Goverment bans the promotion/display of cigarettes.

[Toe-Knee]

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.

WOw this is incredibly innacurate.

I work for the NHS in the prescription pricing department. A 28 pack (calender pack) of clopidogril 75mg tablets costs around £3.70

I cant vouch for the rest of the statistics but that one in particular is incredibly far off

[Sifu Ben]

I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago  :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.

[Johnny Mac]

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.

Well there is no black and white way of dealing with it so its going to be "a mixed message." They Gov' are not just going to say, right we're going to ban tobacco. It would have to be done gradually. Anyway it will all play into the black market, which is huge in this country now and line the pockets of those involved in organised crime.

[WhiteRam]

Honestly this f**ks me right off and I'm not even a smoker. Hypocritical bollocks. Quite happy to coin it in from the tax, but nooo, can't advertise it and can't smoke in pubs. Look just either ban it or allow it. This namby pamby 'don't smoke because it's bad' bullshiteeee while bleeding addicts dry really pisses me off. Ditch the BS and legalise cannabis while you're at it. Really don't see a problem with this. The economy could do with it and in moderation it's no more harmful than booze.

vote Juan! :)

+1. 

You're a stand-up guy who believes in the right to true freedom, and you're also not brainwashed by the machine, refreshing to know you're out there...have a great and prosperous life my good man. 

May all the brainwashed namby pamby's of the world...croak.

[dave_mc]

I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago  :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.

i'm no fan of the tobacco industry and lobby, but it's hardly its fault that the pharmaceutical industry works the way it does...

Well there is no black and white way of dealing with it so its going to be "a mixed message." They Gov' are not just going to say, right we're going to ban tobacco. It would have to be done gradually. Anyway it will all play into the black market, which is huge in this country now and line the pockets of those involved in organised crime.

yep, of course. I'm certainly not saying to ban it. I just mean it's kinda weird that on the one hand it's so bad but on the other we can't ban it because of all the tax we get.

[38thBeatle]

I haven't taken a lot of notice of this, being a non smoker and all but I wonder what this will achieve. I asked my son if it will dissuade him from smoking and he said it wouldn't. He said it is a pain not being able to tell if the shop has his brand and going through the question and answer process that Afghan Dave mentioned.
I wonder what affect it will have on the black market.I think I read somewhere that the black market for cigarettes in the UK the biggest in Europe ( see we are not bad at everything!). The good news, for me, is that my son has decided to learn the flute and thinks that smoking will be something he ditches. I hope that it isn't just a craze.

[Toe-Knee]

I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago  :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.

Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.

As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.

This is great as it makes my life easier as i no longer have to process mixtures of creams that have been imported from the US that costs £4000+ for 100g even though you can get the same two creams for less than a tenner here and mix them yourself.

The last couple of months have been heavenly without all the stupid priced stuff which really cuts down on the amount of phone calls and extra admin i have to do checking that everything is correct before processing the payments.

[Lucifuge]

I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.

[Philly Q]

I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.

Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.

They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)

[AndyR]

Years ago I had a boss who used to bang on about government, how they just came up with change for the sake of it, well-intentioned, but without enough thought or feeling of responsibility for their actions... and how one of the problems was that it didn't actually cost you anything to be in charge and make rules, and this combined with the need to be seen to be "making a difference" caused a load of hassle for the rest of us...

He advocated the idea that you had to put up a set amount of your own cash before you put forward a policy... not entirely sure that would work too well, though (or much differently than how it does now!!).

[dave_mc]

I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.

yeah same here. in case anyone thinks my "i don't drink or smoke" spiel is about pretensions to being healthy :lol:

They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)

they should put a tax on those stupid jumpers...

[Philly Q]

And again, the burden of the "fat tax" would fall disproportionately on those who could least afford to pay it.

I mean, thinking of George Osborne or David Cameron sitting down to dinner..... I'm not sure about things like grouse or pheasant, but I know for sure venison is pretty much fat-free.  :P

[nfe]

I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago  :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.

Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.

As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.

I thought with the disbanding of NICE that this would no longer be the case? With no overarching body to regulate what could be used by the NHS, GPs could be pressured quite easily into using high-cost new medicines, especially when a local paper gets on the "Local GP refuses to give cancer patients potential cure!!" rubbish.

Is that not really a risk? I've not really investigated further than QT, Newsnight and papers at the time.

[dave_mc]

And again, the burden of the "fat tax" would fall disproportionately on those who could least afford to pay it.

I mean, thinking of George Osborne or David Cameron sitting down to dinner..... I'm not sure about things like grouse or pheasant, but I know for sure venison is pretty much fat-free.  :P

yep

[Toe-Knee]

I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago  :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.

Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.

As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.

I thought with the disbanding of NICE that this would no longer be the case? With no overarching body to regulate what could be used by the NHS, GPs could be pressured quite easily into using high-cost new medicines, especially when a local paper gets on the "Local GP refuses to give cancer patients potential cure!!" rubbish.

Is that not really a risk? I've not really investigated further than QT, Newsnight and papers at the time.

They do still pay out for the high price drugs but only if there isnt a cheaper equivalent.

The way it works basically is we only pay the dispensary the cost of the cheapest available drug at the time.

Say when boots dispense nurofen 200mg instead of the generic ibuprofen 200mg they only get paid for the ibuprofen unless it feel in a NCSO (no cheaper stock obtainable) cycle.

Also when doctors prescribe proprietary equivalents most of the time the chemist will dispense the cheapest possible option unless the doctor calls in advance or sends a dispensing token with the patient to say that specific item is neccesary.