W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
Yeh, that's what he said at my last seance
Yeh, that's what he said at my last seance
D
Dimebag
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
Not to put to finer point on it, but everything you just said bod is rubbish (in my opinion of course).
Anyone can smoke, its their choice not as if I care, pay to kill yourself, s'ok with me. But then when people who don't smoke have to suffer because of it its just not on. If you want to kill yourself and make yourself ill you should suffer the consequences not jam up the nhs and stop money getting spent on the innocent. And yeah you pay more tax than the rest of us because you buy ciggarettes, but then thats your choice, so live with it.
Dime
Hey, I've had an idea just then. Totally cut the tax out on cigs, and when you all get lung/tounge/throat cancer, MAKE the NHS turn people away because its purely self inflicted. Then you lot can go off to your smoking establishments and cough, choke, die and weeze together out of the view of people who CHOSE not to smoke. (Being addicted does not elimate choice, addiction can be cured, and is also that persons fault in the first place) That better?
As we find again, no sympathy from me.
Anyone can smoke, its their choice not as if I care, pay to kill yourself, s'ok with me. But then when people who don't smoke have to suffer because of it its just not on. If you want to kill yourself and make yourself ill you should suffer the consequences not jam up the nhs and stop money getting spent on the innocent. And yeah you pay more tax than the rest of us because you buy ciggarettes, but then thats your choice, so live with it.
Dime
Hey, I've had an idea just then. Totally cut the tax out on cigs, and when you all get lung/tounge/throat cancer, MAKE the NHS turn people away because its purely self inflicted. Then you lot can go off to your smoking establishments and cough, choke, die and weeze together out of the view of people who CHOSE not to smoke. (Being addicted does not elimate choice, addiction can be cured, and is also that persons fault in the first place) That better?
As we find again, no sympathy from me.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
Sure we could pay for private health with the money saved and have plenty left over. Quids in
D
Dimebag
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
Actually sounds like a good plan there eh?
Dime
Dime
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
I'm sold
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Personally I think we should turn ginger people away from hospitals, as they are a plague that needs to be eliminated. But that's just me.......
D
Dimebag
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
[19:17] <bodhi> Ive responded to Dime's post
[19:17] <bodhi> severely below the belt
Dime
[19:17] <bodhi> severely below the belt
Dime
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
you know I luv ya really
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
If you are using that recent report about cost then you might not known that holes were found in it regarding the fact it covered the cost of very few diseases.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
I bet we'd still make a profit. I could try working out some figures but can't be arsed
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
The figures are correct, last year the government raised around £5 billion on ciggie duty alone, thats not including the VAT on ciggies either. Whereas the NHS have estimated that £1.5 billion was spent treating smoking-realted illnesses. I'd find it hard the believe that "holes in the report" can counteract that £3.5 billion gap.
However, what is not mentioned is the hidden costs, industry loses millions of man-hours though smoking-related illness, a lot of public money is spent educating children on the dangers of smoking, a huge expense on policing the criminal activities related to ciggarette sales, and you can't quantify the impact on smoker's children or family when the smoker gets ill or dies.
The major problem with smoking is children, whilst it is difficult to prove passive smoking in general, there is no doubt that smoking whilst pregnant or smoking around very young children has a definitive impact, plus the fact that seeing adults smoke is an incentive to take up the habit early in life, despite the bans on the promotion of ciggarettes.
I've got no real problem with people killing themselves or wasting the value of a new top-range PC system every year on ciggarettes, but light one up next to my 4yo boy and you're asking for trouble.
I still think we should tax tobacco companies, not consumers.
However, what is not mentioned is the hidden costs, industry loses millions of man-hours though smoking-related illness, a lot of public money is spent educating children on the dangers of smoking, a huge expense on policing the criminal activities related to ciggarette sales, and you can't quantify the impact on smoker's children or family when the smoker gets ill or dies.
The major problem with smoking is children, whilst it is difficult to prove passive smoking in general, there is no doubt that smoking whilst pregnant or smoking around very young children has a definitive impact, plus the fact that seeing adults smoke is an incentive to take up the habit early in life, despite the bans on the promotion of ciggarettes.
I've got no real problem with people killing themselves or wasting the value of a new top-range PC system every year on ciggarettes, but light one up next to my 4yo boy and you're asking for trouble.
I still think we should tax tobacco companies, not consumers.
B
bigbb
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
I agwee to last line der. companies, not consumers.
*designs banner to go over an m25 bridge*
on a less serious note. camazotz I weely don't get on with your avatar. Just annoys me for some wierd and unexplained reason.
*designs banner to go over an m25 bridge*
on a less serious note. camazotz I weely don't get on with your avatar. Just annoys me for some wierd and unexplained reason.