---

by Byron
(quotes)
Off the top of my head, cost to the NHS in treating smoking related ilnesses is approximately £1 billion, but the tax revenue from ciggies is £9 billion.

---

Funnily enough that logic in flawed in so many ways. As the indirect cost to the society & the economy isn't taken into account. Also all that money that is now spent on cigarets would if there where none be spent on different things anyways so the money would flow into the economy and creating new jobs etc. And when people die at an early age you also need to take all the money lost to the economy and the cost that it takes to replace that person. So I don't think that 8 billion a year would really cover that.

In my opinion, raising this law by two years would really not make that much difference. Cigarettes are portayed as alot worse for you than alcohol even though the age to buy tobacco is younger, and so is not very likely to make people want to stop if you raised the age and made it seem a more dangerous and out of reach thing.

If you made it 18, there'd still be people who you could get it from, so many I know serve you even though they have the "NO ID : NO SALE" sticker. I bought cigarettes on my 16th birthday, just because I could (i'd like to point out I'm not a smoker), and I didn't get ID'd and I don't really look my age. I just don't think people care enough really.

To be honest, I don't really feel that passionate about smoking and what age people are smoking at. If you want to stop little kids from smoking, then you need to stop all this peer pressure and to make out that smoking is something forbidden and therefore exciting.

I'm not saying no age limits at all, I just don't think that changing the age of it will really make that much difference because it runs deeper than that.

(Edited by Miss Corrupt 08/09/2004 18:24)

I've smoked for the past couple of years on and off but i'm trying to quit because I know what damage it's doing to me, especially how much quicker im out of breath now, and the stale cigarette smell on my clothes makes me heave! but I find it really hard not to give into the cravings.

The first time i smoked i was 14 and they were actually given to me by someone younger than me. Changing the age restriction doesn't help because there are still those willing to go in the shop for younger kids or sell them to them and shops that wont ID! I got served with alcohol at the age of 14 and it was the smaller 'local' shops who never ID'd.

I worked on the cigarette kiosk in Morrisons and they used to always try to get served, the one they always used was to walk in already smoking, that was just funnier because the stores none smoking so i got to kick them out. Same when I worked in an off licence in preston, they'll come in smoking so you'll assume they're old enough. I think that more drastic measures are needed, a smoking ban would be the way forward i think, if i cant have them then it's tough isnt it and i'll just have to get over it, although i would definatley run far far away if i was friends with Nadia from BB :S



(Edited by Eve 11/09/2004 00:42)

---

by Byron
The fact cigs are legal at all makes a nonsense of our drugs laws (they do more physical damage than pure heroin

---

I put this quote up because it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I don't remember ever having to resusitate a 19 year old because they've had a cigarette. I've certainly had to resusitate folks because they've OD'd on heroin. Those who take heroin usually become completely unable to contribute to society. If we give Narcan, I've seen addicts after they come round trying to take off with the cannula still in thier arm (cause they think, woohoo, protected IV access!). So, no, I really can't put cigarettes up there with heroin use mate, sorry.

So, we make cigarettes illegal. What next? How long before the nanny state progresses to a 2000AD Mega-city one state where caffiene is illegal, along with sugar, in fact along with any foodstuff or chemical which is even vaguely detrimental to people.

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to raise the age. I personally think that the marriage age should ALSO be raised. I haven't met many 16 year olds who would truly comprehend what they are committing themselves to- heck, who knows, maybe the divorce rate would fall a bit!

Sod it, we're all gonna die of something.... that's the thing about life- it's universally lethal, lol.


(Edited by Kelspook 11/09/2004 21:59)

---

by Kelspook
(quotes)
I put this quote up because it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I don't remember ever having to resusitate a 19 year old because they've had a cigarette. I've certainly had to resusitate folks because they've OD'd on heroin. Those who take heroin usually become completely unable to contribute to society. If we give Narcan, I've seen addicts after they come round trying to take off with the cannula still in thier arm (cause they think, woohoo, protected IV access!). So, no, I really can't put cigarettes up there with heroin use mate, sorry.

---

Glad someone picked up on this. Comparing fags and skag: extreme? Yes. Rediculous? No more so than the logic of allowing one and banning the other.

I was careful to specify pure heroin. Unlike street heroin, which is lethal because of all the crap that gets mixed in, pharmasutical heroin (diamorphine), which is what used to be available to addicts before the Misuse of Drugs Act came in, is non-toxic to the body and incredibly hard to overdose on. Not remotely a Good Thing, but less damaging physically than tabacco. Opiates were orignally banned not for health reasons, but so the American government could persecute opium-smoking Chinese labour.

I made the comparison to explain why I feel allowing 16-year-olds to buy fags is so absurd. Far from an extension of the nanny state, I'm all for putting it to sleep. (Though if we're going to elaborate on this, probably best to start another thread.)

(Edited by Byron 12/09/2004 00:53)

---

by Byron
(quotes)
I was careful to specify pure heroin. Unlike street heroin, which is lethal because of all the crap that gets mixed in, pharmasutical heroin (diamorphine), which is what used to be available to addicts before the Misuse of Drugs Act came in, is non-toxic to the body and incredibly hard to overdose on.

---

Erm, that's not quite accurate either. Yes, some of the problems addicts have are due to the purity of the stuff. But it's generally not that the drug is adulterated, it's that they get thier paws on heroin that's TOO pure. Then what happens is that they take too much at once, the respiratory centres in the brain are depressed, which leads to hypoxia, which if not treated leads in turn to respiratory arrest, swiftly followed by cardiac arrest. If a medical professional is giving morphine or any other opiate or opiod such as Nubain, they MUST have Naloxone (Narcan) available to reverse the effects. It's surprisingly easy to give too much, and causes the respiratory depression I was talking about.

Sorry to be so picky, and you're probably right, might be best to start a new thread. Unfortunately I'm away until next weekend on the last week of my paramedic course, but I'll certainly get into this again when I get back!

Catch you later Byron *grin*

I have to agree with Kelspook. If the majority of heroine addicts were given a legal, unlimited supply of pure heroine do you think they would be healthy, responsible, contributing members of society when compared with a smoker?

As for the maturity thing with smoking that is ridiculous. If knowing something is bad for you and continuing to do it anyway makes you immature, then there must be a lot of you who qualify, afterall don't many of us:

drink coffee and tea?
eat fast food?
eat salt!
drink alcohol...

Think about it all you people who eat too much salt and drink too much coffee, you're costing us taxpayers huge amounts of money by dying early of heart attacks and thereby causing masses of lost money you *would* have contributed to the economy had you been alive

Only point with drinking coffee and eating salt is that the only person you "hurt" is yourself and even within moderation salt isn't actually bad for you.... you can't say that from smoking And as far as I'm aware you can't die from the fumes of coffee coming from your coworkers desk

What people do with their own bodies is all up to them but the moment it influances my health / life you seriously cross a line!

Which is also what makes smoker so "immature". Sure everyone can make up for themselves if they want to smoke or not... it's their body. But they also make a choice for other people who they have no say about (indirect smoking).

So that basically leaves 2 things:
1: Smokers do not consider all the effects of their actions or cannot contemplate them fully.
2: Smokers are very selfish people who enjoy hurting other people so they can get their own short term pleasure

So saying that smokers are immature (as in not capible of forseeing the longterm effects of their actions on others) is in my eyes the more positive view on the human race.

This is the reason I have no problem with drug usage as it's for example done by for example business people on the weekends for a high. As long as they don't hurt anyone else don't have to steal and can appear perfectly okay on a monday morning for work there is no problem. It becomes a problem when you start stealing car radios and not going into work etc.

---

by Funky Monkey
...If the majority of heroine addicts were given a legal, unlimited supply of pure heroine do you think they would be healthy, responsible, contributing members of society...

---

I think they would probably be dead.

---

by Chambler

So that basically leaves 2 things:
1: Smokers do not consider all the effects of their actions or cannot contemplate them fully.
2: Smokers are very selfish people who enjoy hurting other people so they can get their own short term pleasure

---

True, but once again we can use this argument for so many things...Motor vehicle users are also neglecting other people's health by spreading fumes everywhere which I can't avoid breathing. If we're going to ban smoking in public places lets ban cars in public places too.

There are many places where people choose not to contemplate their actions - people who use cosmetics tested on animals for example, or people who buy eggs from battery farm hens kept in horrendous conditions, etc... the list goes on.

What about all those irresponsible people who buy things like trainers and goods from China where in the name of globalisation rich corporations exploit the workers of poor countries....

This doesn't make them immature, just purposefully blinkered..it's sad but it's normal life.

What is socially acceptable is eventually decided by the "majority" of society if democracy does it's job.

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
If we're going to ban smoking in public places lets ban cars in public places too.

---

At most 25% of the population smokes. Over 80% uses cars / motorbikes or other forms of motorized transport. Also there is a very large direct economic effect of banning cars + trucks etc as how are people gonna go to work and how are you gonna get your food from the shops as how are they gonna be supplied? So there isn't gonna be a majority that will decide that driving a car is socially unacceptable.

---

people who use cosmetics tested on animals for example, or people who buy eggs from battery farm hens kept in horrendous conditions

---

Samething applies here. Within strick rules animal testing is allowed and for the majority within these rules it's socially acceptable. Also if you would give all the chickens the space that they would require for a "normal" life than we wouldn't actually have enough space for everyone to have their eggs at breakfast.

---

What about all those irresponsible people who buy things like trainers and goods from China where in the name of globalisation rich corporations exploit the workers of poor countries....

---

Okay little real world example: Production company starts up a plant in Romania. On the local market people normally earn around 75 euro's a week for a 40 hour work week(keep in mind cost of living is a lot lower). He pays them 125 euro's a week. Which is more money than those people have ever gotten for whatever work they have ever done. What happens.... They rob him blind. Company almost goes bust and in investigation the reason they give is because he must be really rich if he can pay us those salaries so it wouldn't be a problem at all.

When we look at China for example we see that if the labor wasn't that cheap they wouldn't have gotten the work in the first place. As producing most products can be mostly automated only that is very expensive to do. So now we have people in very bad working conditions earning very little money. But if the work wasn't there in the first place they have no income at all. Also don't forget if they get paid the same as you and I than those products would be so expensive that nobody would buy them and than there also wouldn't be a reason to move production to China because than you just have added shipping costs. So if they don't compete on labor cost they don't get any work and they would eventually be worse off.

Also this is pretty much socially acceptable. However smoking apparently isn't anymore or not in the way it used to be years ago.

---

This doesn't make them immature, just purposefully blinkered..it's sad but it's normal life.

---

If you show socially unaccepted behaviour there must be something wrong with you as we are all socially sculpted by that same society in a constant feedback loop of action / reaction and reassesment. If you cannot pick up these signals from your surroundings some would say you are emotional underdeveloped which is also one of the major definitions of immaturity

But of course there are a lot of things in life which aren't right however they are socially accepted which makes them totally acceptable and a normal part of life

---

by Funky Monkey
I have to agree with Kelspook. If the majority of heroine addicts were given a legal, unlimited supply of pure heroine do you think they would be healthy, responsible, contributing members of society when compared with a smoker?

---

They probable allready wheren't responsible, contributing members of society to begin with. The heroine probably didn't change that by much.

---

by Funky Monkey
If we're going to ban smoking in public places lets ban cars in public places too.

---

The manual of your car probably allready states that you should not use it indoors or in not-well-ventilated spaces. I don't mind people smoking outside, just like I don't mind people driving cars outside, as long as they don't put their exhoust pipe in my face...

I don't like people smoking but a ban isn't going to stop it. I hate going out and coming home stinking of cigarette smoke and having an awful taste in my mouth from passively inhaling it. But it's something you get used to and now-a-days there are non-smoking areas too. I have to say, most of my friends who smoke are incosiderate when we are out in pubs but I don't have much of a problem in public because it's a social thing. I won't have people smoking in my house though, the smell gets on everything. I'd quite like to see the smoking age lifted to 18, just because its a vile and dangerous habit.

(Edited by lizzieslayer 16/09/2004 12:34)

---

by Chambler
What is socially acceptable is eventually decided by the "majority" of society if democracy does it's job.

---

Strange then that pubs don't work by a democracy, afterall in many pubs customers who are smokers outweigh non-smokers, yet through government interference they want to ban smoking in pubs. If there were so many customers who didnt like the smoke there would be a profitable market for non-smoking pubs, which I would have no problems with - it is the landlords perogative.

---

At most 25% of the population smokes. Over 80% uses cars / motorbikes or other forms of motorized transport. Also there is a very large direct economic effect of banning cars + trucks etc as how are people gonna go to work and how are you gonna get your food from the shops as how are they gonna be supplied? So there isn't gonna be a majority that will decide that driving a car is socially unacceptable.

---

This is a flimsy argument regarding the maturity of smokers in their decision to smoke and be dammed with everyone else... What you are saying in simple terms is:

a) if enough people decide to torture small fluffy animals then that is acceptable because a democratic society decided so. hence, who care's if pollution damages people's health, because we're in the majority. In that case if the majority of people smoked, would they cease to be immature?

b) because the economic benefits outweigh the health ones it is acceptable to pollute cities. (You'd make a good Republican...)

---

Also if you would give all the chickens the space that they would require for a "normal" life than we wouldn't actually have enough space for everyone to have their eggs at breakfast.

---

We're back to the same thing as the last paragraph here....I never suggested there SHOULD be enough eggs for everyone to eat at breakfast, I suggested that in order for that to happen people are willing to perform an 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude and not question the quality of the lives of the hens. Once again, the question should be - how are they any more mature in that decision than a smoker is deciding he doesn't care about the health of people around him.

---

When we look at China for example we see that if the labor wasn't that cheap they wouldn't have gotten the work in the first place.

---

I see your point, and I'm not readily able to dispute it, but I suspect it's not quite that simple. To clarify the point I was trying to make, it's like the eggs thing. Our economy is driven by consumerism, and in order to supply an ever increasing number of things most of us don't really need in the name of economic growth. What this boils down to is that in order to feed the demands of consumerism for a western society, others, namely underdeveloped countries must provide those goods while living on a pittance. Whether there is a 'better way' is a HUGE topic, but that reality is something else that western societies choose to ignore in the same 'out of sight, out of mind' way. You could almost think of it as orwellian 'doublethink'.

I've wandered way off topic here though and should probably start a thread on Globalisation if anyone wants to discuss the issues in more detail.

---

If you show socially unaccepted behaviour there must be something wrong with you as we are all socially sculpted by that same society in a constant feedback loop of action / reaction and reassesment. If you cannot pick up these signals from your surroundings some would say you are emotional underdeveloped which is also one of the major definitions of immaturity

---

If your political bent is very conservative then you might agree with that, but then ask most gay people who have had to fight for decades to beoome socially accepted if 'there is something wrong with them' - they might not be very happy with you..

---

But of course there are a lot of things in life which aren't right however they are socially accepted which makes them totally acceptable and a normal part of life

---

Hehe, reads just like a definition of 'doublethink' we agree on something then..

(Edited by Funky Monkey 16/09/2004 13:20)

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
If there were so many customers who didnt like the smoke there would be a profitable market for non-smoking pubs

---

The Laurel Pub Company has started opening a chain of no-smoking pubs across the UK under the "Phoenix" banner. They plan to have over 60 at the end of the year and had 10 operational in April.

But what about the people that work in the pubs. What about their health? They are just trying to earn an honest days wages....

---

In that case if the majority of people smoked, would they cease to be immature?

---

Yes as they would follow what is socially acceptable behaviour Thats why smoking is being dealt with so fierce now as years back they knew that smoking was addictive and that it was bad for you. (thats why they had to play billions in damages in the states ) But aslong as your main demographic smokes you aren't gonna say "You can't smoke anymore" as it's not the view of the majority

---

because the economic benefits outweigh the health ones it is acceptable to pollute cities.

---

If you "at this moment" forbid cars and trucks the economy would be in total disarray and would collapse like a house of cards. Which will eventually do more harm than good especially in the short run. Imagine what happens if food can't be delivered to the shops anymore. Emergency personal can't get anywhere fast etc etc. Total chaos! You would get scenes like the big riots in the USA when they had major power outages for a long period of time years ago. Doesn't mean you shouldn't work on the underlaying infrastructure to eventually phase cars out as we know them. But currently the mess you create heavily outweights the long term effects of stopping with cars 10 years earlier. But at the moment we are depended and we just can't go cold turkey without suffering major consequences.

---

Once again, the question should be - how are they any more mature in that decision than a smoker is deciding he doesn't care about the health of people around him.

---

The same way that I can easily have a bbq'ed chicken from sainsbury's but if I had my neighbours kid on my plate nicely bbq'ed for Sunday lunch I would have a serious problem with that!

I'm not saying that what they do with those chickens is okay but for me it has a totally different weightfactor that a human life.....

---

I see your point, and I'm not readily able to dispute it, but I suspect it's not quite that simple.

---

It's a tiny bit more complex like that but actually economic models are relativly simple. It's a complex game of supply and demand where price is a very important factor as money is scarce.

---

What this boils down to is that in order to feed the demands of consumerism for a western society, others, namely underdeveloped countries must provide those goods while living on a pittance.

---

Funny thing is however that most of the underdeveloped countries have loads and loads of natural resources. Biggest deposits of gold / diamonds / minerals etc can all be found in Africa. So those poor countries are literally sitting on a pot of gold. Problem is that the goverments there are pretty crappy and prefer to buy weapons and fight between themselves instead of investing in industry.

Example: Mugabe: " We, the principle people of Zimbabwe, we, the true owners of this land, shall not budge, the land is ours". So what do they do kick.. all the "white" farmers out.

"Mugabe declared a state of disaster over worsening food shortages in a bid to get donor aid and avert mass starvation in a nation long seen as a regional breadbasket.Aid agencies estimate 7.8 million of Zimbabwe's 13 million people are in need of food assistance."....
"Zimbabwe has blamed the crisis on a drought, but the World Food Programme says farm disruptions caused by a programme to seize white-owned farms for landless blacks has also contributed to the problem."

Does anyone see a link between kicking white pharmers out and having no food and the possible effects of all of a sudden stopping the usage of cars anyone

But I'm drifting off. Yes there is a situation where most of the cheap labor is provided by these countries but just as kicking all the white pharmers out putting a full stop to it directly and taking very harse actions will undoubtfully do more harm than good in the short run. The world economies are in a very fragile balance which you cannot disrupt without serious consequences. (9/11 for example)

The fact that labor is cheap is the only reason they get the work in the first place. As unskilled workers aren't great for quality / productivity. Also factors you have to keep in mind (one reason loads of callcenters in India are coming back to the UK after a few years as they can't deliver the same quality which also costs money (customers leave))

---

Whether there is a 'better way' is a HUGE topic, but that reality is something else that western societies choose to ignore in the same 'out of sight, out of mind' way. You could almost think of it as orwellian 'doublethink'.

---

The whole thing is so funny as less than 100 years ago we also had kids working in factories under crappy working conditions earning near to nothing for 14 - 16 hour working days. I believe that was call the industrial ara. We went through all the passes of all the different stages and loads of those countries have never gone through all those steps yet and are just starting. You can't except everyone to be at the same level we are in no time. I took us years an years to get where we are now and those "underdeveloped countries" are now doing the same things we did but way faster because they have help and an example to follow. But we are now saying that what we did ourselves to get were we are now is wrong if they do the same to make the same steps..... Also keep in mind that their expectations of life are totally different and you can't project yours on theirs just the same as you can't do the same with your grand grandpa's

---

I've wandered way off topic here though and should probably start a thread on Globalisation if anyone wants to discuss the issues in more detail.

---

Good idea Would love to discusse that further. Found it one of the more interesting economics courses I followed over the years.

---

but then ask most gay people who have had to fight for decades to beoome socially accepted if 'there is something wrong with them' - they might not be very happy with you..

---

Well from a biological and evolutionairy viewpoint being gay makes no sense at all. So from that viewpoint there is certainly something "wrong" with them. The reason they had to fight so hard to be accepted by society is if you are a minority and you want to get yourself heard and accepted by the majority you have to work a lot harder. As the majority makes the decisions Gays are now slowly getting accepted by society in the western world because of all the hard work they did. Slowly it is becoming socially acceptable to be gay. Which gender people prefer in their partners is no concern of me. What makes you happy makes you happy And aslong as you don't violate any of my "rights" in the process go and have fun

---

we agree on something then..

---

At least we agree on something

(Edited by Chambler 16/09/2004 22:31)

(Edited by Chambler 16/09/2004 22:43)

ban booze!!! loads of nhs money and government money (police etc etc) are wasted cos of people getting blind drunk on a weekend! ...but oh now nowts said about that, its always smoking isnt it?!

kinda hypocritical by the government methinks...anyway i drink and smoke i'm saying that if one thing gets demonised and scruitinsed so should the other!

---

by willow_fantastico
ban booze!!! loads of nhs money and government money (police etc etc) are wasted cos of people getting blind drunk on a weekend! ...but oh now nowts said about that, its always smoking isnt it?!

kinda hypocritical by the government methinks...anyway i drink and smoke i'm saying that if one thing gets demonised and scruitinsed so should the other!

---

But the difference between the effects of smoking and drinking on other people are totally different. You can't exactly passive drink can you?

---

by Milky

But the difference between the effects of smoking and drinking on other people are totally different. You can't exactly passive drink can you?

---

This is true, but you can drink and drive. This is the first time i've said something in this discussion, as everyone seems to have already said what i want to, but now i'm here, i might as well add my two penneth...

I'm all for raising the age of being able to by cigarettes etc to 18. The harder it is for kids to buy them, the less likely it is they will and then get hooked. Sure people can still buy them for them, but it's still that little bit harder for them.

I don't smoke myself now, although i did try it at school dur to peer pressure as all the other older cool kids were doing it (yes, i was weak ), but i didn't carry on as it made me throw up, but loads of others did cos it was "cool". If the older kids at school can't get hold of them, then the younger ones won't start trying it, if you see what i mean.

As for the argument someone was making about not banning smoking in pubs cos the majority of people in them smoke so it wouldn't be a majority rules type situation, well, i don't agree. A lot of people don't go into pubs because of the smoke that's in there, myself included, i can't stand the smokey smell. It makes my eyes water and my clothes stink along with the fact that i'm passive smoking. If people didn't smoke in pubs i'd be more inclined to go in them more often, as i'm sure many others would.

And i'm totally on board with the immature thing. Nowadays you do have to be pretty stupid to take up the habit with all the facts flying about about how much damage it does to your body. And i suppose you have to be pretty immature not to make more of an effort to quit if you are addicted as well. You can get patches and everything on the NHS, so why not give it ago and try to reverse some of the years of damage?

---

by lil_miss
(quotes)
This is true, but you can drink and drive.

---

And? You can drink and then punch someone in the face/ knife someone. Drinking lowers your inhibitions and dulls your senses but the kind of person that would do these things doesn't really change because they've had a drink. There are laws against all these things. Drive when drunk and you'll lose your licence and perhaps get jailed. Assault someone while drunk and you'll get a fine and perhaps a jail sentance. Smoke around someone and give them cancer, well ain't that just a shame.

There's no crime/payback against someone that makes you passive smoke. That must feel great for anyone who gets cancer/bronchitis etc but has never willfully smoked a cigarette in there life.