1) they don't live as long
and
2) they contribute an absolute shedload in taxes, at least in this country. I think the figure for UK is that smokers contribute 4 x into the healthcare system as they take out. In short, smokers subsidise our health service and we'd be screwed without them, which is why I'm surprised they keep putting up the taxes. Good job it's moreish!