Smokers and Smoking

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Two points.

1 The revenue obtained through tobacco taxation is far higher than smoking related illnesses costs the NHS.

2 Perhaps one day one of you anti smoking fanatics will have a heart condition that is not smoking related or perhaps have a cancer that is caused by - for example - staying out in the sun too long. In my opinion they will then have smokers to thank for the fact that they have brought about a need for the advancement in these areas of medical treatment.

Funny ol' world innit.
 
Originally posted by DraizeTrain

Yep it shocked me as well a bit...and i was half expecting it to be amended which i agree it should be.
Click to expand...

It's changed. Something I didn't actually realise I could do (thought subject changes needed a moderator)

Errr, except it isn't... seems you *do* have to be a moderator.

I changed the subject on my post, but that didn't change the forum subject heading..
 
Last edited:
Basically i hate smoking, my mum does it and ive been buggin her to stop for about 5 years. Still its people's choice to kill emselves... but i agree with the ideas of fining people dropping fag butts (and litter in general)

Also id like to point out a large flaw in Thur's tax thingy

you started with a miscaluation, the tax on a £4.35 20 pack is actually 78p roughly (@ 22%)... you did 22% of the final price rather than 4.35 is 122% of what ;)

plus i aint sure about how the £94 per 1000 is applied, but im assuming its 94 quid charged upon the manufacturer per 1000 fags produced... so lookin at 20 packs of fags.. that comes to about £1.88 per pack produced... so ya can knock that off with the 78p for the pre tax price... (assuming a 20 pack is 4.35)

comes to... £1.69 (its late so i could well be wrong, i just feel like being a smartarse - take it mrs fancy pants - thur :lol: )... so tax on a 20 pack of fags is like 157%.... oo err, think i am wrong, if im not, why the fuck are/were ppl whining about petrol tax :rolleyes:

Ill have another check tomorrow when i aint knackered :)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Uzi-Suicide
Also id like to point out a large flaw in Thur's tax thingy

you started with a miscaluation, the tax on a £4.35 20 pack is actually 78p roughly (@ 22%)... you did 22% of the final price rather than 4.35 is 122% of what ;)

plus i aint sure about how the £94 per 1000 is applied, but im assuming its 94 quid charged upon the manufacturer per 1000 fags produced... so lookin at 20 packs of fags.. that comes to about £1.88 per pack produced... so ya can knock that off with the 78p for the pre tax price... (assuming a 20 pack is 4.35)

comes to... £1.69 (its late so i could well be wrong, i just feel like being a smartarse - take it mrs fancy pants - thur :lol: )... so tax on a 20 pack of fags is like 157%.... oo err, think i am wrong, if im not, why the fuck are/were ppl whining about petrol tax :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


re: the 22% thing. I gave a link to the actual act, which says:

An amount equal to 22 per cent of the retail price plus £94.24 per thousand cigarettes.

The wording is ambiguous. I simply followed it literally. If the retail price is £4.35, 22% of £4.35 is 95/96p. I still think I did that part right, although I can see the logic of doing it the other way. I'll check out the Tobacco Duty Act itself to see if that sheds any more light on the matter.

Re: the 1000 cigs surcharge of £94.24, I may well be wrong there. Again, the Finance Act doesn't say if this applies to the retail, or wholesale price as I said before. I assumed it meant the retail price. Again, I'll check the Tobacco Duty Act to see if that is any clearer. The Finance Acts are famous for being vague :D
 
An amount equal to 22 per cent of the retail price plus £94.24 per thousand cigarettes.
Click to expand...

If we are assuming the retail price is £4.35, then I think Thur's original calculation was pretty much correct, just made slightly inaccurate by overcomplication :p: There was no need to convert the £94.24 charge into a percentage - it is a fixed tax of £1.88 per pack of cigarettes sold, regardless of retail value.

1000 cigarettes = 50 twenty packs
£94.24 / 50 = 1.8848

22% of £4.35 = 95.7

Therefore, total tax paid to the government per 20 pack of cigarettes (assuming the retail value of £4.35) is

95.7 + 188.48 = 284.18 ie £2.84.

Thats how I read it as an accountant anyway :D
 
Last edited:
ah fair enuff, both wrong and right :)

Tbh, i think its fair that the government tax that much on it, should definitely pay for the privilage of killing yourself slowly :P
 
Yeah and some people take part in sports that are dangerous to both participants and spectators. You wanna see them banned too?
 
Not at all, it is up to the individual who takes part in the sport if they play or not, they know the risks involved. Likewise, a smoker knows the risks when they take up smoking and I have no problem with someone smoking. Not many sports are dangerous to the spectators, but again it is their choice to go and watch that sport, they know the risks.

Where as smoking is forced upon non-smokers in publics places, they have the right to choose taken away from them. Big difference! I would certainly be against a pregnant woman playing a dangerous sport, if she gets injured and the baby dies it's her fault. If you have that much control over someones life you should do everything in your power to keep it safe, not expose it to unneccesary risks.

This is all about the right to choose. You have the right to choose if you play a dangerous sport, you have the right to choose if you want to smoke. However, by smoking with a child inside you you are taking away that childs right to choose, as it is too young to make its own decision it is your resonsibility to always give it the safe option until it can make its own mind up. By smoking next to someone in a public place you are taking away their right to chose whether they breath fresh air or tobacco smoke.
 
Last edited:
Do you think pregnant women should be banned from crossing the road? No obviously not. But it does increase the risk that the mother is sbjecting the baby to. It's a matter of where you draw the line isn't it. Not always easy.
 
Originally posted by Plonko
Do you think pregnant women should be banned from crossing the road? No obviously not. But it does increase the risk that the mother is sbjecting the baby to. It's a matter of where you draw the line isn't it. Not always easy.
Click to expand...

Bad example. Crossing a road can be a necessary part of life - e.g. travelling from house to shop to get babyfood. Plus, maybe you havn't realised, but we have these things called "Traffic Lights" and "Pedestrian Crossings" where one may safely cross the road without fear of being hit by the proverbial bus.


Smoking is not necessary to life, and there is no "safe level" of smoking for a pregnant woman.
 
Crossing a busy road where there is no traffic lights is not a necessary part of life though. Yet nobody rants and raves and jumps up and down about it.

Anyway I'm not saying pregnent women smoking is a good thing. I know it isn't and would advise any pregnent woman to TRY to give up. But it's easy to say give up and not necessarily easy to actually do it.
 
pretty irresponsible to try and consciously conceive a baby if your addicted to cigarettes imo....
 
Originally posted by Plonko
Do you think pregnant women should be banned from crossing the road? No obviously not. But it does increase the risk that the mother is sbjecting the baby to. It's a matter of where you draw the line isn't it. Not always easy.
Click to expand...

It depends how they do it - if they use a crossing and some nutter goes through a red light and runs them down, then its the drivers fault and the mother did everything she could to make the necessary crossing as safe as possible. However if the mother tries to cross a busy moterway and gets hit then its her own fault and she has killed her child because of her laziness.

Once again it comes down to her fulfilling her repsonsibilty, crossing a road is a necessary part of life, so she should do what she can to make it as safe as possible for the child in side her. Having a child grow inside you is also a necessary part of life, and she should also do everything she can to make that as safe as possible for the child - ie not forcing unneccessary and harmful drugs on it.
 
Dunno about ultra controversial. Juust sounds ignorant to me. :\

In order to be controversial it would have to be something people will take seriously.
 
Last edited:
It's not controversial or ignorant Plonko. You've obvioulsy been having great fun playing devil's advocate in this forum, but I suggest you don't take it as far as insulting people.

As we have already discussed, smoke whilst pregnant has a very high chance of causing a lot of physical and mental damage to your unborn child. If you are not capable of giving up smoking then, until you have manged it, you should not try and conceive a child. To go into a pregnancy knowing you are going to conitnue smoking is knowingly putting that child under a great risk of having a traumatic life, and possibly killing it. That, imho, if you intend to love that child, is not acceptable.

If you were sitting in your living room with your 2 year old child, would you deem it acceptable to put a cigarette in it's mouth and force it to smoke it? No? Well that's exactly the same as smoking while the child is inside you. You are forcing harmful and unwanted drugs on a child that is not old enough to make it's own mind up.
 
In that case next time you see a parent in the street who is smoking, go and tell them that they are unfit parents and tell the that they are irresposible for having a child.

THEN come back and tell me whether or not the statement is controversial or not.

EDIT : Oh yeah you may like to add that they are scum too, which I believe has also been suggested on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back