i have just heard that gordan brown has just put all fags up by 8p! they are expensive enough!


wot u all think?

Bad or Good?

Good.... should put em up to £10 a pack of 10 IMHO

The more expensive the better I reckon. Cant stand that stuff.


And if it puts just one person your age off smoking, it's been worth it.

Good on you, Gordon. That's all I'm prepared to say on this matter :D

oh and he has put the price of alcohol up by a penny! just thought id let u know!

xx

i have just heard that gordan brown has just put all fags up by 8p! they are expensive enough!

Good on him! They can't be dear enough if you ask me. You're fools for paying that price and fools for putting your health at risk if you ask me. :loopy:

good. i hate the little cancer sticks. Glad I don't smoke them anymore!

Not a big drinker so I'm not too fussed about the alcohol.

I am however p***** off at council tax going up AGAIN!!!

If the council tax goes up anymore I'm going to have to buy myself a tent and pitch up on the field.

You can go here and see how the budget affects you:

BBC Budget calculator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/04/budget/ready_reckoner/html/calculator.stm)

DaB, I didn't see anything about council tax in the budget though. Do you have a link to more information.

Originally posted by steelblade
If the council tax goes up anymore I'm going to have to buy myself a tent and pitch up on the field.
Tents are OK but a caravan and you'll still be liable to pay council tax!

Fags up by 8p? Who cares.

It could have been at lot worse. There's an election on the way so the big tax rises have been postponed until next time.

Originally posted by max
You can go here and see how the budget affects you:

BBC Budget calculator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/04/budget/ready_reckoner/html/calculator.stm)

DaB, I didn't see anything about council tax in the budget though. Do you have a link to more information.
No but I have my increased council tax bill which came to my home yesterday if you wanna see it!

Originally posted by Zamo

It could have been at lot worse. There's an election on the way so the big tax rises have been postponed until next time.

Next election May 2005, probably, next budget March 2005. I don't think so Zamo unless you mean the local elections (every year) or the European elections, June this year, and who votes at them?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
No but I have my increased council tax bill which came to my home yesterday if you wanna see it!

I got my rise too but it pales into insignificance against the increase in value of my house in the last year.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by max
Next election May 2005, probably, next budget March 2005. I don't think so Zamo unless you mean the local elections (every year) or the European elections, June this year, and who votes at them?



I got my rise too but it pales into insignificance against the increase in value of my house in the last year.:thumbsup:

It'll be near enough to leave an impression :)

It's hardly surprising is it? I agree, the higher the price the better IMO, even though I lose money out of it.

Originally posted by caprice
Good on him! They can't be dear enough if you ask me. You're fools for paying that price and fools for putting your health at risk if you ask me. :loopy:

Hardly right calling someone a fool for something they are addcited to which up until recently was promoted in every paper, magazine, on every billboard etc. People weren't exactly disuaded from taking up the habit were they...

Originally posted by max
Next election May 2005, probably...

Maybe!

GB's fiscal rule No.1 is to "only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle". Unless the economy turns around quickly he will have to address the rapidly growing budget deficit by increasing taxes. If this looks likely then my guess would be they would call a general election before the next budget.

Putting up fags, wont make a blind bit of difference to those who smoke, just a good way of raising more revenue.

Sounds like a fairly vanilla budget to me, doesnt want to rock the boat does he, with elections coming.

Originally posted by Sammy
oh and he has put the price of alcohol up by a penny! just thought id let u know!

xx

That's the only thing that will really hurt me in this year's budget. :(

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Hardly right calling someone a fool for something they are addcited to which up until recently was promoted in every paper, magazine, on every billboard etc. People weren't exactly disuaded from taking up the habit were they...

In dont remember a time when people were encouraged to smoke.

Yet most people of my age I know smoke. They are fools.

For most of my lifetime, it's been no mystery that smoking is bad for you. So why would any person my age smoke. Unless they are a fool?

Originally posted by jackthedog
The more expensive the better I reckon. Cant stand that stuff.


And if it puts just one person your age off smoking, it's been worth it.

Here we go again! We've had this discussion before on here.
The government don't want people to stop smoking, it brings in too much money for them. If it does put people off smoking (which it won't), then they would have to get the money from elsewhere. So you non smokers should count yourself lucky really that it isn't coming out of your pocket and should be thankful that people carry on smoking!!!! Stop moaning!

Where has the smoking thread gone. It was temporarily removed and didn't get put back again!

Oh okay. I take it back foxxx. I'm glad you smoke.

I think they should be put up to at least £10 per packet, and probably nearer to £20. Maybe this way people will be force to cut down how many they smoke and thus reduce the problem of passive smoking.

Also just because smokers pay tax on fags shouldn't give them a right to smoke in front of non-smokers. If you follow the logic of this argument it is like saying "I pay car tax so it is OK for me to run you over" or "I buy a gun licence so it OK for me to shoot you".

In my view ALL non-smokers should have the RIGHT to 100% protection from passive smoking 100% of the time.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think they should be put up to at least £10 per packet, and probably nearer to £20. Maybe this way people will be force to cut down how many they smoke and thus reduce the problem of passive smoking.

People would buy imported fags, like many already do!!!

Originally posted by jackthedog
Oh okay. I take it back foxxx. I'm glad you smoke.

Well you assume I do.

Originally posted by qazitory
People would buy imported fags, like many already do!!!

OK, if you want to go up to the Manor or Pitsmoor or whereever and pay some drug dealler a small fortune for a few illegal fags I suppose you could. In reality though many people would not do this.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
OK, if you want to go up to the Manor or Pitsmoor or whereever and pay some drug dealler a small fortune for a few illegal fags I suppose you could. In reality though many people would not do this.

I personally don't know any drug dealers. The people I know who sell them are just out for a few extra quid.

But if there was £10 or £20 + quid to be made on every packet, I think many more people would consider it!

Originally posted by qazitory
People would buy imported fags, like many already do!!!

Exactly. £20 a packet would create more of a black market than there already is. Hence taking away more money from this country.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
OK, if you want to go up to the Manor or Pitsmoor or whereever and pay some drug dealler a small fortune for a few illegal fags I suppose you could. In reality though many people would not do this.


LOL.

Most people I know who sell cheap fags are normal everyday people, not drug dealers. lol.....drug dealers. Sorry that made me laugh.
In reality many already do it and in reality more would if fags became too expensive

Originally posted by qazitory
I personally don't know any drug dealers. The people I know who sell them are just out for a few extra quid.

But if there was £10 or £20 + quid to be made on every packet, I think many more people would consider it!

What are tabaconists but legalised drug dealers anyway?

Despite what you say I still think many smokers would be reluctant to go to some of these dodgy areas and approach some illegal fag dealer (assuming they even knew of any). It wouldn't stop smoking but it would certainly cut it down.

No I am trying to say that if there was profit of £20 on EACH PACKET, more people would go into selling them. I would even consider it, and I'm as honest as the come!!

Originally posted by max
I got my rise too but it pales into insignificance against the increase in value of my house in the last year.:thumbsup: Trouble with that max is that your house value may have gone up but you can't access that cash (unless you make your bills higher by re-morgaging). We still have tp pay higher council tax. See what i mean?

Originally posted by qazitory
People would buy imported fags, like many already do!!! i do:loopy:

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Trouble with that max is that your house value may have gone up but you can't access that cash (unless you make your bills higher by re-morgaging). We still have tp pay higher council tax. See what i mean?

Fair point, but if you consider the council tax as a proportion of the value of your house, like the old rates were meant to be, then council tax has gone down in real terms. If you're an owner/occupier that is.

Plus you only have to wait a few years, DaB, and you'll get the extra £100 that's been promised to the over 70s.:D

Originally posted by slimsid2000
What are tabaconists but legalised drug dealers anyway?



does this include people (and i am a non smoker) who bring back tobacco from foreign holidays for workmates?

also, i have never taken or dealt drugs in my life. many thanks to those responsible for the insinuations.

I was talking about the morality of making a living by selling a product that kills people. Of course tobacoo is currently legal but it is also a drug.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I was talking about the morality of making a living by selling a product that kills people. Of course tobacoo is currently legal but it is also a drug.

just seems slightly over the top to place cigarette smokers in the same category as drug users, even though you maintain that cigarettes are some kind of drug. i'm sure very few smokers would consider themselves drug addicts. as for selling a product which kills people. many other everyday products can claim this effect - fatty foods, road vehicles, etc. and, yes, I am being ridiculous, but you started it.

Makes me laff, I kenw this thread would cause a massive reaction.

Understand the risks its upto you if you smoke.

It is hard nowadays to be a heavy passive smoker, stop winging!

Can people chill out please ? ! ? !

Originally posted by jackthedog
In dont remember a time when people were encouraged to smoke.

Yet most people of my age I know smoke. They are fools.

For most of my lifetime, it's been no mystery that smoking is bad for you. So why would any person my age smoke. Unless they are a fool?

Up until a few years ago there were adverts for cigarettes everywhere - if that's not encouraging you to smoke then what is. Wouldn't be much point advertising otherwise would there.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Well you assume I do.

The way you said "all you non-smokers" in your original post indicated to me that you do.

Originally posted by venger
It is hard nowadays to be a heavy passive smoker, stop winging!


Not sure about that.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Up until a few years ago there were adverts for cigarettes everywhere - if that's not encouraging you to smoke then what is. Wouldn't be much point advertising otherwise would there.

So - people who start smoking because of advertising are not fools then? I remember cigarette advertising. It never made me smoke.
I see adverts for all sorts of stuff all day. Dont go out and buy it though.

Someone that started smoking because they saw an advert for it, despite all the (well known) risks involved is - IMO - very weak willed. If anyone could be SO controlled by advertising, I'm very worried.

Here's an idea...bring the price of fags right down...all the smokers will scoff at the cheap price and buy more...as a result will smoke more...hopefully will die earlier...JOB DONE!! less smokers makes the world a better place.

Originally posted by wibbles
Here's an idea...bring the price of fags right down...all the smokers will scoff at the cheap price and buy more...as a result will smoke more...hopefully will die earlier...JOB DONE!! less smokers makes the world a better place.

Are you serious? :loopy:

deadly..............

Originally posted by wibbles
deadly..............

The cheaper the fags are, the less goes back into the NHS. The more people that smoke, the more end up in NHS care. With the lack of tax from fags, how would you feel about petrol prices going up by £1 a litre? How would you feel when the percentage of your wage taxed is increased?

That's only a few facts.. then imagine everywhere being dirty from smoke, places that make you stink and your very own relatives dying? Passive smoking might be a wee problem as well...

Stick the prices up alot more and less people will smoke when they're out, less people will die, less people would need NHS care and the few that would persist to waste all their money on fags might be too skint to go down town and make everyone elses clothes stink? Plus I wouldn't have to hold my breath and turn around into open space to actually breath.

Ban smoking for good. Can people not survive without their little ciggy-wiggies? Aww my heart bleeds.. or should I say my lungs?

You're killing yourself and making everyone else suffer you selfish b******s. People dying of passive smoking is rare, yes.. but does that mean I enjoy having a face full of smoke? Or having to cope with my clothes wreaking of the little cancer sticks for the rest of the day/night? Call me selfish but am I not affected by a relative or someone I care about dying of cancer because of smoking?

Rant over.

well when you put it like that :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Sammy
oh and he has put the price of alcohol up by a penny! just thought id let u know!

xx

*cough*

A penny's hardly gonna break teh piggy bank is it? (and no, I do not own a piggy bank), bet Mr Brown likes a drink himself so he's not going to put the price of his tipple up a vast amount is he?

Originally posted by jackthedog
So - people who start smoking because of advertising are not fools then? I remember cigarette advertising. It never made me smoke.
I see adverts for all sorts of stuff all day. Dont go out and buy it though.

Someone that started smoking because they saw an advert for it, despite all the (well known) risks involved is - IMO - very weak willed. If anyone could be SO controlled by advertising, I'm very worried.

Being that advertising is one of the worlds biggest industries I'd say it does its job extremely well i.e. encourages people to use a product.

Although my point was actually that up until a few years ago there wasn't much of an effort to stop people smoking - letting tobacco companies advertise etc. does not to me display that the government were trying to disuade people from smoking. I wasn't saying people started smoking because of the adverts.

Originally posted by GazB
Ban smoking for good. Can people not survive without their little ciggy-wiggies? Aww my heart bleeds.. or should I say my lungs?

You're killing yourself and making everyone else suffer you selfish b******s. People dying of passive smoking is rare, yes.. but does that mean I enjoy having a face full of smoke? Or having to cope with my clothes wreaking of the little cancer sticks for the rest of the day/night? Call me selfish but am I not affected by a relative or someone I care about dying of cancer because of smoking?

Rant over.

It's a basic human right that you should be able to put whatever you want into your own body. Obviously when it's affecting other people then they have the right to complain but no way on this planet should people have that right taken away from them even if it means only smoking in their own home.

Following your logic then anything that burns fossil fuels - cars, buses, motorbikes, power stations, factories etc. and all the other activities that cause toxic pollution should be banned as well......

Originally posted by jackthedog
The way you said "all you non-smokers" in your original post indicated to me that you do.

I was just having a laugh, actually I said "So you non smokers " not all you non smokers!!!

Well I do smoke at the moment, I have been a non smoker before and in between, and I'm sure I will stop again at some point. I was never an anti smoking non smoker though.

Originally posted by GazB
The cheaper the fags are, the less goes back into the NHS. The more people that smoke, the more end up in NHS care. With the lack of tax from fags, how would you feel about petrol prices going up by £1 a litre? How would you feel when the percentage of your wage taxed is increased?

That's only a few facts.. then imagine everywhere being dirty from smoke, places that make you stink and your very own relatives dying? Passive smoking might be a wee problem as well...

Stick the prices up alot more and less people will smoke when they're out, less people will die, less people would need NHS care and the few that would persist to waste all their money on fags might be too skint to go down town and make everyone elses clothes stink? Plus I wouldn't have to hold my breath and turn around into open space to actually breath.

Ban smoking for good. Can people not survive without their little ciggy-wiggies? Aww my heart bleeds.. or should I say my lungs?

You're killing yourself and making everyone else suffer you selfish b******s. People dying of passive smoking is rare, yes.. but does that mean I enjoy having a face full of smoke? Or having to cope with my clothes wreaking of the little cancer sticks for the rest of the day/night? Call me selfish but am I not affected by a relative or someone I care about dying of cancer because of smoking?

Rant over.

This has all been said before,

Fine, your theory is great...yeah ban smoking...how would you feel about petrol prices going up by £3 a litre? How would you feel when the percentage of your wage taxed is increased?

Well smoking makes that much excess money for the country (after paying its NHS bill), we need to get it back from somewhere.
Plus, of course there will now be a black market in the country, so I guess we'll just bung some more tax on something else, to help police that. Oh and people are still smoking black market fags, so lets increase something else to pay for their NHS bill.

Think about it.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Following your logic then anything that burns fossil fuels - cars, buses, motorbikes, power stations, factories etc. and all the other activities that cause toxic pollution should be banned as well......

Some things are needed to make the world go round... Cigs aren't.

Originally posted by GazB
Some things are needed to make the world go round... Cigs aren't.

But cigs do make the world go round. Well for a lot of people anyway who aren't necessarily smokers.
e.g. The Newsagent owner x 1000s
e.g. the factory worker making the cigs x 1000s
e.g. the education system supported by the cig tax
e.g. the NHS system supported by the tax
e.g. the roads
etc etc

Get rid of cigs, and you have a lot of people unemployed, or losing profit from their business, taxes going onto other things to make up for the money lost from the cig tax, etc etc etc There would be a huge knock on effect. Not to mention people living longer, which would also be pretty expensive.

Non-smokers get on my t*ts sometimes. Quick to moan about it, but not so quick to realise you are better off for it.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Non-smokers get on my t*ts sometimes. Quick to moan about it, but not so quick to realise you are better off for it.

Better off for smoking? You can't be serious?

I can't see people wanting to die early because they can't afford it :loopy:

Alot of the tax is ploughed back into the NHS.. mainly to cope with all the people who suffer through smoking.

Sorry for the slight misquote Foxxx, couldnt be bothered to go back and do it properly. I did know you smoked cos you mentioned it somewhere in another thread. I think it's the one about the Anti-smoking ads over in TV and Movie chat.


I fully understand your point about the money that comes from the taxing of Fags.

My thoughts are though, that smokers will do anything to defend their habits, and I know a lot of otherwise very bright people who talk utter bullsh*t to try to defend their addiction somehow.
Yours is a good argument however, I'll grant you that.

Just out of interest, do you think that - on a global level - smoking is a good thing?

I think on a more local level ie: me in a pub trying to socialise, I should not have to be forced to breath in your smoke. I have to wash my clothes as soon as I get home, even after just a quick pint. I have to shower to get the smell off of myself.
You can do all you the smoking you want as far as I am concerned, but it is impossible for me to not smoke your smoke.

I like the smoking regs they have in New York - no public places. No bars, no restaurants, no clubs. Everywhere else is fine. A fantastic compromise I think. Tax is still earned, but non-smokers dont have to smoke against their will.

Originally posted by GazB
Better off for smoking? You can't be serious?

I can't see people wanting to die early because they can't afford it :loopy:

Alot of the tax is ploughed back into the NHS.. mainly to cope with all the people who suffer through smoking.

Er...untrue....I can't remember the exact figures as the thread got removed but the treasury will lose out to the tune of about £9-13 billion pounds a year. The cost to the NHS for smoking related diseases is about 2 billion. You do the Maths. So smokers well and truely pay for their health and the rest.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Sorry for the slight misquote Foxxx, couldnt be bothered to go back and do it properly. I did know you smoked cos you mentioned it somewhere in another thread. I think it's the one about the Anti-smoking ads over in TV and Movie chat.


I fully understand your point about the money that comes from the taxing of Fags.

My thoughts are though, that smokers will do anything to defend their habits, and I know a lot of otherwise very bright people who talk utter bullsh*t to try to defend their addiction somehow.
Yours is a good argument however, I'll grant you that.

Just out of interest, do you think that - on a global level - smoking is a good thing?

I think on a more local level ie: me in a pub trying to socialise, I should not have to be forced to breath in your smoke. I have to wash my clothes as soon as I get home, even after just a quick pint. I have to shower to get the smell off of myself.
You can do all you the smoking you want as far as I am concerned, but it is impossible for me to not smoke your smoke.

I like the smoking regs they have in New York - no public places. No bars, no restaurants, no clubs. Everywhere else is fine. A fantastic compromise I think. Tax is still earned, but non-smokers dont have to smoke against their will.

I wish I didn't smoke sometimes. It's not a cost thing, more a health and smell thing. Globally, well it's a tricky one, because it is a killer, but it does generate a lot of money. You can argue that alcohol is a killer and can be very antisocial too. Should that be banned? I think being allowed to smoke is a good thing, purely for the fact that if you ban it, it won't stop and then you create crime. People know the risks so it is their choice to do it.
I do agree about the smell in places and I sympathise with non-smokers. I too don't like the smell and I find that I stink from all the fags out there (not just mine). I generally don't notice it day to day, it's when I've been out. I respect non smoking polices in restaurants, peoples house etc however I disagree that it should be banned from bars and clubs. Purely because this is wear people enjoy smoking the most, when drinking alocohol and banning it will cause people to stay in. Believe me, they will. They will saty in and drink in, which will cause the alcohol industry to suffer big time. And don't forget, tax comes from pubs and clubs. I personally think clubs and bars should be investing in better ventilation systems. Because these do actually work, they just won't pay out for them.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
OK, if you want to go up to the Manor or Pitsmoor or whereever and pay some drug dealler a small fortune for a few illegal fags I suppose you could. In reality though many people would not do this. why ave u put manor n pitsmoor these r not the only places that ppl sell imported cigarettes u kno.people sell them in every area of sheffield. doesnt ave to be dodgy or full of drug dealers and in reality many people do buy imported cigarettes nearly everyone i kno that smokes does.

one thing i think about the price of fags going up... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

doesnt affect me, i hate smoking, and i hate breathin in other peoples smoke. prefer not to fill my lungs with cancer

Originally posted by Foxxx


Non-smokers get on my t*ts sometimes. Quick to moan about it, but not so quick to realise you are better off for it.

Don't you feel that people who don't smoke themselves should have a right to be protected from other people's smoke?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Despite what you say I still think many smokers would be reluctant to go to some of these dodgy areas and approach some illegal fag dealer (assuming they even knew of any). It wouldn't stop smoking but it would certainly cut it down.

Er...No! That's not really the best argument i've ever heard. I don't think that you'd have to go to some dodgy area to buy ciagrettes off some dodgy drug dealer. Would be a bit more straight forward than that.

Unfortunately, we've gone too far down the road to reverse the tax problem. the government have been relying on cigarette tax for decades and everytime that the tax in increased, they rely on it more, as extra revenue is brought in. If the government really want people to stop smoking, this is not the way to go about it.

I do agree that smoking should be banned in public areas, however i'm not sure all publicans would agree. I believe that when non smoking was introduced in california, bars lost a lot in profit as less people were going out to drink as they couldn't smoke. Though i think the right for people to go out end enjoy a smoke free environment should be prioritised over profit.

Smoking is a major problem in our society, but is far too established now to just disappear. I'm really not sure how the situation can be resolved.

To let you know, i'm a trying to give up smoker. I started when i was 16. I don't think that i was at my intellectual best when i made that decision. By the time I realised that it was an extremely bad idea, I was addicted. I know it was foolish to start, but as i mentioned i was 16 and 16 year olds aren't well known for making good decisions. I don't think smoking made me an idiot generally in life, just in the smoking/not smoking department.

Originally posted by fnkysknky

Although my point was actually that up until a few years ago there wasn't much of an effort to stop people smoking - letting tobacco companies advertise etc. does not to me display that the government were trying to disuade people from smoking. I wasn't saying people started smoking because of the adverts.

you keep saying this, but to my knowledge tobacco companies have not been alowed to advertise on tv, for instance, for a very long time, not just a few years. more teenagers smoke than ever now, yet they are subjected to less cigarette advertsing than I was in my younger years, so how is this explained?

A tobacco timeline
May 1997 Labour's election manifesto promises to ban tobacco advertising.
July 1998 EU directive on tobacco advertising becomes law, requiring all member states to legislate to implement the directive by July 2001.
June 1999 The government publishes draft proposals to ban tobacco advertising "by the end of the year".
October 1999 Tobacco companies win a high court injunction preventing implementation of the ban.
December 1999 The court of appeal overturns the injunction but tobacco companies apply to the House of Lords to have the appeal judgement overturned.
June 2000 The European court of justice (ECJ) is advised by its advocate general that the Directive should be annulled.
October 5 2000 The ECJ annuls the 1998 directive. The government announces plans to press ahead with a domestic ban. The European Commission is expected to attempt to reintroduce a ban as a public health measure.

That goes up until 2000, I'll try and find something that fills the gap from 2000-present when I have more time.

Has'nt put price up enough, fithy dirty habit!

lol read this thou.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/10/nsmok10.xml

A students' union is lifting its new restrictions on smoking after losing more than £26,000 in bar takings in 13 days......

yeah, this is what i was saying. As much as bars shouldn't put profit ahead of health, i can't see many bars being happy with a loss in profits on that scale. It's a sad situation really that money is once again a deciding factor.

I hate smoking and I get wound up when people smoke around me.

Fair enough there are many places where smoking is allowed like your average pub or whatever and if I go into a pub then I have to accept that I'll probably come out stinking of smoke. I don't like it, but I have to live with it. They were there first anyway.

The thing that I really hate is when I'm say in a bus shelter, waiting for a train or just minding my own business and then someone comes and sits near me, lights up and gives no consideration for where their smoke might be going, which is usually right into my face. Then I'm forced to move from where I am even though I was there first. Sorry smokers but when you do that you're just a selfish a***hole.

When (not 'if) smoking finally gets banned I'll be one of the first cheering in the streets. :banana:

[/rant]

Yeah and that'll be a great day for human rights too :rolleyes:

Fair enough Pauly. I try to avoid lighting up too close to people. But its also happened to me the other way around. I'm stiitng somewhere and smoking, and smoeone sits next to me adn asks me to put it out, or engages in theatrical coughing. I usually point out that they could have sat somewhere else, but they feel they have a moral point to make. Live and let live, I say.

I wasn't going to post any more on this subject as I could go on forever and probably end up offending a lot of smokers. However, I feel I have to point out how annoying it is when smokers claim some sort of human right, or great point of freedom. To here them talk anyone would think smoking is some sort of birthright for all free born Englishmen dating back to The Magna Carta or something.

I recognise that it may be inconvenient for them to go outside for a smoke rather than just light up wherever and whenever they feel like it, but to talk about human rights and freedom is to overstate their case, to say the least. The reason so many smokers resent non-smoking areas (whether in pubs, shopping centres, buses etc) is simply because they are used to being able to smoke more or less anywhere. In time I'm sure they will get used to smoking bans and learn to live with them.

Originally posted by oxbeast
Fair enough Pauly. I try to avoid lighting up too close to people. But its also happened to me the other way around. I'm stiitng somewhere and smoking, and smoeone sits next to me adn asks me to put it out, or engages in theatrical coughing. I usually point out that they could have sat somewhere else, but they feel they have a moral point to make. Live and let live, I say.

That's fair enough and is along the same lines of my point. If it was me I'd just choose to sit somewhere else and although I don't agree with them smoking, I can't ask them to put it out because they were there first and like it or not smoking is still legal. :(

I agree with you about the 'proving the moral point' thing as well. It's annoying when people feel they have to do this when there's usually a simpler option available (not sitting there in the first place) that doesn't get anyone riled up. As you say, live and let live. :)

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I recognise that it may be inconvenient for them to go outside for a smoke rather than just light up wherever and whenever they feel like it, but to talk about human rights and freedom is to overstate their case, to say the least. The reason so many smokers resent non-smoking areas (whether in pubs, shopping centres, buses etc) is simply because they are used to being able to smoke more or less anywhere. In time I'm sure they will get used to smoking bans and learn to live with them.

Yes it is a human right to put whatever you want in your body, especially in the comfort of your own home.

Last time I went to a game at Hillsborough, there was an old geezer on the row in front of us smoking a pipe. It was like watching the game through a fog - and the stink! It smelled like he was smoking old socks.

Even in the open air it was affecting people on either side of him for about 20 feet an all directions.

Remember when they used to allow smoking on the top deck of buses? (maybe they still do?).

There was nothing worse on a cold, rainy day. The windows were all steamed up, everyone was rugged up in damp overcoats, scarves, gloves etc and 50% of the passengers would be puffing away. Lovely! You'd smell it on your clothes for weeks.

And there would even be blokes smoking pipes on the top deck of buses. Thank god pipe smoking has all but died out.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Yes it is a human right to put whatever you want in your body, especially in the comfort of your own home.

In which case I shall make it my human right to throw a bucket of water over the adjacent smoker who is excercising no right to put things into my body that I DONT want.

I don't care what you do in your own home, but I care what you do in public places where I am foced to participate in this minority dangerous sport.

Originally posted by Tony
In which case I shall make it my human right to throw a bucket of water over the adjacent smoker who is excercising no right to put things into my body that I DONT want.

I don't care what you do in your own home, but I care what you do in public places where I am foced to participate in this minority dangerous sport.

Not quite sure why fnky had to make the comment about what he does in his own home because I never mentioned that and unless I'm mistaken nobody else did either. Most of the complaints in this thread have been about passive smoking in public. You can do what you want in your own home mate.

Originally posted by GazB
The cheaper the fags are, the less goes back into the NHS. The more people that smoke, the more end up in NHS care. With the lack of tax from fags, how would you feel about petrol prices going up by £1 a litre? How would you feel when the percentage of your wage taxed is increased?

That's only a few facts.. then imagine everywhere being dirty from smoke, places that make you stink and your very own relatives dying? Passive smoking might be a wee problem as well...

Stick the prices up alot more and less people will smoke when they're out, less people will die, less people would need NHS care and the few that would persist to waste all their money on fags might be too skint to go down town and make everyone elses clothes stink? Plus I wouldn't have to hold my breath and turn around into open space to actually breath.

Ban smoking for good. Can people not survive without their little ciggy-wiggies? Aww my heart bleeds.. or should I say my lungs?

You're killing yourself and making everyone else suffer you selfish b******s. People dying of passive smoking is rare, yes.. but does that mean I enjoy having a face full of smoke? Or having to cope with my clothes wreaking of the little cancer sticks for the rest of the day/night? Call me selfish but am I not affected by a relative or someone I care about dying of cancer because of smoking?

Rant over.

He did :)

I don't see any mention about what people are allowed to do in their own home.

That wasn't the point that I was making earlier though. You can do what you want in your own place mate.

I think he could've put up the tax on cigarettes by more than 8p a packet. This would encourage/ price out more people into stopping. It could also drive more people into bootleg cigarettes though. If figures released last October are true (that smokers pay £9billion per annum in tax on tobacco yet cost the NHS only £1.5billion per annum in treatment) then smokers already pay more than their fair share, so any tax rises can only be justified as an encouragement for people to stop smoking.

Hardly right calling someone a fool for something they are addcited to which up until recently was promoted in every paper, magazine, on every billboard etc. People weren't exactly disuaded from taking up the habit were they...

They got themselves addicted to it from starting it themselves anyway. I don't see anyone shoving lighted fags into my mouth, encouraging me to smoke. Just because something is promoted on a billboard doesn't mean you have to do it. Don't be a media mug. If they showed pictures of people burning money would you go ahead and do it? :loopy:

Originally posted by caprice
They got themselves addicted to it from starting it themselves anyway. I don't see anyone shoving lighted fags into my mouth, encouraging me to smoke. Just because something is promoted on a billboard doesn't mean you have to do it. Don't be a media mug. If they showed pictures of people burning money would you go ahead and do it? :loopy:

Caprice, I believe you're only 16/17, so you would miss the issue here, and you have done. The point is that it is only over the last decade or so that smoking has been vilified so much. At some points in history it was actually promoted as being healthy. Those that started smoking before all the health warnings and banned advertising started without the full information so their decision to start smoking can hardly be compared to someone of our generations decision. We are lucky that the facts are now well known and publicised, and that tobacco companies can no longer promote cigarettes. We are able to make an informed decision.

Caprice, I believe you're only 16/17, so you would miss the issue here, and you have done.

Yep, point taken...

However...
The thread was started by a person of similar age to us, complaining about the 8p increase. How come she hasn't made the informed decision? She'll have seen all the warnings as we have, yet still she will still go ahead and do it. I know its her decision etc, if she wants to die young then she has no-one to blame but herself.

Originally posted by caprice
Yep, point taken...

However...
The thread was started by a person of similar age to us, complaining about the 8p increase. How come she hasn't made the informed decision? She'll have seen all the warnings as we have, yet still she will still go ahead and do it. I know its her decision etc, if she wants to die young then she has no-one to blame but herself.

He/she HAS made an informed decision because he/ she had information regarding smoking when making his/ her decision. The information was there, the decision was foolish IMO.

the decision was foolish IMO.

Yes, I agree. That's what I said in the first place. I'm entitled to my opinion surely.

Originally posted by caprice
Yes, I agree. That's what I said in the first place. I'm entitled to my opinion surely.


Yes I agree with you on that. I just don't think you can call those who started smoking before all of the health warnings foolish. They weren't as lucky as us as they didn't have all of the information, warnings, studies, etc, and had lots of 'in your face' advertising. Once addicted, giving up isn't so simple. Those who start smoking despite knowing all of the risks are the fools.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion, we all are - this is a forum. Sometimes it just seems otherwise.

Once addicted, giving up isn't so simple.

There's lots of help out there. My Father did it - he gave up and has been packed up 2 or so years, mind you, having your brother in law die of lung cancer may have something to do with it. My Father had smoked since he was 16/17... He stopped when he was 40. Sheer willpower is all it takes, none of this patch malarky.

Similar to what I have previously posted, I don't believe that putting the tax up on cigarettes by a few pence will have a major impact on people giving up. The price would have to go up by a silly ammount to really make people stop buying the product. However as we have also said this would probably just force people to buy them from other, illegal sources. I still think that the government made a really bad move to start relying so heavily on cigarette tax, a long time ago. It now puts them in a hard situation. They can't really push that many people out of smoking, unless they can recoup the money from somewhere else. As a giving up smoker, i really wish smoking had never been introduced to our society at all. However it was, and we're really stuck with it now.

Originally posted by caprice
There's lots of help out there. My Father did it - he gave up and has been packed up 2 or so years, mind you, having your brother in law die of lung cancer may have something to do with it. My Father had smoked since he was 16/17... He stopped when he was 40. Sheer willpower is all it takes, none of this patch malarky.


As none smokers I don't think we can judge how difficult or easy it is to quit. It is probably different for every single person anyway depending on if you have an addictive personality and to what extent.

Originally posted by t020
As none smokers I don't think we can judge how difficult or easy it is to quit. It is probably different for every single person anyway depending on if you have an addictive personality and to what extent.

Spot on that. If you've an addiction then no-one who isn't addicted to something is in a position to judge.

Isn't it odd that smoking is one of the few addictions where it's still OK to be seen indulging? We have gambler's anonymous, alcoholics anonymous but not, yet at least, smokers anonymous (as far as I'm aware). Smoking is one of the few addictions which is undertaken in public. If you popped out for a shot of vodka or a fix of heroin on the front steps of your workplace I don't think it would be as acceptable as having a crafty fag.

Even so, addicts of whatever hue still deserve our pity rather than condemnation.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Yes it is a human right to put whatever you want in your body, especially in the comfort of your own home.

If only people would only smoke in the comfort of their own home smoking wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It isn't about whether you smoke but where you smoke.

Originally posted by t020
I think he could've put up the tax on cigarettes by more than 8p a packet. This would encourage/ price out more people into stopping. It could also drive more people into bootleg cigarettes though. If figures released last October are true (that smokers pay £9billion per annum in tax on tobacco yet cost the NHS only £1.5billion per annum in treatment) then smokers already pay more than their fair share, so any tax rises can only be justified as an encouragement for people to stop smoking.

Smokers may pay more than their fair share, but I still think that if medical resourses are limited non-smokers should get priority. To me this is only fair as those who are ill through smoking have only got themselves to blame.

Originally posted by t020
Caprice, I believe you're only 16/17, so you would miss the issue here, and you have done. The point is that it is only over the last decade or so that smoking has been vilified so much. At some points in history it was actually promoted as being healthy. Those that started smoking before all the health warnings and banned advertising started without the full information so their decision to start smoking can hardly be compared to someone of our generations decision. We are lucky that the facts are now well known and publicised, and that tobacco companies can no longer promote cigarettes. We are able to make an informed decision.

To be fair though smoking has been known to be harmful since the early 1950s. It is hard for anyone under the age of at least 65 to claim they didn't know it was. There is a difference between not knowing something is harmful and refusing to take sensible advice.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Smokers may pay more than their fair share, but I still think that if medical resourses are limited non-smokers should get priority. To me this is only fair as those who are ill through smoking have only got themselves to blame.

Perhaps if an illness is diagnosed as definately smoking-related, then any treatment the person receives should be charged to them.

Seems fair, no?

Originally posted by Andy78
Similar to what I have previously posted, I don't believe that putting the tax up on cigarettes by a few pence will have a major impact on people giving up. The price would have to go up by a silly ammount to really make people stop buying the product. However as we have also said this would probably just force people to buy them from other, illegal sources.

Nobody is 'forced' to buy illegal cigarettes. They can always choose to obey the law.

Originally posted by max
Spot on that. If you've an addiction then no-one who isn't addicted to something is in a position to judge.



That still doesn't give you the right to force your addiction onto those who have been sensible enough not to get addcited in the first place.

Originally posted by t020
so any tax rises can only be justified as an encouragement for people to stop smoking.

Or to raise revenue for the government, if they want to encourage people to stop they should offer free NRT to addicts.

Originally posted by Pauly
I don't see any mention about what people are allowed to do in their own home.

That wasn't the point that I was making earlier though. You can do what you want in your own place mate.

The part where he said 'Ban smoking for good' gave me the impression that he meant it should be outlawed entirely. Anyway I don't have a problem with banning it in pubs, restaurants etc. although I think it would make more sense to leave it to owner/managers discretion - I'm just strongly against having peoples choices taken away by the government.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Perhaps if an illness is diagnosed as definately smoking-related, then any treatment the person receives should be charged to them.

Seems fair, no?


No - smokers already pay 6 times over for their NHS costs.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Nobody is 'forced' to buy illegal cigarettes. They can always choose to obey the law.

That is true, however i still think it is the likely outcome.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
I'm just strongly against having peoples choices taken away by the government.

Fair enough, but there are already loads of things that the government say we can't do and for good reasons...like taking illegal drugs, stealing, attacking people in the street etc...most of which are harmful to you and/or others.

Why should smoking be any different. ;)

Originally posted by Pauly

Why should smoking be any different. ;)


Tax revenues and pressure from large tobbaco comglomerates. The government will never make tobacco illegal while ever it can raise such high revenues of tax.

A very sad but fair point. :(

Originally posted by mikey
Or to raise revenue for the government, if they want to encourage people to stop they should offer free NRT to addicts.

You can get them on the NHS

well if smokin was banned n out lawed where would we be with out the tax we pay we pay more than our fair share to the nhs and other services so why dont you all jus quit complainin. yes im a smoker and i do believe that if people do not smoke they should be able to go out n not have to sit in a smoke filled room if they do not want to. but instead of sayin that it should be totally banned why not cause a fuss about there not bein any smoke free rooms in pubs/restuarants etc if these facilitys where available you would have a choice.but i bet even if these facilitys where available the smokin side would be more full than the no smokin side! as for totaaly bannin it in pubs etc it been tried in leeds last month and they soonb went back on that idea when they lost £26,000 in profits,so its not always the answer is it!
as for smokers using more than their share of the nhs is completely rubbish if someone who gets cancer or heart disease how do they kno that smokin has caused it is there a test to prove it and say yes smokin definately caused it? i kno many people who have had cancer and heart disease and out of them people only one of them smoked!! cars cause a hell of alot of pollution and as much damage to people but do you see everyone always complainin that they should be banned??!!!

Originally posted by t020
No - smokers already pay 6 times over for their NHS costs.

I wasnt saying they dont.
Just think it might make more people think about the consequences. If people dont think about the impact smoking will have on their health, they might care about how it will affect their bank balance.


Originally posted by starla
well if smokin was banned n out lawed where would we be with out the tax we pay we pay more than our fair share to the nhs and other services so why dont you all jus quit complainin. yes im a smoker and i do believe that if people do not smoke they should be able to go out n not have to sit in a smoke filled room if they do not want to. but instead of sayin that it should be totally banned why not cause a fuss about there not bein any smoke free rooms in pubs/restuarants etc if these facilitys where available you would have a choice.but i bet even if these facilitys where available the smokin side would be more full than the no smokin side! as for totaaly bannin it in pubs etc it been tried in leeds last month and they soonb went back on that idea when they lost £26,000 in profits,so its not always the answer is it!
as for smokers using more than their share of the nhs is completely rubbish if someone who gets cancer or heart disease how do they kno that smokin has caused it is there a test to prove it and say yes smokin definately caused it? i kno many people who have had cancer and heart disease and out of them people only one of them smoked!! cars cause a hell of alot of pollution and as much damage to people but do you see everyone always complainin that they should be banned??!!!

Bloomin eck. Just the prospect of reading that sends me dizzy.
Perhaps some paragraphing may invite people to read it?

[


Bloomin eck. Just the prospect of reading that sends me dizzy.
Perhaps some paragraphing may invite people to read it? [/B][/QUOTE] sorry but couldnt really be bothered to paragraph! x

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Anyway I don't have a problem with banning it in pubs, restaurants etc. although I think it would make more sense to leave it to owner/managers discretion - I'm just strongly against having peoples choices taken away by the government.

The problem with leaving it to the discretion of owners/managers is that nothing ever gets done. If leaving it to their discretion worked passive smoking would have ceased to be a problem years ago.

As for governments taking people's choices away, the whole history of social reform has often involved some element of this; the Factory Acts of the 19th century, the abolision of slavery, many different public health Acts etc,etc.

Originally posted by t020
No - smokers already pay 6 times over for their NHS costs.

Perhaps smokers should ask the Chairman of Benson & Hedges, Silk Cut etc to pay for them to go private. Afterall, he has made enough money from the mugs who buy his products to easily aford it.

At the very least he should pay the funeral expenses of smokers who have died from his products.

It would be interesting to see if such Chairmen would show the same sort of loyalty to their customers that the customers have shown to them. However, I don't hold out much hope of them doing so. Too busy soaking up the sun in his villa in the south of France to care about some poor old widow standing by a cold graveside in Sheffield. Makes you think doesn't it?

Originally posted by starla
but i bet even if these facilitys where available the smokin side would be more full than the no smokin side!

At the risk of sounding like a snob (and I don't mean to) this would probably depend on which part of Sheffield you were in. You may be right if you are talking about Manor Top but I doubt the smoking side would be fuller in Dore, or Ecclesall for example.

There are well known links between smoking and class but this sometimes seems like a taboo subject. Should it be?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
At the risk of sounding like a snob (and I don't mean to) this would probably depend on which part of Sheffield you were in. You may be right if you are talking about Manor Top but I doubt the smoking side would be fuller in Dore, or Ecclesall for example.

There are well known links between smoking and class but this sometimes seems like a taboo subject. Should it be?

I cant agree. I'm pretty sure that whatever area of Sheffield it was in, a pub would always have more people in the smoking side than the non.

Originally posted by jackthedog
I cant agree. I'm pretty sure that whatever area of Sheffield it was in, a pub would always have more people in the smoking side than the non.

Try the Cask and Cutler on Infirmary Road. The larger room is non-smoking and usually there are 2 to 3 times as many people in there as in the smoking room.

Originally posted by max
Try the Cask and Cutler on Infirmary Road. The larger room is non-smoking and usually there are 2 to 3 times as many people in there as in the smoking room.

Really? I really didnt think that would ever happen. Might have to start frequenting that place...

Originally posted by jackthedog
Really? I really didnt think that would ever happen. Might have to start frequenting that place...

It's a really nice atmosphere, no juke box or piped music, cat on the seats and usually a dog or 2 lolling around. Just like a pub should be.

Originally posted by jackthedog
I cant agree. I'm pretty sure that whatever area of Sheffield it was in, a pub would always have more people in the smoking side than the non.

I am only speaking from personal experience. The Dore Moor Inn for example has very few smokers, even in the areas where smoking is allowed.

Originally posted by Pauly
Fair enough, but there are already loads of things that the government say we can't do and for good reasons...like taking illegal drugs, stealing, attacking people in the street etc...most of which are harmful to you and/or others.

Why should smoking be any different. ;)

and the governments reason for not letting people take illegal drugs..... they don't make any money from it - it has absolutely nothing to do with peoples health. If people want to take a drug then they should be able to but they should be provided with good information on the pros and cons. Tax them while they're at it, add a bit to the coffers.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
The problem with leaving it to the discretion of owners/managers is that nothing ever gets done. If leaving it to their discretion worked passive smoking would have ceased to be a problem years ago.

As for governments taking people's choices away, the whole history of social reform has often involved some element of this; the Factory Acts of the 19th century, the abolision of slavery, many different public health Acts etc,etc.

So what if nothing gets done - people who don't agree won't go in. If I ran a pub I think I should have the choice whether to let people smoke in it or not.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
At the risk of sounding like a snob (and I don't mean to) this would probably depend on which part of Sheffield you were in. You may be right if you are talking about Manor Top but I doubt the smoking side would be fuller in Dore, or Ecclesall for example.

There are well known links between smoking and class but this sometimes seems like a taboo subject. Should it be? i might now live at manor top but i do not go out in the pubs around this area.i used to out round ecclesfield and hillsborough and town and i have always found it the case that smokers sides tend to be more full(thats if there was a smokers side). i have always found this to be the case in restaurants too ihave been to some that have smokin and no smokin sides and when i asked for the smokin side there wasnt a place.which doesnt exactly bother me as i dont mind not smokin if i cant. as for the part about class are you sayin im in a lower class to you because i smoke and live on manor top??

Originally posted by slimsid2000
If you follow the logic of this argument it is like saying "I buy a gun licence so it OK for me to shoot you".

Yeah we had that thread last year, only it was phrased as "I buy a house so it is okay for me to shoot you if you come in it"

However, to get back on topic...

Have a bit of a Google for Barry Sheerman MP

He was in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner I think last week, describing as "child abusers" people who smoked in front of their children, at home, and caused them to smoke passively

It caused what you might reasonably describe as a "stir" I can tell you!

Originally posted by starla
i might now live at manor top but i do not go out in the pubs around this area.i used to out round ecclesfield and hillsborough and town and i have always found it the case that smokers sides tend to be more full(thats if there was a smokers side). i have always found this to be the case in restaurants too ihave been to some that have smokin and no smokin sides and when i asked for the smokin side there wasnt a place.which doesnt exactly bother me as i dont mind not smokin if i cant. as for the part about class are you sayin im in a lower class to you because i smoke and live on manor top??


I think slimsid was saying that smoking is more usually a working class trait these days. I think there have been studies into this, and also about healthy eating - those from the working classes seem to eat more fatty and packaged food and less fresh and cooked food than those from middle classes. People from the middle class are more likely to be non-smokers, or at least hide the fact that they smoke when out at pubs/bars/restaurants.

e.g. of study: http://www3.oup.co.uk/eurpub/hdb/Volume_11/Issue_02/110211.sgm.abs.html

Well by t020's standards my better half and her family (excluding her working class father) are all of Middle Class background.

My fiancee smoked (up until last year), her mum smoked (again till last year), her sister smokes and her brother-in-law (also middle class) smoke.

I (working class) have never smoked, my mother (in fact all my family are working class) has never smoked, neither has my father. In fact out of all my aunts and uncles only 1 smokes.

So my family must either be an exception to that rule t020 or the 'study' is flawed somewhere!

Originally posted by Belle
Yeah we had that thread last year, only it was phrased as "I buy a house so it is okay for me to shoot you if you come in it"
A sentiment i happen to agree with if it's an uninvited 'guest' into my home!

Originally posted by DaBouncer

So my family must either be an exception to that rule t020 or the 'study' is flawed somewhere!


Definitely the former. You can't rubbish a study just because you 'know someone who...' . That amounts to the same thing as saying something like "all blacks are thieves" on the basis that you once "saw someone stealing who was black".


NB. I don't want this turning into another class war or argument, I was just backing up what slimsid had said and trying to answer the question by starla.

Originally posted by t020
That amounts to the same thing as saying something like "all blacks are thieves" on the basis that you once "saw someone stealing who was black".
Now it's hardly the same thing now is it. And you always seem to bring race into an argument... I would have thought a different analogy would have been better t020. However I expect nothing less of you.

Either way it's not that 'I once saw someone' do this or that, it's a fact of my family. Personally I dont believe that because of a persons particular 'class' (again not that I believe in class either) has anything to do with if they smoke or not.

Besided haven't these same study's shown that 'middle / upper classes' are more likely to indulge in Cocain and Heroin abuse than the working class. Cocain for sure.

This I have witnessed with my own eyes, however I don't really see it as a class thing personally. You choose to believe everything you read if you like. That's your personal choice.

Given the option of the two I know which camp I'd rather be in, and it's not the one which involves hard drugs:thumbsup:

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Either way it's not that 'I once saw someone' do this or that, it's a fact of my family. Personally I dont believe that because of a persons particular 'class' (again not that I believe in class either) has anything to do with if they smoke or not.


Studies reveal trends, they don't provide definitive answers. If a study reveals people of X do more Y, then that's a fact, but it doesn't mean people of X all do Y. Also, see the 'NB' at the bottom of my last post.

Originally posted by t020
Definitely the former. You can't rubbish a study just because you 'know someone who...' . That amounts to the same thing as saying something like "all blacks are thieves" on the basis that you once "saw someone stealing who was black".


NB. I don't want this turning into another class war or argument, I was just backing up what slimsid had said and trying to answer the question by starla.

you havent answered my question to20 only slimsid can answer it. i was askin why he assumes im a lower class jus because i lve on manor top and smoke? there has been alot of studies on varies things in this world but are they all correct?? whatever class you come from if you are gona smoke you are gona smoke doesnt matter where you come from! x

and as for your link it jus says that people from lower class are linked to continuing smoking the study was about giving up jus meaning that people from middle classes are more likely to be succesful!

Originally posted by t020
Also, see the 'NB' at the bottom of my last post.
You made it into a partial 'class' discussion by claiming that people of a 'specific' class are more likely to smoke.

You can then just post that you dont want a class argument. However it's not an argument about class it's a debate about a study of one area of society.

Don't get so paranoid!

Originally posted by fnkysknky
So what if nothing gets done - people who don't agree won't go in. If I ran a pub I think I should have the choice whether to let people smoke in it or not.

The trouble with that is that 80% of the population are non-smokers. That's an awful lot of people who are excluded.

Originally posted by starla
i might now live at manor top but i do not go out in the pubs around this area.i used to out round ecclesfield and hillsborough and town and i have always found it the case that smokers sides tend to be more full(thats if there was a smokers side). i have always found this to be the case in restaurants too ihave been to some that have smokin and no smokin sides and when i asked for the smokin side there wasnt a place.which doesnt exactly bother me as i dont mind not smokin if i cant. as for the part about class are you sayin im in a lower class to you because i smoke and live on manor top??

I'm not necessarily saying anything about your class. The fact is though that there is a well proven corrolation between smoking and social class with smoking being more prevelent the further down the social scale you go. It is not a case of this being mine, or anyone elses, opinion, it is a fact.

The lack of smoking by the middle classes is one reason they have a higher life expectency.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
.

Given the option of the two I know which camp I'd rather be in, and it's not the one which involves hard drugs:thumbsup:

Most people chose neither.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I'm not necessarily saying anything about your class. The fact is though that there is a well proven corrolation between smoking and social class with smoking being more prevelent the further down the social scale you go. It is not a case of this being mine, or anyone elses, opinion, it is a fact.
Prove it. Don't say something is a fact.... PROVE it is!

I don't have the data myself but I know there have been several studies which have linked smoking to class/income.

Just on purley unscientific observations I have noticed that there is much more smoking in the so called deprived areas of Sheffield than in the middle class ones. If you go to a pub at Manor Top and then go to one at , say, Dore you would almost certainly notice a difference in the amount of people smoking.

Cigarette companies certainly beliebe there is a link between smoking and class which is why they deliberately market their products at classes C2, D and E.

Just as an asside, it would be interesting to know how many top executives of tobacco companies smoke themselves. I suspect that most don't.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Prove it. Don't say something is a fact.... PROVE it is!
Here (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/inequalities.html) you go DB!

Thats looks pretty definitive to me!

Originally posted by Zamo
Here (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/inequalities.html) you go DB!
DOH:blush:

See Slimsid2k... like that...


.............Walks away quickly trying not to be noticed

well slimsid i didnt start smokin cos i live on manor and come from a workin class background. i smoked a good few years before i moved to where i am now and the reason i started smokin was because i wanted to and because most of my friends at school did!
jus dont assume things on the basis of where some one lives or what kind of background they come from.

Originally posted by starla
jus dont assume things on the basis of where some one lives or what kind of background they come from.

Well said. Haven't people on this forum learnt this one yet?!!

It's always a touchy subject when someone brings up social class on the forum and is the cause of many unnecessary arguments.

I'm fed up with pointless arguments ruining perfectly good threads so how about we forget all about class right now and get back to the topic. ;) :thumbsup:

Originally posted by starla
the reason i started smokin was because i wanted to and because most of my friends at school did!


:loopy: :loopy: Can you not see the point here?? Think about it...

Originally posted by t020
:loopy: :loopy: Can you not see the point here?? Think about it...

nope the point there is a classic case of bein young and stupid!!

Well I see what t020 means this time starla, and the evidence seems to support it. I suppose it's a bit like the proven link between income (not class) and the quality of food that you eat. There are all sorts of social and economic factors that influence our actions.

i dont disagree with the fact of what they are sayin bout the difference with smokin in different social classes i was disagreein with slim for assuming that where i live determines who i am. and as for sayin the point was there bout me startin smokin cos i wanted to n cos my friends did,i dont see it. sorry,as i said i jus see yhat a case of bein young and stupid..

Originally posted by starla
i dont disagree with the fact of what they are sayin bout the difference with smokin in different social classes i was disagreein with slim for assuming that where i live determines who i am. and as for sayin the point was there bout me startin smokin cos i wanted to n cos my friends did,i dont see it. sorry,as i said i jus see yhat a case of bein young and stupid..

If you now recognise that you were stupid to start smoking why don't you stop now. If it was stupid to start is it not more so to carry on when you have recognised your origional mistake.

i agree with you there slimsid it is an at this moment in time i have a packet of nicotine patches on my window sill to help me stop smokin. i have already set the date i will start usin them. so i have realised my mistake and i am takin steps to rectify that mistake.
but we all make mistakes and do stupid things in life.

Originally posted by starla
i agree with you there slimsid it is an at this moment in time i have a packet of nicotine patches on my window sill to help me stop smokin. i have already set the date i will start usin them. so i have realised my mistake and i am takin steps to rectify that mistake.
but we all make mistakes and do stupid things in life.

Good luck. I hope you manage it.

Agree with you there starla! Hope you get off them. :) This is turning into a smoking cessation support thread :D

I can't believe some of the 'holier than thou' attitudes in this discussion.

Smoking is for sure a dirty, expensive, and unhealthy habit. Smokers, however, pay more than their fair share of tax to the NHS.

Anyone who smokes should take into consideration people around them. i.e. most folk don't want tab smoke blown in their faces so a little consideration would go along way in the whole passive smoking debate.

Anyone who has ever smoked (I have and still sometimes do) would testify that stopping is hard - really hard. Some people make it, others don't. Nicotine is very very addictive.

Comments along the lines of 'fags should be £20 a pack so everyone should stop' don't take into account just how difficult it really can be to give up (even knowing how bad they are for you).

In some respects it's like seeing really overweight people and coming to the conclusion that they should sort themselves out. It's not that easy. One mans pack of ciggies is anothers cream cake or pint of beer.

Originally posted by Hippy
I can't believe some of the 'holier than thou' attitudes in this discussion.

Smoking is for sure a dirty, expensive, and unhealthy habit. Smokers, however, pay more than their fair share of tax to the NHS.

Anyone who smokes should take into consideration people around them. i.e. most folk don't want tab smoke blown in their faces so a little consideration would go along way in the whole passive smoking debate.

Anyone who has ever smoked (I have and still sometimes do) would testify that stopping is hard - really hard. Some people make it, others don't. Nicotine is very very addictive.

Comments along the lines of 'fags should be £20 a pack so everyone should stop' don't take into account just how difficult it really can be to give up (even knowing how bad they are for you).

In some respects it's like seeing really overweight people and coming to the conclusion that they should sort themselves out. It's not that easy. One mans pack of ciggies is anothers cream cake or pint of beer.

On the last point first. There is no such thing as passive cream cake eating or passive beer drinking. That is one reason why smoking is different.

On the tax point, yes smokers do pay tax on their fags (at least some do. Others talk about paying tax but in reality buy them on the black market.) However, there are many types of tax and many non-smokers pay much more tax in other ways (Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, VAT, etc, etc). I'm not sure what you consider to be their 'fair share'. If you think they should pay less then who pays more to make up the shortfall?

I'm glad that as a smoker you believe in showing consideration and presumably practice this. However, there are many smokers (in my experience the majority) who show little or no consideration, and feel they have some sort of God-given right to smoke anywhere they please. It is these smokers who are the real problem and without legislation it is hard to see them changing their ways.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
On the last point first. There is no such thing as passive cream cake eating or passive beer drinking. That is one reason why smoking is different.

On the tax point, yes smokers do pay tax on their fags (at least some do. Others talk about paying tax but in reality buy them on the black market.) However, there are many types of tax and many non-smokers pay much more tax in other ways (Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, VAT, etc, etc).

I'm glad that as a smoker you believe in showing consideration and presumably practice this. However, there are many smokers (in my experience the majority) who show little or no consideration, and feel they have some sort of God-given right to smoke anywhere they please. It is these smokers who are the reel problem and without legislation it is hard to see them changing their ways.

ps. I'm partial to the odd cream cake and other non-healthy foods myself, so I am not 'holier than thou'.

this thread is dragging on sooooooo long. No need to start another when he puts the price of fags up again at the next budget cause this thread will probably still be running!!

Just a thought , Gordon Brown has self appointed himself to be the next prime minister of this country, without , as far as i can see any real approval (which he has taken for granted he has) from Jo public.
Do people support him ??? I know i would never vote for him. Is that just me ???? he will obviously take control , but how long will he last ??? All he ever goes on about is how fantastic and marvellous our economy is, and where are interest rates are (or isnt this a global thing - way out of his greasy hands) - if it's so good why does he continue to invent and increase indirect taxs - surely he must be miss-managing this wonderfull time we are having. Save us when it turns down. Anyhow am i on my own here ???

This thread has been a good laugh, I totally expected everything from T020, but Sid has supprised me with his anti-common-folk comments.