Smoking.....

[ToraToraTora]

Why is it when any sort of discussion on smoking comes up it's never very long until someone(usually irrelevantly) will always say that it in some way contributes to the treasury when clearly the costs of smoking massively outweigh any revenue. Why does this myth endure?

[hc4361]

We'd have to wait for the ex-smokers to die before the treasury reaped the benefits of a non-smoking UK, Prudie.

[DrFilth]

> One thing I'm sure of is if we all gave up tomorrow the Treasury would be in sudden poo. <

that is a myth when they ban smoking in the pubs they will be full all the time because the non smokers will flock back to the pubs so the treasury will make up the shortfall from the extra booze sales

[ludwig]

prudie // I would like to se a clear concise figure on the costs of smoking against the income it produces //

You won't find one prudie. As jtp has said, there's probably a hundred different ways of calculating this, because there's no objective definition of what constitutes a 'cost' and an 'income' with regard to smoking.

[jomifl]

If the smokers didn't smoke then their money would be spent anyway and it might support more jobs since the tobacco industry is largely automated. Of course it does support child labour but where else would their parents get the money to buy fags.

[Prudie]

Dr Filth you must be joking about pubs, countless pubs have gone under since the smoking ban

[DrFilth]

Prudie never been in a pub since the ban and yes i was joking

[Prudie]

oh sorry Dr F :-)

[FredPuli43]

Pubs are non smoking now.But booze sales to the home may rise. You never know! The treasury will get the money back somehow.

[youngmafbog]

Pubs have been closed for a variety of reasons, often greedy breweries who realised they could profit more by jacking prices sky high or from the real estate if they did close. No doubt some felt the pinch of no smoking but by no measn all. My local, a chimneys pub, is fuller than ever.


Whist, as jtp points out, it is impossible to be 100% correct it does appear from what I can see that it is most likely smokers do not 'pay' for their habit, and certainly the many that smoke smuggles baccy dont, and neither do those on benefits as it is public money they are spending anyway.

[DrFilth]

youngmafbog i would have thought that you would be pleased them on benefits smoked

the sooner they die the less benefit they will claim

[woofgang]

point one, alcohol isn't as damaging. Fact.
point two, Tora, that is not an unbiased website.
Personally I don't think that anyone actually knows the answer to whether smokers are net financial contributors or not. They make guesses and assumptions based on what they would like the answer to be.

[woofgang]

My belief is that the drink drive laws signalled the beginning of the end for pubs. Shall we repeal those as well?

[DrFilth]

woofgang > point one, alcohol isn't as damaging. Fact. <

true , not to your lungs but you can't blame drunk drivers and the fights after the pubs shut on cigs

[woofgang]

Dr Filth, lets add in then smoking related fires, smoking related crime, passive smoking and so on.

[DrFilth]

woofgang what about the drunks that leave the chip pan on , i have know 3 that have and two needed hospital treatment , both had to have skin grafts for their burns


very painful

[weecalf]

Ok let's get serious David .Ban the fags don't just play at trying to do something about it .Those of us who gave up smoking are lucky we were able to do so .It won't be easy but a lot will be surprised it can be done .Where money is concerned we are never sure if there is an intent to do something about it .It won't stop illegal fags but at the price isn't that going on anyway

[Bazile]

sandyRoe
//I don't think smokers are altruistically gasping their way to an early grave with the treasury in mind. It's an addiction that's usually started by the young and immature and it's one that's very hard to kick. //

I used to work near to a college and it was striking to witness the number of students congregated outside the building , smoking

[hc4361]

The vast majority of drinkers are social drinkers, or occasional drinkers, and never get drunk to the point that they disrupt others or put themselves in harm. The majority of drinkers don't drink to excess every day - if they do they have a serious problem.
The typical person that enjoys a drink does not expect to be able to take a bottle or can of alcohol to work and drink in the workplace or have dedicated outside spaces to drink during the working day.
They can go outside the house without carrying a can or bottle and can sit through a film at the cinema without becoming fidgety and tense.
They don't push a baby in a pram whilst supping alcohol and I've never seen a bride outside the church chugging on a bottle.
The vast majority of drinkers spend more on food than alcohol.

The majority of smokers have to smoke every day. They carry their fags everywhere and interrupt their daily activities, whether work or leisure, to go outside and smoke. They state it is their human right to smoke - indeed there was a nurse on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday who said it was her human right to smoke during breaks at the hospital.

The average smoker spends more on a cigarettes every week than on food.

All smokers have an addiction and are abusing their health; the majority of people who drink alcohol are neither addicted nor harming their health. There is some benefit to drinking some alcohol in moderation, there is no benefit in smoking one cigarette.

If you wish to compare cigarettes with alcohol, compare smokers to alcoholics.

[Prudie]

woofgang "point one, alcohol isn't as damaging. Fact." that is a whole new thread and I think fact could be heavily argued against. It almost certainly doesn't cause as many health problems but the potential impact on family life, violence, relationships, abuse are unmeasurable. Way more than smoking.

[DrFilth]

hc4361 no drinker will admit to having a problem and i have known a few