Smokers and Smoking

[Wintermute]

Smoking

New thread, as "suggested" by Squizz..

Originally posted by BBStr@nge
Wintermute.
You still haven't justified your putting child killers on a par with smokers. And I do know what the fuck I am talking about.

In fact if u r going to defend that warped rationale-should we have the death penalty for inconsiderate smokers?

You are talking out of your hat m8.

Nice simple point BB mate:

You said you have asthma because your mother smoked, so why am I comparing *her* to a child killer. I'm not. You lived.

If a smoking parent, by their own addictive behaviour, causes their child to develop a fatal illness (and research seems to suggest that children are way the hell more susceptible to the effects of carcinogens in smoke than adults) then they
killed their own child

What do you think happened in a case like this? They died from statistics?

As for the Death Penalty for inconsiderate smokers?

No, but how about a New York style ban on all smoking in public places, and actually enforce the damn thing?

And besides, do you actually need a death penalty for smokers? just wait...

 

[Spirit]

I agree to a certain extent, but I can understand why you feel so adamant about the subject. My grandad died from throat cancer when he was quite young from smoking a pipe - I never really knew him myself, but it certain turned my mum against smoking. I used to smoke between 10 and 20 a day when I was younger but, although my usual philosophy is "no regrets", that is one thing I do regret.

I don't think you can ban smoking in all public places, passive smoking is virtually non-existant outside, and if ppl want to kill themselves then who are we to stop them? However, it certainly should be banned in most indoor places. I guess pubs would causes the biggest arguement, maybe they should have a 'smoking room' or something...

One thing that does wind me up is cigarrete butts though. They take a minimum of 7 years to decompose, are unsightly and smell awful, and yet it's socially acceptable to just discard them where ever you are. imho if we do have to allow smoking outside, there should be regular fag bins, and a fixed fine for anyone seen throwing them on the floor. If you wanna kill yourselves fine, but leave the environment out of it.

As for someone that kills their own child by smoking, imho yes this is murder, I don't think anyone can claim ignorance of the dangers of smoking these days, and to smoke while you are pregnant is making a concious decision to cause harm to your child...

 

[Martz]

The negative effects of smoking have become more apparant in recent years.

I smoke, I know I shouldn't, yet because of it's apparant non-harmfull nature right now people are not pressured into giving up now, rather than when it is too late (i.e. when they are told they have cancer of the whatever)

 

[DraizeTrain]

Originally posted by Spirit

One thing that does wind me up is cigarrete butts though. They take a minimum of 7 years to decompose, are unsightly and smell awful, and yet it's socially acceptable to just discard them where ever you are. imho if we do have to allow smoking outside, there should be regular fag bins, and a fixed fine for anyone seen throwing them on the floor. If you wanna kill yourselves fine, but leave the environment out of it.

Excellent idea! Instant £10 fine & a very simple form for plod to fill out (more time consuming forms & they simply wouldnt do it). I am a smoker (mostly with a pint in my hand though) but disguarded fag butts give me the hump as well.

 

[DraizeTrain]

Originally posted by Martz
I smoke, I know I shouldn't, yet because of it's apparant non-harmfull nature right now people are not pressured into giving up now, rather than when it is too late (i.e. when they are told they have cancer of the whatever)

This raises an interesting point imo. Do ppl think that the Government `could' do more to discourage the populace from smoking?...and if so, `should' they? This would be a maths over ethics issue but whats ppls views?

 

[Mughi]

Originally posted by DraizeTrain

This raises an interesting point imo. Do ppl think that the Government `could' do more to discourage the populace from smoking?...and if so, `should' they? This would be a maths over ethics issue but whats ppls views?

I think they probably could, as a kid, I remember talks about saying no to drugs, to strangers, but I dont remember anything about the effects of smoking. I saw that for myself, my grandparents house was awful Perhaps they do tell kids now, if not, damn fine place to start.

However, I think it will be a long time before they do. Tobacco is a nice revenue earner and every budget, the revenue gets that bit bigger.

Litter fines in general would be a good idea, they have started to reintroduce them (or maybe its just they have started enforcing them again) in Glasgow, cig butts though I suppose should be a class apart as throwing a chip poke away is one thing (makes the place look dirty, encourages vermin (back to the foxes debate ) and so on) but a cig butt has the possibility of starting fires. I know its not necessarily a high risk, but it is still there.

 

[Mr_Bungle]

True Martz, nobody thinks its going to happen to them.It will of course.
But we choose our own path.I don't throw butt ends into duckponds or blow smoke into childrens faces.
But i do reserve the right to harm myself as i see fit,regardless of the gross stupidity of it

And please noone bring up the old 'drain on the health service' chestnut.The sheer volume of money created from the tax on tobacco gives the goverment a massive income boost every year.


edit/posting the same time as mughi

 

[Ajax]

fag butts could easy be sorted, take the filter off all fags, this way the ppl who wanna smoke will die quicker as more crap gets in their lungs and the only thing left is paper and baccy which would decompose quick. if ppl want to smoke let em smoke but pls do it away from ppl who dont want your smoke in thier lungs.

 

[Spirit]

Can't argue with that Ajax

 

[Cutter]

I think I've previously made a post about the rate of tax on fags. For those of you who are interested, here are the accurate figures from the Finance Act 2002 (the 2002 budget).

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20023--b.htm#1

Cigarettes shall be taxed at a rate of 22% of the retail price PLUS a fee of £94.24 per thousand cigarettes. It doesn't say if that bit about 1000 cigarettes refers to the retail or wholesale price though.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume it means retail prices.

So, the tax on a pack of 20 "premium" brand cigarettes costing you £4.35 to buy would be:

4.35 @ 22% = 95p. (96 pence once you've rounded up).

£94.24 on 1000 cigarettes. (assume you get 1000 by buying 50 packs of 20 at £4.35). Cost of the 1000 cigarettes is then £217.50)

£94.24 is about 43% of £217.50

So, total tobacco duty tax on that pack of 20 is 22% plus 43% = 65%.

So, of the £4.35 you pay for a pack of 20, £2.82 goes straight to the government in tobacco tax alone. (ignoring VAT etc).

Assume conservatively that there are 15 million pack a day smokers in the UK. That means the government gets £42,300,000 in tobacco taxes every single day.

Or, looked at yearly - £15,439,500,000. That is £15.5 Billion per year in tobacco taxes. And you wonder why the government isn't rushing to get all the smokers to quit...

 

[Spirit]

yeah point well made Thur.

Although I think the figure of 15 million pack a day smokers is prolly a bit high, not that many smokers get through 20 a day, I think the average is more like 10

 

[Plonko]

There was once a child hit by a car so lets either ban them as well. Either that or get everything in perspective and treat people like grown ups and let people make their own decisions.

Oh no we can't do that cos all motorists are now on a par with child killers and must therefore be an evil stain on our society. Not to mention the polution that is....

Oh yeah and what about leukemia clusters around nuclear power stations..... that means we are all child killers every time we put the fucking kettle on. I guess we'd better just hang everyone ffs.

I could go on but this is all just too fucking ridiculous.

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Plonko
There was once a child hit by a car so lets either ban them as well. Either that or get everything in perspective and treat people like grown ups and let people make their own decisions.

Very poor example Plonko, there is one very big difference between the two. A kid being hit by a car is an accident, where as smoking whilst pregnant is a concious decision to harm your child - the thought process goes something like "I realise me smoking is going to make my child unhealthy and possibly kill them, however I'm going to do it anyway."

If the kid runs out into the road without looking its his own fault, not the motorist, where as if the driver is drunk or going too fast, then yes they get charged with murder and put in prison. You've pretty much proved yourself wrong there mate...

 

[Vince_Black]

aye, everyone knows smoking is bad for you (else your icq is lower than an orange or you are one of those &#%$#-ppl who are sueing the tabacco industry because they got sick after smoking 2 packages for 40 years: i mean c'mon you dont hang over an campfire in start inhaliting, smoke should come in your longs).
so let everyone for themselfs decide whether they smoke or not, i would'nt smoke ever, coz of expanses and health and becoz it make you stink out of your mouth

+ like thur made that beautifull math calculation, it brings in money for the gouvernment, lots of money.....

anyone may smoke, but not in public places with non-smoking ppl in it ffs. i find it soooooooooo irritating when im sitting in a train and a dude close to me start smoking a cigarette grrr there are even signs that it's not allowed to smoke!

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Spirit
yeah point well made Thur.

Although I think the figure of 15 million pack a day smokers is prolly a bit high, not that many smokers get through 20 a day, I think the average is more like 10

I know - I did say "assume" and "conservatively". The figures for the total number of smokers, and their average consumption were necessarily inexact.

Although I'd agree the *average* smoker generally smokes 10 cigarettes per day, I'd say that number easily doubles if they're at the pub drinking with their friends/in a stressful situation etc etc. Some of those 15 million will be "light smokers" and others will be dedicated 2+ pack per day addicts. Overall I'd say that the 15 or so odd million smokers in this country get through a pack a day each

 

[Plonko]

But this isn't a bad example if you think about it because smoking does not guarantee harming the child. In fact the risk of problems although increased are still quite low.

Therefore it is a gamble. In the same way that it's a gamble driving the car. You might run over a child. You probably wont. You might end up with a smoking related illness you probably wont.
You make it sound as though people smoke with the intention of causing harm to other people which is a load of bollocks.

It's not as if people start smoking when they find out they are pregnant. Course they fucking don't. The majority try to give up but as tobacco is extremely addictive then a lot of people fail. I guess that makes them barbaric cunts as well ffs.

I smoke but if my daughter is in the house I'll go some where else and do it.

 

[BBStr@nge]

Is someone taking the piss here or what?


EDIT: yes BB, you are mate. Go to your USER CP and read the PM I sent you please. Martz.

 

[Spirit]

Daily consumption of manufactured cigarettes per smoker, 1949-2000

Year
Men
Women

1949
14.1
6.8

1959
18.4
11.0

1969
18.9
13.7

1979
21.6
16.6

1990
16.8
13.9

2000
14.9
12.7

Reference

the above information is taken from: Living in Britain – Results from the 2000 General Household Survey, Office for National Statistics, 2001


I was closer (for 2000, alteast )

 

[Plonko]

I'm not really taking the piss but I think I'm dong a fairly good job of playing devils advocate

 

[Cutter]

I think the point Spirit was trying to make Plonko was to emphasise the point about choice and responsibility.

I have no problem with an adult woman who choses to smoke, if she is over the age at which it is legal for her to buy tobacco. If she is aware of the risks, well, we may disagree with her choice but it is still her choice. She isn't doing anything which is currently illegal.

That all falls apart though if the woman in question who smokes is pregnant. There is no doubt medically or scientifically that smoking by the mother is harmful to the child inside her. Whilst it is the mother's choice to continue smoking, the crucial point is that the child is not being given a choice. They are simply being exposed to a risk which they can't avoid, but which could so easily be prevented. The mother is physically, legally and emotionally responsible for the child inside her. No matter how much people babble on about freedom of choice, when you are responsible for the life and wellbeing of another, who is in a vulnerable position, your needs must come secondary to theirs.

Its not a case of "oh well, sure, its riskier, but the risk is still low". The point is that you are voluntarily introducing a risk which would otherwise not be there. That is what is so reprehensible about it.

On a related note, I have no sympathy for Cherie Blair losing her child recently. A woman of her age and (supposed) intelligence should be well aware of the risks both to herself and the child in pregnancy at such an advanced age.

Her being an ardent Catholic who disagrees with contraception should not matter a damn. By her own actions she endangered her child. Its her fault, no matter how it is presented. How much longer must innocents be made to suffer because of religious dogma?

Sorry if I come across as cold hearted there. I just have very strong feelings concerning parental responsibility...