Goverment bans the promotion/display of cigarettes.

[FELINEGUITARS]

When you consider 60% of the trade that keeps YOUR local newsagent in business comes from tobacco a 5% cut would push them under.

Is that right?  Sales of papers and magazines are (presumably) in decline, but cigarettes raise that much more than all those sweets, crisps and fizzy pop?  :?

Not saying it's wrong, I'm just surprised.

That and all the cans of stella and special brew they sell - starting at 7am in the morning

[tomjackson]

I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!

[Philly Q]

I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!

I know what you mean, whenever Jonathan quotes those smoking statistics I think the same thing.  :lol:

But even as a non-smoker and not much of a boozer, my money still seems to disappear somehow....

[dave_mc]

as i said in the other drinking thread, i have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings, but this is a bit different. as has already been said- it's the hypocrisy of it, and the mixed messages. if it's so dangerous you shouldn't be doing it (whether that's the gov's job or not to legislate that is another thing), it should just be banned outright, and if not then it should be allowed to be advertised like any other legal product.

I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!

:lol:

best post ever

+1 :D

[Elliot]

Yeah, Phil, to the guitar part graveyard under your bed  :D

[Philly Q]

'Tis true, I'm afraid, Elliot.  :|

[Johnny Mac]

As an ex smoker I think anything that can discourage young people from smoking is a good thing. As a kid I was drawn in by the designs on the packets, which were the same colours and designs that were in the huge road side posters. On the side of buses, F1 cars, Motorcycles, the ad man was a busy bloke for the tobacco company's years ago.
The government are under constant pressure from Europe, anti smoking groups and from within the NHS to restrict its usage and advertisement. Those little packets of fags behind the shutters in supermarkets still bear the fancy designs that look appealing to youngsters. So by hiding them, they don't see them and maybe just maybe less inclined to start smoking. Kids follow trends. If at a school the trend is smoking is for mugs then they will be less likely to start and vice versa.
As for the hypocrisy, so f*cking what! If they were cheaper more people would smoke and more people would be putting pressure on the NHS by dying an agonising preventable death.
Feline is bang on with his hook to buy a custom guitar from him with the money you save from tobacco. I did it and I loved it  :D :D

[dave_mc]

i'm not suggesting for a second that smoking is a good idea. i don't smoke, and never have done.

i still say it's a mixed message.

[Sifu Ben]

The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.

[Attica!]

The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.

I don't think they'll ban it. There's too many companies at risk, and the goverment will have to compensate them buckloadsa money, as well as thousands upon thousands of jobs going meaning the unemployment rate will soar. And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax. It would be political suicide for them to ban cigarettes once and for all.

Anyone else agree?

[Sifu Ben]

And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax

The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.

[Attica!]

And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax

The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.

You actually have a really good point there! But still it's putting business' out of business, as well as eliminating thousands of jobs. I'm sure there's a law, or even a loophole in the law, that these cigarette companies will issue when the time comes. Although the goverment will just work round it. I say the next will be Cigars like California. That'll be the first step.

[Afghan Dave]

And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax

The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.

Could you possibly read this and learn...

Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

[dave_mc]

^ yeah. i'd always read that the amount the gov makes in tax from cigarettes dwarfs the amount spent on treating people with tobacco-related diseases.

The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.

i have strong suspicion that that's not what they're doing

[Sifu Ben]

And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax

The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.

Could you possibly read this and learn...

Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

Read it before, massively narrow scope means that it's conclusions are questionable. Also the figures for smoking are massively skewed by people who's first ill health event is an immediately fatal heart attack (who in turn are then not paying tax, see what I mean about narrow scope). The meaningful figure is the total cost to the service of smoking related illnesses. As someone at the coalface, I can assure you that most non smokers aren't in hospital all that much until they are in the last years of their lives.
Also, the data he's used will almost certainly be out of date (even if it's the most recent data available), as the survival rates for several smoking related illnesses have massively improved in the last 5 years, accompanied by more sophisticated and expensive treatments and investigations, and subsequently prolonged life with ill health.