The decline of smoking?

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

Yahoo news report on NYC

The number of adult smokers in New York City dropped by more than 100,000 in a year, a decrease city officials attribute to sharply higher tobacco taxes, the city's smoking ban in bars and cessation programs.

Telephone surveys commissioned by the city found that 19.3 percent of adults smoked in 2003, compared with 21.6 percent in 2002, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Cigarette consumption also declined by 13 percent, signaling that those who still smoke are smoking less.

"From what we've seen, we believe New York City experienced the steepest decline anywhere in one year." Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden told the Times.

In 2002, tax on cigarettes went from 8 cents a pack to $1.50 a pack; the following year, the city's law banning smoking in bars took effect. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration also have supported cessation programs.

The telephone surveys had a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

This is about NY but with a similar policy just adopted in Dublin and already running in a number of over European cities it's pretty relavent. This got me to thinking. With each passing generation, smoking is more punished and less accepted. There's been a steady decline in the % of people who smoke over the last half-century, and who knows how long the decline will go on.

We expect things like losing the tobacco industry, losing cigarette taxes, reducing lung cancer deaths, and so on (and by all means, debate that). But what about the so-called 'gateway drug' effect ? Will a reduction in the prevalence of one drug lead to a decline in others?

 

[Bodhi]

I write this reply enjoying the pleasures of a Marlboro light. I see two key problems with the decline of smoking.

1) Smoking is the most sociable habit on the planet. Fact. Look at any public building, from a council office to a uni hall of residence, there's always a pool of smokers outside, chatting, enjoying the fresh air. I met more people outside my uni hall smoking than I did in any other activity. That includes random drunken encounters, of which in St Andrews there are many.

2) The physical act of smoking is one of the most relaxing things I have yet experienced. Admittedly it is more pronounced when it's a spliff and not a ciggy, but the ciggy i've nearly finished was also deeply enjoyable. It's relaxing, sit down after a particularly stressful situation, have a ciggy. The act of smoking will do more for you than nicotine ever will.


This also raises an interesting conundrum. With the rapid move towards a legalisation of cannabis (20 years from now, you'll be able to buy weed in Tescos), if tobacco effectively gets outlawed, what are we supposed to mix spliffs with? Pure weed joints, whilst deeply enjoyable if you have nothing to do for the rest of the day, are deeply imparacticle for the everyday smoker. Moving is difficult after a pure spliff, how are us stoners supposed to drive cars, sit exams or oreder a pizza if we are too stoned to move, all because we can't put a wee bit of Marlboro Light in a joint to soften to effect of the weed?


Let smokers smoke. I don't see the Phillip Morris executive with a gun to my head making me smoke. It's a choice. I'd quite like to continue to make it.

 

[Summo]

As confused as I am by this following statement, I agree with Bodhi. I'd like to add comments to his comments in the following two comments which can be found below:

1) Absolutely. I've learnt more about the way my company works and what all those other people do by standing outside, or sitting in the smoking room with them. In this circumstance there seemed to be no political barriers. Me, a lowly IT guy, could sit and chat with heads of department (and in one case the chairman of the Council) with no sense of hierarchy. Just a group of people chatting.

2) I agree that the act of smoking is more pleasurable than the nicotine itself and I've recently thought of smoking Honeyrose cigarettes. They were developed for, and are most widely used on, stage and screen for non-smokers and smokers alike who have to smoke but without the unfortunate lung-cancer and addiction business. I've used them in a play before and although they smell weird and chuck out more smoke than normal fags, I think its an alternative worth looking at. It seems perfect to pad out a spliff, Bods so try a pouch of their 'special smoking mixture'.

Obviously they're not taxed as tobacco as they don't contain any, so a pack of 20 costs £2, or in my case a 50g pouch costs £3.80.

I'm going to buy some and I'll report back.

On the whole though, and when all's said and done, the sooner smoking becomes a bizarre old habit that historians talk about, the better.

 

[JBP|]

i bet you wont say that when your income tax gets a 10% increase to compensate for the loss of revenue that smokers provide



allegedly spain do not have a "no smoking policy" in its work places or bars,cafes ect

lets all go there

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

i bet you wont say that when your income tax gets a 10% increase to compensate for the loss of revenue that smokers provide

Why should smokers have to subsidise the economy to a level that is out of proportion to the expenses they create?

 

[Ala]

I just bought patches today. Got me Quit Pack (free advice & tips info thingy) 2 days ago. Monday is Quit day. Go me!!

 

[Tom]

i bet you wont say that when your income tax gets a 10% increase to compensate for the loss of revenue that smokers provide

That won't ever happen, its a lie spread by pro-smokers. People have to spend that money somehow, if they save it until they die, then their beneficiaries spend it anyway. Think of the benefits to the economy.

Personally, you can smoke if you like, just make sure you don't blow the filthy shit on my clothes.

 

[Noita]

Gimme a ciggie

 

[Deadmanwalking]

......Fact. Look at any public building, from a council office to a uni hall of residence, there's always a pool of smokers outside, chatting, enjoying the fresh air.....
.

Right, nice fresh air.

And i bet you smoke Lights and all.

 

[jas_k1]

you could also go to greece where you would think it's illegal NOT to smoke.

I've never smoked ciggies but my parents were 40 a day so i've had 22 years of it.

others smoking doesn't bother me the only thing that does is the way my nice leather jacket stinks the next day after a night out in the boozer.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

That won't ever happen, its a lie spread by pro-smokers. People have to spend that money somehow, if they save it until they die, then their beneficiaries spend it anyway. Think of the benefits to the economy.

If I spend my money on items that are not ridiculously taxed does the government get less or more?

I have no idea of the figures now but just after the '99 Budget the RRP of a pack of 20 premium cigarettes was £3.82, of that £3.06 is tax. 80% tax, it won't have come down since then and if anything is probably higher. Petrol is probably the second highest taxed item and that only peeks at 75% currently. Even if smokers ploughed all their money into petrol the economy would still suffer.

All the excess tax serves to do is punish a group with a habit that is seen as unpopular by forcing them to pay way in excess of the costs they bring about.

 

[Tom]

If I spend my money on items that are not ridiculously taxed does the government get less or more?

In the long run, they're likely to get more or less the same amount. Buying more items at a lower rate of tax, the gross taxable income, and subsequent benefits to the economy, remain about the same. The only exception is for those people travelling abroad and spending their money.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the government would fall over and die just because they lost the revenue from smokers. People don't tend to hoard money (just look at the amount of borrowing right now), they spend it. The more money they have, the more they spend.

 

[Bym]

I agree that smoking is pleasurable and social, as I too used to smoke and still dream about smoking sometimes. I miss it.

I say if you want to smoke, smoke, because:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/18/wsmok18.xml

The British government will receive £7.5 billion this year from tobacco duties, and spend a minimum of £1.5 billion on treating smoking-related illnesses.

Just don't do it anywhere near me or my little one please - I want us to live as long as possible thanks.

I've seen far too many relatively young people die right in front of me in hospital from smoking related illnesses, and a traumatic death isn't pretty for a young person to see, believe me...

 

[Munkey]

£1.10 here for a packet of (20) dunhills. Thats after 200% tax as well. However, I dont think theres been a fall in the number of smokers, i've seen a rise in the number of people i do see smoking regularly.

Read about the anti-smoking laws in NY, people still do it in some places, article about it in one of the newsies. There was also another one about the ban of smoking in...bristol? or some other british city, in a universitys bar's. They lost 18,000 quid in a week.

Now I dont smoke. I just think that the anti-smoking community are far too like Nazis for my liking.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

In the long run, they're likely to get more or less the same amount. Buying more items at a lower rate of tax, the gross taxable income, and subsequent benefits to the economy, remain about the same. The only exception is for those people travelling abroad and spending their money.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the government would fall over and die just because they lost the revenue from smokers. People don't tend to hoard money (just look at the amount of borrowing right now), they spend it. The more money they have, the more they spend.

That's patently not true. Very few items are taxed anywhere near the level of cigarettes. The overall level of spending is much less important than the directly taxed income. The latest estimates are that cigarettes cost the NHS 1.7 billion a year, smoking pulls in ~10 billion. I recognise that you're not a smoker and thus any benefits from smoking must be filthy smoker propaganda but smokers benefit the country massively. The New Statesman did a pretty good overview of this recently, you might want to check it out,

 

[Ch3tan]

People can smoke all they want, its their choice, however I would appreciate them not doing it near me. I want to for once go to a pub or club and breath oxygen not smoke. I want to come back home and not stink of smoke. Hell I would go as far as saying that main high streets, bus stops etc should be smoke free environments.

 

[Munkey]

People can smoke all they want, its their choice, however I would appreciate them not doing it near me. I want to for once go to a pub or club and breath oxygen not smoke. I want to come back home and not stink of smoke. Hell I would go as far as saying that main high streets, bus stops etc should be smoke free environments.

Much better. Hear hear!

 

[Tom]

That's patently not true. Very few items are taxed anywhere near the level of cigarettes. The overall level of spending is much less important than the directly taxed income. The latest estimates are that cigarettes cost the NHS 1.7 billion a year, smoking pulls in ~10 billion. I recognise that you're not a smoker and thus any benefits from smoking must be filthy smoker propaganda but smokers benefit the country massively. The New Statesman did a pretty good overview of this recently, you might want to check it out,

So what, if a person spends about £2000 a year on cigarettes, and then stops, you're saying that after ten years, because they don't spend the money on cigs, they'll have 20 grand in their account, and the government will be 15 grand or whatever worse off?

Will they fuck. They'll spend it on something or other. Even if they save it, those savings are taxed. We get taxed on our earnings. Taxed on what we buy. Taxed on what we sell. Taxed on what we use. The IR will get the money back sooner or later. EX SMOKERS WILL NOT SUDDENLY BECOME TIGHT ARSES.

The only possible benefit I can see from smoking is that it reduces the number of people claming a pension. Thats no real benefit at all, because I'd rather see money being spent ensuring the longevity of people who may be grandparents, and pursuing a valuable role in a family, than more plywood coffins and statistics.

Smoking? A good thing? Is it hell'as like.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

I'm about to pack in smoking. I've already stopped smoking weed about 2 months ago. That was fairly easy after 20 years, thought I might go a bit weird but it was simple.
My motive for packing in smoking is that Mrs Yuck doesn't smoke, I'm conscious that I'm potentially affecting her health.
I am not stopping because of people moaning about passive smoking in pubs, because the of my own health, because of the criminal taxes paid on cigs, or because anyone for any reason tells me I should.
If people want to smoke then they should be allowed, we do not after all live in a military state. If cigs were made illegal totally them I might respect the preachings of the government anti-smoking bodies. Until then I consider them to be hipocritical beyond belief.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

So what, if a person spends about £2000 a year on cigarettes, and then stops, you're saying that after ten years, because they don't spend the money on cigs, they'll have 20 grand in their account, and the government will be 15 grand or whatever worse off?

Will they fuck. They'll spend it on something or other. Even if they save it, those savings are taxed. We get taxed on our earnings. Taxed on what we buy. Taxed on what we sell. Taxed on what we use. The IR will get the money back sooner or later. EX SMOKERS WILL NOT SUDDENLY BECOME TIGHT ARSES.

Jesus Christ, are you retarded?

If something is taxed to a significantly higher degree than most other purchaseable items and then removed THEN THE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVES IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER EVEN IF MORE ALTERNATIVE ITEMS ARE BOUGHT.

Using your example a smoker stops buying cigarettes. Last year they spent £2000 on cigarettes netting the government £1600. This year they spend £2000 on normal items that are taxed at 20% instead of 80%, the government obtains £400.

SAME NET EXPENDITURE FOR SMOKER, GOVERNMENT HAS OBTAINED 1/4 OF THE TAX THEY WOULD HAVE FROM THE SALE OF CIGARETTES.

Do I need to draw you a diagram or something?

 

[Jonny_Darko]

2 points to add to this...

Firstly, smoking is definitely in decline - I went to a party a few months back where the average age of the people there was about 20 - and I was shocked to see I was the only one smoking there - they all thought I was some freakish old dinosaur from a forgotten time when people were idiots.

Also, any smokers should check out Allen Carr's book. Everyone I've known who has finished this refreshing approach has stopped successfully soon after.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...0326/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/202-7355358-6084600

And I'm sorry to Bodhi and others but I was a heavy smoker for ten years and no-one is happy to be a smoker. Yes of course you're going to say you are, since no one will admit "I've been paying through the nose to stink, cough and fuck up my lungs for the last decade - what a fool I am!". No it's always "I choose to, I like it, it relaxes me" - all of which is clearly bullshit.

No I'm not a mightier-than-thou reformed smoker, I just can tell stuff like that is bollocks because it's the shite I came out with for most of my adult life.

 

[Tom]

I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to calling me names. You seem to ignore the fact that money doesn't sit in people's pockets (consumers, manufacturers, rich folk, etc) for ever. It all swims around for a bit, before landing back at the treasury. Thats the way things work.

You're suggesting that the government will receive £1200 less using the example above. So that £1200 goes elsewhere. Where does it end up? It adds to the turnovers of the various businesses that take the money. That money gets taxed. The remaining profit gets dished out to investers. Who spend it. Which gets taxed. Perhaps they use that profit to increase the size of their business, which gets more people working, which generates more taxable income, and boosts the economy.

Think long term.

 

[Will]

The only possible benefit I can see from smoking is that it reduces the number of people claming a pension. Thats no real benefit at all, because I'd rather see money being spent ensuring the longevity of people who may be grandparents, and pursuing a valuable role in a family, than more plywood coffins and statistics.

I'd rather that people smoke, die young, and leave me with a chance of getting a pension in my old age. With our rapidly aging population, more people dying young can only be a good thing. For me, at least. Though given how much weed I smoke, I may be on the die young bandwagon myself.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

People can smoke all they want, its their choice, however I would appreciate them not doing it near me. I want to for once go to a pub or club and breath oxygen not smoke. I want to come back home and not stink of smoke. Hell I would go as far as saying that main high streets, bus stops etc should be smoke free environments.

On the other hand though the smoker is entitled to exactly the same opinion but reversed. They can smoke all they want, it's their choice: but as long as it's not near someone that doesn't smoke? So they can't smoke all they want then, can they?

It's a funny issue. I'm distincly middle ground now, don't care. Gave up smoking 5 months ago - and laughed at all the people that struggle through it. It's really not that hard, it's a very mild addiction and it is *ALL* in your head, weaklings.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

And yet the taxes are still much less than the total before, you're taking a smaller cut of a smaller pie everytime, there's absolutely no way the level can match up.

I can only conclude you're trolling or one of the most stupid posters in the entire world, either way you're onto my ignore list.

 

[TriGGer]

I smoked 30+ a day for 15 years, and stopped one Saturday morning 3 years ago after the dog ate the packet. Id been wondering just why I smoked for a few months before that, the smell, the dependancy etc. (Smokers know what I mean whether they openly admit it or not) Yes it was hard for MONTHS, but Ive not had one drag since, and tbh, I now know what people meant about the smell. If you choose to smoke, fine go ahead, just dont expect to do it in a public place, it is anti-social, mebbe not to other smokers, but it is to everyone else ffs. Like it or not, its a fact that passive smoking kills people. As for the monetary side of things, hey, its your money. Dont like the tax ? QUIT

</rant>

 

[Wazzerphuk]

And I'm sorry to Bodhi and others but I was a heavy smoker for ten years and no-one is happy to be a smoker. Yes of course you're going to say you are, since no one will admit "I've been paying through the nose to stink, cough and fuck up my lungs for the last decade - what a fool I am!". No it's always "I choose to, I like it, it relaxes me" - all of which is clearly bullshit.

Not true at all. In the slightest. I know many people that smoked, stopped enjoying it after a while and quit. A lot of smokers smoke because they enjoy it for the most part. There are occasions when smokers regret smoking, but on the whole for a lot of (young) smokers they smoke because they see the benefits outweighing the negatives.

 

[mr.Blacky]

You seem to ignore the fact that money doesn't sit in people's pockets (consumers, manufacturers, rich folk, etc) for ever. It all swims around for a bit, before landing back at the treasury. Thats the way things work.

You're suggesting that the government will receive £1200 less using the example above. So that £1200 goes elsewhere. Where does it end up? It adds to the turnovers of the various businesses that take the money. That money gets taxed. The remaining profit gets dished out to investers. Who spend it. Which gets taxed. Perhaps they use that profit to increase the size of their business, which gets more people working, which generates more taxable income, and boosts the economy.

Think long term.

True but think short term as well At the moment governments need the tax money. The money that the government spends need to come from somewhere. 6 billion pounds is not short change.
Also where do you think the money goes that the taxes collect? For a part it is spend to buy things made by private companies. They make more profit because of it, then look at your post for the rest.
Fact is you can't make money out of thin air. Spending more money is what makes the economy grow, it doesn't really mater how you spend it.
The result of nobody smoking is that the general level of taxes doesn't rise but the taxes of people that don't smoke now will rise.

 

[Tom]

And yet the taxes are still much less than the total before, you're taking a smaller cut of a smaller pie everytime, there's absolutely no way the level can match up.

I can only conclude you're trolling or one of the most stupid posters in the entire world, either way you're onto my ignore list.

lol. Can't take an argument, can you?



*picks up toys thrown from pram*

 

[Tom]

The result of nobody smoking is that the general level of taxes doesn't rise but the taxes of people that don't smoke now will rise.

Agreed, but the point I'm trying to make, probably quite poorly judging by that Pirate guy, is that money not paid in tax ends up back in the economy via other routes, mainly spending. Spending = jobs, jobs = more productivity = more taxes.

The pirate fella seems to think that smokers would suddenly become rich to the detriment of non-smokers. That simply is not the case.