Smoking or Non-smoking ?

Question

Has anyone noticed that a year ago today a ban on smoking in pulic ? During interviews today to commemorate this event, and publicise the ban coming into effect in England shortly, 90-99% of those interviewed in the pubs were non-smokers in the first place. Is it just a way of getting the public to do what a vociferous group wants without regard to what is wanted by the majority?
Also last week pubs and breweries in Scotland were bemoaning the fact that they were having to lay off workers because of the drop in sales. Anyone think the two facts might be related?

As antanuta states the government are not condemning drinking as loudly yet, however I believe that is just a matter of time. Just wait untill the health nazis get the smoking ban working, they will need something else to moan about

Answer 1

Q. Smokers already pay more tax than it costs to treat smoking on the NHS.
A. This may be true - tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn [i] compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness[ii]. There are two main reasons why UK taxes on tobacco are relatively high: a price incentive to persuade people to give up, and to raise taxes from a source which has relatively little effect on the economy

and

Pro-smokers accuse the government of fostering a nanny state.

Critics of the ban argue that it is a restriction on our freedom and civil liberties.

Some people highlight the fact that smoking may be a proven killer, but so is alcohol, and there are no calls to ban that.

Others highlight the damage done by exhaust fumes which pollute the air more than tobacco smoke, in their opinion.

Critics of the ban, led by the tobacco industry, say the claim that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer has not been conclusively proved.

In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases.

Nevertheless, these statistics haven't stopped opportunistic politicians and rabid anti-smokers from suggesting that smokers should pay a premium to use the National Health Service. It's an interesting idea, but one which would spell the end of the NHS as we know it if was ever implemented.

Why? Well, one of the founding principles of the NHS is that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their class, creed, financial status or any other factor, including lifestyle. Imagine, for a minute, if someone were to suggest that people who indulge in dangerous sports, promiscuous sex or eating the 'wrong' food should also pay a premium. There would be uproar. So why pick on smokers?

Answer 2

The Government wanted to polarise opinion on this subject, and they have succeeded. I personally think that it should have been allowed to continue in pubs where the owner still wanted to retain it. The passive smoking argument is massively exaggerated to the point where it is a lie.

Because we have two divided camps, and notwithstanding the 'smoking police' , the anti-smoking zealots will be willing 'little helpers' in reporting naughty smokers to the law.

You only ever hear from the anti-smoking lobby, because their view is the only one that the lefty TV media will allow to be broadcast. So, smokers have been cast into the wilderness. However, because intolerance spreads, they are now working on demonising alcohol and car driving, having already told you what you should weigh.

Answer 3

car exhausts cause illness smelly plug ins cause cancer cling film does but i dont ostracise those who chose to drive to the shops to buy a smelly to make the house smell sweeter or people who wrap their sarnies up but hey thats the way of the world blinded as usual xx

Answer 4

I don't care. I quit smoking and I don't work in a pub.

Answer 5

Smoking stinks.