Smoking

[kenneal - lagger]

If we were having the tobacco debate now it would seem that Owen Patterson would support the tobacco industry "scientists" rather than the independent researchers who said that there was a problem with tobacco.

[Little John]

If we were having the tobacco debate now it would seem that Owen Patterson would support the tobacco industry "scientists" rather than the independent researchers who said that there was a problem with tobacco.

Don't give him ideas, he might start trying to reverse the smoking ban!

The smoking ban should be reversed. Or, more accurately, it should be reversed insofar as commercial public establishments should be free to provide smoking facilities for people who wish to smoke and where those facilities are designed in such a way as to not cause second hand smoke exposure to non smokers. If it turns out that most establishments choose not to provide the facilities for commercial reasons, then so be it. However, they should not be stopped from doing so if they want to and there is sufficient demand. Furthermore, state owned and managed public spaces should be forced to provide such facilities based upon statistically estimated demand.

The reason for the above is very simple and morally unarguable;

Smoking costs the national health service several hundred million pounds per year of tax payers' money. However, smoking contributes to the national exchequer over fifty million pounds per day. In other words, if it wasn't for smokers sacrificially laying down their lives for their fellow citizens, we wouldn't be able to afford a national health service. Smoker’s pretty much pay for the NHS, in its entirely, all by themselves! All of the above, also, does not even take into account the saved taxpayers' money in the form of pensions that don't have to be paid due to smokers dying, on average, ten years before their time.

Smoking represents a massive benefit to the tax revenue of this country. Consequently, it really is taking the piss that they are massively inconvenienced in the public sphere or, worse, actually moved down critical waiting lists for medical treatments that they have paid for via smoking taxes several times over. It really is one of the biggest scandals of our time.

I say all of the above as an ex-smoker, by the way.

[clv101]

Smoking represents a massive benefit to the tax revenue of this country.

If smokers weren't spending their money on tabacco, they'd be spending it on something else. You'd need to prove that tabacco with it's huge duty is a better for the public accounts than that same money being spent elsewhere in the economy.

£50 million per day is £18 bn per year, only around 18% of NHS costs. I expect that same £18 bn, if the smokers chose not to spend it on tabacco, could be spend more constructively in the economy, produce demand for other businesses, be spent several times with tax collected at every transitions etc.

I remain to be convinced that tabacco is a net-positive the the UK economy.

[Little John]

Smoking represents a massive benefit to the tax revenue of this country.

If smokers weren't spending their money on tabacco, they'd be spending it on something else. You'd need to prove that tabacco with it's huge duty is a better for the public accounts than that same money being spent elsewhere in the economy.

£50 million per day is £18 bn per year, only around 18% of NHS costs. I expect that same £18 bn, if the smokers chose not to spend it on tabacco, could be spend more constructively in the economy, produce demand for other businesses, be spent several times with tax collected at every transitions etc.

I remain to be convinced that tabacco is a net-positive the the UK economy.

I'm not talking about the money that is spent on the tobacco itself. I am talking about the 70% proportion of the purchase price that is tax. And you can be as remained to be convinced as you like. The facts beg to differ. The revenue from smoking taxes far outweighs the health costs of smoking.

[biffvernon]

The revenue from smoking taxes far outweighs the health costs of smoking.

That's a rather one-dimensional way of looking at the economy. If smoking stopped, instead of taxing tobacco one might tax something else to raise the same revenue (income, VAT, corporations, petroleum, lace knickers, whatever mix you fancy) and then that part of the revenue that was spent on smokers' health costs could be spent on something else.

Probably pensions for people who no longer died of smoke.

[Little John]

The revenue from smoking taxes far outweighs the health costs of smoking.

That's a rather one-dimensional way of looking at the economy. If smoking stopped, instead of taxing tobacco one might tax something else to raise the same revenue (income, VAT, corporations, petroleum, lace knickers, whatever mix you fancy) and then that part of the revenue that was spent on smokers' health costs could be spent on something else.

Probably pensions for people who no longer died of smoke.

One might tax any number of things in the absence of a smoking tax. However, as a matter of actual fact, that tax is not absent, is applied to smokers and does outweigh the cost of smoking by a number of factors.

[biffvernon]

But so what? That doesn't (shouldn't) provide an incentive for government to keep people smoking. Government should be about promoting the welfare of its citizens and the tax could be raised elsewhere.

[Little John]

But so what? That doesn't (shouldn't) provide an incentive for government to keep people smoking. Government should be about promoting the welfare of its citizens and the tax could be raised elsewhere.

I am not saying that government should be involved in promoting smoking. I saying that the government should not be taxing smokers alongside inconveniencing them at best, and promoting the killing of them at worst.

Think I'm being melodramatic?

At the moment, the government is actively engaged in taxing smokers to the hilt knowing full well they are addicted to nicotine and so will still use consume it despite the tax and the very real dangers of smoking. However, when new nicotine delivery systems have been developed that smokers are readily switching to because of the known harm reduction in these alternatives, the government is actively seeking to either ban them or medicalise them to the point where they are no longer viable economic or therapeutic alternatives to cigarettes.

Why?

Because many of these alternative are not consumed by combustion and so are not taxable under current tobacco laws and because to change those laws would expose the government's dirty little secret; namely that tobacco taxes were never about harm reduction. Consequently, they would rather smokers continued smoking, continued paying their taxes even though they continue dying in greater numbers than might otherwise be the case. In the context of all of the above, don't try f***ing telling me smokers should be inconvenienced in the public sphere or moved down treatments lists.

If smokers financially contribute (by coercion) more than they cost, then the least they are entitled to expect is the liberty to smoke when and where they want and to expect equitable treatment (given that they have paid for it and just about everyone else's on the back of tobacco taxes alone) by the NHS if and when they need it.

[biffvernon]

Right-ho.

[woodburner]

The reason for the above is very simple and morally unarguable;

Smoking costs the national health service several hundred million pounds per year of tax payers' money. However, smoking contributes to the national exchequer over fifty million pounds per day.

What is your source? 2013 figures aren't available yet, and the 2012 figures are provisional. From The Tobacco Manufacturers Association site which uses HMRC figures, the income from all tobacco products in 2012 was £12.1bn, or £33.15m/day.

PS this is a GM thread, s smoking needs another thread.

[Little John]

The reason for the above is very simple and morally unarguable;

Smoking costs the national health service several hundred million pounds per year of tax payers' money. However, smoking contributes to the national exchequer over fifty million pounds per day.

What is your source? 2013 figures aren't available yet, and the 2012 figures are provisional. From The Tobacco Manufacturers Association site which uses HMRC figures, the income from all tobacco products in 2012 was £12.1bn, or £33.15m/day.

PS this is a GM thread, s smoking needs another thread.

The taxes on tobacco products relate to those tobacco products that are consumed by combustion since non-combustible tobacco is not taxed so far as I am aware. It's why snuff, for instance is not taxed. It's also why our government, along with the rest of the other major players in the EU (who all rely on tobacco taxes) have banned the sale of Swedish snus (moist snuff), an oral tobacco product (not taxable) that has been proven to reduce tobacco harm compared to cigarettes by over 70% .

As for the 50% figure, that was based on what I knew it to be about 7 years ago. If it has fallen since then, it will be because many people have switched to rolling tobacco due to the insane prices of manufactured cigarettes. And, due to the now unsustainable prices of even rolling tobacco, many people are purchasing smuggled tobacco from other parts of the continent, though this is diminishing as these different countries seek to standardise their taxes on tobacco. In any event, 33.15 million a day is still 12.06 billion pounds per years. The wilder end of estimates put the total cost of smoking to the NHS at 5 billion. The other extreme puts it about 1.5 billion. But, hey, lets assume the worst. That still leaves a surplus of at least 7 billion per year. Not to mention all the savings in shorter pension for retired smokers.

In lieu of the unending legalised robbery by government and also in an attempt to diminish harm to themselves, nicotine addicts have sought new, safer and cheaper alternatives. The problem for the EU governments, though, is that this is now, by the sounds of it, having a significant impact on their revenue. In other words, with tobacco taxes, we are witnessing a real world example of the laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve). Hence the banning of snus and the medicalisation of e-cigarettes. The criterion for production of e-cigs under the new, medicalised regime will mean, of course, that it will be the big pharmaceutical companies that profit from such an arrangement. But it is looking like the maximum dose of these new medicalised products is going have a maximum of 11mg per e-cig. As an ex-smoker I can tell you this is worse than useless and will mean e-cigs, instead of being the runaway success story in getting people off cigarettes that they have hitherto proved to be, will end up being as useless as all the other medicalised nicotine replacement "therapies" like nicotine patches and gum. In other words, completely useless as evidence by numerous studies of their effectiveness. But, then, that's the point. The government cannot be seen to be taxing those therapies. But nor can it allow them to actually work since this would have an impact on tax revenues. So, they play an elaborate game of pretence with people's lives.

[woodburner]

I deliberately asked only one question about one point, ie, what was your source of figures?

I must have forgotten where it was mentioned, but I made no mention of 50% (of anything) as it is not relevant at this point.

In any event, 33.15 million a day is still 12.06 billion per years

Er, yes. I got the figure of 12.1bn from the TMA site, divided by 365 and rounded it to4 significant figures.

So,what was your source of the £50 million per day?

[woodburner]

If smokers financially contribute (by coercion) more than they cost, then the least they are entitled to expect is the liberty to smoke when and where they want and to expect equitable treatment (given that they have paid for it and just about everyone else's on the back of tobacco taxes alone) by the NHS if and when they need it.

Everyone else's what?

Further reading


MODS Can you split this into a separate topic as it has nothing to do with GM crops?

[Little John]

If smokers financially contribute (by coercion) more than they cost, then the least they are entitled to expect is the liberty to smoke when and where they want and to expect equitable treatment (given that they have paid for it and just about everyone else's on the back of tobacco taxes alone) by the NHS if and when they need it.

Everyone else's what?

Further reading


MODS Can you split this into a separate thread as it has nothing to do with GM crops?

Woodburner, if you read this thread you will see that each and every one of my posts on the sub-thread topic of smoking is a response to someone else's post (not least, the last three, which have been in response to yours.)

Playing the childish, faux-indignation card again I see. How old are you Woodburner?

(by the way mods, splitting off all posts that reference smoking and other tobacco uses is fine by me)

[woodburner]

If smokers financially contribute (by coercion) more than they cost, then the least they are entitled to expect is the liberty to smoke when and where they want and to expect equitable treatment (given that they have paid for it and just about everyone else's on the back of tobacco taxes alone) by the NHS if and when they need it.

Everyone else's what?

Further reading


MODS Can you split this into a separate thread as it has nothing to do with GM crops?

Woodburner, if you read this thread you will see that each and every one of my posts on the sub-thread topic of smoking is a response to someone else's post (not least, the last three, which have been in response to yours.)

Playing the childish, faux-indignation card again I see. How old are you Woodburner?

(by the way mods, splitting off all posts that reference smoking and other tobacco uses is fine by me)

I was not having a dig at you, and I understand you were only responding to other peoples posts (including mine), that is why I put the note to the MODS, it was not to you, but it was to separate the smoking from the GM. I put it in bold to highlight it to the MODS. Unfortunately there is no way to detect tone of a request written in plain English. There is, however, a tone indicated by addition of adjectives and deliberately abusive terms like "childish", and asking irrelevant questions of age.

You have not yet answered the question I asked about your source of figures. As Andysir noted in another topic

... we're back to Steve debating tactic number one: "When unable to cope with the arguments put before you, accuse the other person of being a shill or having some nefarious hidden agenda

It was not necessary to write in an earlier post in reply to Biff, who I have never seen write an aggressive post

In the context of all of the above, don't try ******* telling me smokers should be inconvenienced in the public sphere or moved down treatments lists.

First, the asterisks could have been left out; alternatively the whole sentence could have been left out. Doing that would have made your point more effective.

Try to resist the abuse and anger, ignore anything you perceive as goading and just answer questions, it makes life so much more pleasant.