Smokers getting a rough ride?

cornbb

Increasing the price of cigarettes has done absolutely nothing to curb smoking in the past. All it serves to do is penalise the less well-off, who tend to smoke more than the middle classes. I agree that something needs to be done to stop kids from smoking but this hasn't worked before, why should it work now?

Edit: not to promote smoking or anything, but I'd recommend that if fellow smokers can't quit, they should switch to rollies. They're far cheaper, the rate of taxation increases is lower, and you'll get used to them in no time. I switched years ago. If you're gonna kill yourself, might as well do it cheaply is what I say

Dragan

kizzyr wrote:

When it comes down to it smoking is a personal choice for someone to do or not do, I think it makes people smell, their clothes, breath, stains fingers, ages people, the are spending their money stupidly and I find it disgusting.

And thats fair enough, and all quite accurate!!!

Also, my apologies for calling you fella, i just copped on from another post that you are, in fact, a lady!

eirebhoy

Tackle69 wrote:

I remember they increased the price of cigerettes fairly drastically a few years ago to try and curb the same problem and look what it did... Nothing!

How do you know that? Only a few years ago I remember hearing that 1 in 3 Irish people smoke. Now it's down to about 24%.

Dragan

eirebhoy wrote:

How do you know that? Only a few years ago I remember hearing that 1 in 3 Irish people smoke. Now it's down to about 24%.

Indeed, but how much have the population increased in that time? I reckon the bases of smokers now would be bigger than then.

Fighting Irish

eirebhoy wrote:

How do you know that? Only a few years ago I remember hearing that 1 in 3 Irish people smoke. Now it's down to about 24%.

Sure buddy

kizzyr

Dragan wrote:

And thats fair enough, and all quite accurate!!!

Also, my apologies for calling you fella, i just copped on from another post that you are, in fact, a lady!

Every inch of one too;) (everything the other people say is an outright lie:D )

grumpytrousers

kizzyr wrote:

I'm not a Nazi about it, if you chose to "enjoy" your addiction then that is your perogative. However you will in the long run through your "enjoyable" actions end up costing those who don't smoke a lot more through health care etc. I really think they should be hugely expensive and if they cost enough it will stop people starting in the first place and maybe just maybe make those who are still smoking stop and think about what else they could be spending their money on.

as a matter of interest...would the anti-smokers here also support a massive increase in the duties payable on, say, alcohol (due to the proven causation of liver damage by same) and any fatty foods which are major contributors to heart disease/obesity? An extra euro on a pound of butter, for instance? I mean, you don't HAVE to use it on your spuds, but you're wilfully taking something that's proven to be bad for you?

i'm not trying to justify anything here...just wondering how serious people are about this whole 'living by the choices we make'...

Lynfo

Wasn't there something mentioned this week that we could all buy smokes & drink from abroad and pay far less tax than we would here? surely there is no point in banning 10 packs if this is the case?

And just for the record, I'm an ex-smoker and still believe people should be able to smoke if they feel like it. People will give up if and when they want to, and not due to pressure from others. Just my 2 cents

raido9

grumpytrousers wrote:

as a matter of interest...would the anti-smokers here also support a massive increase in the duties payable on, say, alcohol (due to the proven causation of liver damage by same) and any fatty foods which are major contributors to heart disease/obesity? An extra euro on a pound of butter, for instance? I mean, you don't HAVE to use it on your spuds, but you're wilfully taking something that's proven to be bad for you?

i'm not trying to justify anything here...just wondering how serious people are about this whole 'living by the choices we make'...

Good point! I agree with this completely. Smoking seems to be the only vice that is attacked. There are lots of things we do that are not good for us but we do them anyway becaise we enjoy them. Anti-smokers can't understand that it can actually be enjoyable to smoke a cigarette. It is a choice and I think its wrong to be penalised for choosing to smoke.

Cathy said earlier that passive smoking is still a big problem. I'd like to ask where is it a big problem. Smokers can't smoke in any public places these days (which I think has been great) so can only smoke in their own home, which I think is fair enough if you choose to.

kizzyr

grumpytrousers wrote:

as a matter of interest...would the anti-smokers here also support a massive increase in the duties payable on, say, alcohol (due to the proven causation of liver damage by same) and any fatty foods which are major contributors to heart disease/obesity? An extra euro on a pound of butter, for instance? I mean, you don't HAVE to use it on your spuds, but you're wilfully taking something that's proven to be bad for you?

i'm not trying to justify anything here...just wondering how serious people are about this whole 'living by the choices we make'...

I do think something really needs to be done about the way Irish people behave with regard to alcohol. I've said this before, as a nation we really have very little self control about the way we drink. I find it pathetic really that people really seem to be think that there is nothing else to do except drink and then they drink to such excess. While I said I'm in favour of cigarette prices being increased I'm not sure if it will stop enough people from smoking and while you'd think education as to the dangers of smoking would be a prevention method some people are impervious to the truth. So I don't know if increasing the tax on alcohol would work either and I'm not of the exact same opinion of alcohol as I am of smoking. Having a drink once per week harms no one but when you smoke you don't have a cigarette once per week, its addictive so it doesn't work in the same way.
Incidentally I was in favour of the so called "fat tax" but again your example of using butter on your potatoes doesn't really work. Someone may occasionally use butter in that way or on their toast but thats different to someone who can't be arsed cooking dinner and so phones for pizza and chips to be delivered every evening and their only exercise for the day is getting from the couch to the front door to pay the delivery man. Then one day oops their obese and can't figure out how that happened or how they got Type II diabetes, why their joints hurt etc.

cornbb

While we're on the subject:

from ireland.com breaking news:

Allen Carr dies from lung cancer

Allen Carr the man who went on to help millions of people to give up smoking after giving up his 100-a-day habit - has died from lung cancer.

The 72-year-old was at his home near Malaga in Spain and his family were with him, a spokeswoman said.

Friends said it seemed probable that the years he spent curing smokers in smoke-filled sessions at his clinics may have contributed to the illness.

Mr Carr started his career as a qualified accountant in 1958. He was successful in his chosen profession, but his cigarette addiction was driving him to despair. He developed his Easyway method of giving up smoking in 1983 and set up a clinic in south west London.

He went on to build an empire of 70 clinics in 30 countries which treated 45,000 people last year. Aside from his tips on how to give up smoking, Mr Carr gave advice on how to stop drinking and lose weight.

He sold more than 10 million copies of his books and DVDs worldwide. His first book, Allen Carr's Easyway To Stop Smoking, has sold more than seven million copies. John Dicey, worldwide director of Allen Carr's Easyway, said today:

"This is a tragic and emotional day for everyone involved with Allen Carr's Easyway organisation, most of whom, as former smokers, owe Allen their lives.

"Our hearts go out to Allen's family and the millions of former smokers who will be saddened by his passing.

"The fact that a former 100-a-day smoker, having quit in his middle age, lived to the ripe old age of 72 is a tremendous message to all smokers.

"Allen Carr's refreshingly different approach to stopping smoking earned him the position as the world's leading expert on helping smokers to quit.

"He was an iconic figure and a real inspiration and we will celebrate his life's work by ensuring that Allen Carr's Easyway message and method continues helping smokers quit throughout the world."

Mr Carr is survived by his wife, Joyce, his four children, two step-children, 11 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

eirebhoy

Fighting Irish wrote:

Sure buddy

You do realise that 24% is 1 in 4? And you don't think that a few years ago that figure was 1 in 3 (33%)? Or am I missing something?

raido9

Carr,who quit his own 100-a-day smoking habit 23 years ago, lost his cancer battle at his home in Spain this morning with his family by his side.

100 a day is ridiculous, would that be like a constant chain smoke everyday

cornbb

I don't think anyone could function normally on 100 a day these days. You'd need to be at home or outdoors all the time.

Love2love

Ireland's measures against smoking has benefitted eveyone, even the smokers. I know I smoke alot less when I'm home in Ireland. I'm here in Germany I think it scandalous that they advertise people smoking "looking cool", they also have smoking vending machines on every street corner where any child can get them without being asked for identification and they only cost 4euros for a pack of 20. Not only that but I'm restricted where ever I go because they smoke everywhere here and I don't want my son subjected to it! They smoke in the supermarket for feck sake!

Having said that I doubt this is the reason for the price increase, its for the fat cat politians to get their annual pay increase that they worked so hard for.

Wacker

I am a non-smoker, and very tolerant of smoking. What annoys me is all the complaining that goes on about the issue. And, believe it or not, the complaints come mostly from smokers.

Lads, look at it. The tax on cigarettes has not gone up in either of the last two budgets. Up until very recently, it was seen as ineivitable that the tax would go up every year, or at least every other year. For the last two years it hasn't. Be grateful for that much.
What I mean is, taxing cigarettes makes all the economic sense in the world. A high price on cigarettes could potentially prevent people from starting to smoke in the first place, and it could also encourage people to quit.
Smokers freely accept that the deciion will negatively impact upon their health, and government money will be used to treat diseased lungs, so it makes perfect sense in that respect for the government to ensure that they get as much tax out of it as they can.
And most of all, any arguement that people are being robbed can simply be countered by pointing out that one can quit. I find it bizarre that people attribute such blame to the government for what is their own decision.

I think the most ingenius coup pulled by the smoking lobby was in convincing people that non-smokers are whingers. It really looks like the reverse to me. How anyone can say something like "Well, I only wanted ten smokes, but I had to buy twenty, so I smoked them all!" and come across as anything other than a fool is beyond me. What is even crazier is that the above position gets sympathy.

Before anyone mentions it, I do support similair taxation increases on alcohol too, and I am a drinker. Sauce for the goose, etc.

cornbb

Wacker wrote:

What I mean is, taxing cigarettes makes all the economic sense in the world. A high price on cigarettes could potentially prevent people from starting to smoke in the first place, and it could also encourage people to quit

With due respect, you are a non-smoker who doesn't understand the nature of the addiction. Price increases will piss smokers off and maybe, just maybe, provide enough of an incentive to quit. In the vast majority of cases however, this is not a strong enough factor in the equation. Education is far more important than taxation IMO. As I said, higher taxes on tobacco will only serve to make poor people poorer.

Smellyirishman

cornbb wrote:

Education is far more important than taxation IMO.

You think there is a single person out there that doesn't understand the health risks involved in smoking? Hello, read the box you're paying so much money for.

Wacker

cornbb wrote:

Education is far more important than taxation IMO. As I said, higher taxes on tobacco will only serve to make poor people poorer.

Alright, how does the government pay for extra anti-smoking education? Maybe with the tax on cigarettes?

Yes, increased taxation on cigarettes will make poor people poorer; I am not denying that. But there is a way of avoiding this problem (quitting obviously), and people will be admired and encouraged for doing so.

cornbb

Smellyirishman wrote:

You think there is a single person out there that doesn't understand the health risks involved in smoking? Hello, read the box you're paying so much money for.

Absolutely, that's the whole point!

Most people start smoking when they are in their teens and don't know any better. They may be vaguely aware of the health risks but are generally unaware that they may end up hooked on a costly and deadly habit for life. Hence the need for education.

Wacker

Smellyirishman wrote:

You think there is a single person out there that doesn't understand the health risks involved in smoking? Hello, read the box you're paying so much money for.

I disagree with th sentiment of this post. While I remember that nobody seemed to pay too much attention to education on smoming when I was in school (all the lads who smoked were convinced that they would never smoke more than two a day, and all the non-smokers thought it had nothing to do with them), I think greater investment in this area could (and probably does already) yield results. It just has to be paid for is all, and what better way than through large taxes on a pack?

Smellyirishman

cornbb wrote:

They may be vaguely aware of the health risks but are generally unaware that they may end up hooked on a costly and deadly habit for life. Hence the need for education.

I really doubt that tbh, yes, more education is always helpful but I think the vast majority of people, teenager or otherwise, understand the risks that come with smoking (nevermind the fact that it's illegal).

http://www.answers.com/topic/tobacco-packaging-warning-signs wrote:

Additionally, one of the following additional warnings must be displayed, covering at least 40% of the surface of the pack:
Smokers die younger
Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes
Smoking causes fatal lung cancer
Smoking when pregnant harms your baby
Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke
Your doctor or your pharmacist can help you stop smoking
Smoking is highly addictive, don't start
Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases
Smoking can cause a slow and painful death
Get help to stop smoking: telephone/postal address/internet address/consult your doctor/pharmacist
Smoking may reduce the blood flow and cause impotence
Smoking causes ageing of the skin
Smoking can damage the sperm and decreases fertility
Smoke contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.

That covers the addictive element and I am pretty sure teenagers can figure out how expensive it is all by themselves (again, nevermind the fact that it is illegal).

seamus

I don't really see the point of this. As said, if a kid can get together money for a box of ten, then they can just as easily get money together for a box of twenty. From what I've heard, the usual thing people do when they start smoking as teenagers is to chip in together and split the box. So I don't see how double the cigarettes makes it any harder to split or hide your cigs.

That said, I couldn't really care less. A box of twenty cigarettes isn't like a packet of twenty batteries. You *are* going to smoke them, and it's not any cheaper to buy them in smaller or larger packets. If you're struggling to get the money together to buy a box of twenty, then maybe you should re-evaluate the wisdom of smoking in the first place.

cornbb

Smellyirishman wrote:

I really doubt that tbh, yes, more education is always helpful but I think the vast majority of people, teenager or otherwise, understand the risks that come with smoking (nevermind the fact that it's illegal).

A warning on a packet cannot possibly convey the addictiveness of cigarettes, nevermind the fact that those warnings become invisible to the smoker pretty rapidly.

Dragan

Guys, the simple fact is that not everyone cares. Some people want to smoke. The same way as some people want to drink, others want to do drugs and so on.

The main problem with a saviour is there refusal to believe that not everyone wants to be saved.

Wacker

Dragan wrote:

Guys, the simple fact is that not everyone cares. Some people want to smoke. The same way as some people want to drink, others want to do drugs and so on.

The main problem with a saviour is there refusal to believe that not everyone wants to be saved.

That is an unusual reply. That would work better if the thread was from somebody saying that cigarettes should be taxed more, to pay for this and that. But that isn't the case. It is looking like the tax is about to go up.

It is smokers who need to be resigned to the facts, not the government (i.e. saviours).

cornbb

I think another big factor in the whole smoking/anti smoking divide is the stigma associated with being a smoker. While most people are reasonably tolerant of smoking, and fair play to them for it, there are some out there who should really mind their own f*cking business. One day I was stopped on the street by an oldish guy who told me I must "beg the lord" for the strength to quit my habit, or something along those lines. Common courtesy prevented me from telling him to **** himself. I've had big-time falling outs with anti smoking friends too.

I for one hate the fact that I have a label because I'm a smoker. I know that's my own doing, but it makes me resent being patronised and lectured to. I suppose on the whole thats a good thing though, if it helps me quit. But whether I smoke or not is my own business.

Dragan

Wacker wrote:

That is an unusual reply. That would work better if the thread was from somebody saying that cigarettes should be taxed more, to pay for this and that. But that isn't the case. It is looking like the tax is about to go up.

It is smokers who need to be resigned to the facts, not the government (i.e. saviours).

To be honest, i haven't seen a single smoker in this thread saying " i will not get cancer/sick/whatever?". So maybe you can point out where they are not "resigned to the facts".

The simple truth is that smokers are well aware what smoking goes, and still they choose to smoke.

The government does not give a flying monkies fcuk about getting people off smokes....if it did it would simply ban them outright.

It just wants more money. I would think that is pretty plain for all to see

Tar.Aldarion

QuinnyKid wrote:

what about those of us that only smoke ten a day ...going to have to buy twentys now and end up smoking more....

oh I forgot, cigs that are not smoked in one day go off after seven hours and explode after ten.

J.R.HARTLEY

cornbb wrote:

I think another big factor in the whole smoking/anti smoking divide is the stigma associated with being a smoker. While most people are reasonably tolerant of smoking, and fair play to them for it, there are some out there who should really mind their own f*cking business. One day I was stopped on the street by an oldish guy who told me I must "beg the lord" for the strength to quit my habit, or something along those lines. Common courtesy prevented me from telling him to **** himself. I've had big-time falling outs with anti smoking friends too.

I for one hate the fact that I have a label because I'm a smoker. I know that's my own doing, but it makes me resent being patronised and lectured to. I suppose on the whole thats a good thing though, if it helps me quit. But whether I smoke or not is my own business.

there's arseholes everywhere Cornbb, i had a pratt try to light up twice in my house after being told not to, he went out the door backwards,
i've also had self righteous cnuts tell me i deserved Lung Cancer for smoking, when i never smoked in my life, i've seen good and bad on both sides so drop the crap.