Cigarettes! Get your cigarettes here!

In All Fairness

copacetic wrote: »

You can't assure me of anything, you're just making things up. If you actually read what I said it has nothing to do with lifetime costs, it's year on year net cost. Tax take year on year from smokers doesn't cover the cost of treating them. Thats a net loss to us every year. Sure, some of them die, but then someone else comes along and starts smoking to replace them.

The difference between your 70 year old smoker and 90 year old with alzheimers is that the 90 year old probably didn't cause their own illness. Which is the whole point.

I've no problem with people smoking and killing themselves slowly, it's the complaining that they shouldn't be taxed to the hilt for the pleasure I have an issue with.

You seem to me like a rabid anti-smoker who can't bear to accept the fact that non-smokers cost the taxpayer far more than smokers as a previous poster advised you with far better vouched for facts than yours. You refuse to accept the fact that people have to die of something which will be either smoking related or not smoking related while believing that this is not contained in the year on year figures and you have refused to answer whether you think smokers should enjoy a higher pension.Also I would be interested to know where you stand on sport/hobby related injuries.Should a person who cuts themselves with a chisel not be treated because they chose to take up woodworking?

jumpguy

There's only one way to find out who costs more.

How much of the leading bankers that caused the current crisis were smokers? If more were smokers, then ye cost more, if not, then we cost more.

waitinforatrain

jochenstacker wrote: »

I don’t regard this as unpatriotic, what I do regard as unpatriotic is the fact that the government and the retailers have conspired to screw the people for as much money as anyhow humanly possible.

Retailers are screwing nobody. Government are making about €6.50 per pack in tax.

€6.50 to the government each time you buy fags, that should help ya quit.

copacetic

cornbb wrote: »

Oh come on. You're the one throwing around baseless claims, I'm now calling your bluff and asking you to back them up.

I did a quick google and found various sources which claimed that the treatment of "smoking related illnesses" cost between €1-2bn per year. I can't find figures indicating how much the Revenue is taking in. I've done my bit, I'm now challenging you to back up your claim. Otherwise its fair to assume that you plucked it out of the air.

I'm not throwing around baseless claims. I'm stating facts. Every fact that you yourself doesn't know isn't a 'baseless claim'

here is one after a 5 second google:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/tsg/2007/TSG0716.pdf

1.1billion in 2006, 1.15billion in 2007.

it's been pretty constant at around this level since 2003.

I've not seen an estimate of less than 1.5 billion to 3billion for the health costs.

copacetic

In All Fairness wrote: »

You seem to me like a rabid anti-smoker who can't bear to accept the fact that non-smokers cost the taxpayer far more than smokers as a previous poster advised you with far better vouched for facts than yours. You refuse to accept the fact that people have to die of something which will be either smoking related or not smoking related while believing that this is not contained in the year on year figures and you have refused to answer whether you think smokers should enjoy a higher pension.Also I would be interested to know where you stand on sport/hobby related injuries.Should a person who cuts themselves with a chisel not be treated because they chose to take up woodworking?

not at all, i couldn't give a flying feck, but whinging about paying the excise on the habit is a bit much.

As for 'better vouched for facts', there was no vouching or facts listed, just opinion. Just because you agree doesn't make something a fact.

I don't remember refusing to answer anyone about anything. Higher pension for smokers? This is because they will die sooner?

Grand, as long as they die by a certain agreed date, say 67 or so. What do we do with them if they hang on? Are you sure you have thought this through?

I'm surprised dying young is now being used as a rallying call as to why smoking is great for the country. Maybe you can get some slogans done up to get more people to take it up and get us out of this financial mess?

In All Fairness

copacetic wrote: »

not at all, i couldn't give a flying feck, but whinging about paying the excise on the habit is a bit much.

As for 'better vouched for facts', there was no vouching or facts listed, just opinion. Just because you agree doesn't make something a fact.

I don't remember refusing to answer anyone about anything. Higher pension for smokers? This is because they will die sooner?

Grand, as long as they die by a certain agreed date, say 67 or so. What do we do with them if they hang on? Are you sure you have thought this through?

I'm surprised dying young is now being used as a rallying call as to why smoking is great for the country. Maybe you can get some slogans done up to get more people to take it up and get us out of this financial mess?

The figures for the costs of smokers v non-smokers together with the link were given in a previous post. I didn't use dying young as a rallying call, I was making a financial argument saying that smokers and non-smokers retire at sixty-five and the associated cost to the taxpayer to look after these people is far greater for non-smokers than it is for smokers as non-smokers tend to live a lot longer and as people age their health requirements increase regardless of whether they are smokers or non-smokers. As to your pension question I personally think things are fine the way they are,but your remark about thinking things through seems strange. A pension fund is administered on an actuarial basis. Why you would think smokers would have to die at a certain age is beyond me.The cumulative number of years is divided by the number of people as with any other pension fund.

You Suck!

jumpguy wrote: »

How much of the leading bankers that caused the current crisis were smokers? If more were smokers, then ye cost more, if not, then we cost more.

Nah, doesn't really matter if there are more smokers or not....the b(w)ankers are far more costlier to society regardless.......the irony being that these are the same uptight shower of shi-ts that have to marginalise others for not being as bureaucratic about life as they are.

Worse still are those who aspire to be like these anal agoraphobics.....

nayorleck114

I suppose any discussion on cigarettes is always going to be contentious. Those addicted will always side with Amercian Tobacco companies. Those not addicted will never side with smokers. Me, I was addicted until I saw my smoker uncle die of lung cancer at 58, terrible death.

Wibbs

el_weirdo wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that smokers are less likely to get alzheimers...

Rates of parkinsons and ulcerative colitis are lower in smokers for some reason. http://ibdcrohns.about.com/cs/ibdfaqs/a/smokingguts.htm http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/news/20060811/nicotine-slows-parkinsons-disease Symptoms of ADD are lessened too.

As for 80% of smokers get cancer compared to 25% quoted before I'd love to know where that stat came from. California throws up an interesting stat. Since just after WW2 there has been an ongoing study of health stats and one weird one is that smoking rates among men in the late 40's early 50's were 50+%, nowadays it's close to 11%, yet in that time period the long cancer rate has remained steady(heart disease has dropped appreciably, so ciggies are worse than the recent fattier diet of californians it seems). That makes no sense. When asbestos was blamed for various illnesses and removed from the environment ten years on the rates of asbestiosis had fallen massively(funny tobacco smoking has a protective effect with asbestos exposure). Which one would expect.

Non smokers get lung cancer too. Of course that's usually blamed on "passive smoke". I would put good money that if tobacco was banned worldwide tomorrow in 50 years we would see an obvious drop in lung cancer rates, but not nearly as big as expected.

Look at longevity stats worldwide. Among the longest living populations, Japan, Greece, Sardinia, Andorra, the smoking rates are high(particularly among the Japanese), higher than Ireland. Diet, insulin sensitivity, sun exposure, social bonds and vigourous exercise appear to have a bigger effect than tobacco use, or the diet, sun exposure and exercise has a protective effect.

It's also down to dosage. It is utter nonsense to suggest that a 2 a day smoker is in the same ballpark as a 40 a day smoker, yet this idea is common. The "Oh 2 a day will kill you just as quick" brigade. We all know that heavily processed fatty food is bad for the human body, but few would claim that a guy having one chemically laced chinner dinner a week is at the same risk as someone surviving on them on a daily basis.

Is smoking bad for you? Yes, of course it is. It increases the risk of certain cancers and heart disease. It is a co factor in many of these illnesses. It is not the only one, or the vast majority of smokers would die from lung cancer and they don't. Is it as bad for you as is made out? Personally I think not and I think there is much hype attached to it, worthy cause or not. Yes I think if no one smoked the world would be a healthier place(with a small rise in parkinsons etc). It's the often non scientific and non logical hype that attaches to this topic that riles me.

It's a fashionable medical/health meme. I would put it up there with sun exposure and skin cancer. Another one that needs attention that goes beyond the hype.

My name is URL

copacetic wrote: »

I'm surprised dying young is now being used as a rallying call as to why smoking is great for the country.

Who said that?

Take the high-horse shaped dildo out of your ass!

but whinging about paying the excise on the habit is a bit much.

and whinging about how smokers should pay more is also a bit much

IvySlayer

Smokers are stupid to take something that's bad for them and addictive :mad::mad:

Now I'm going to drink a 6 pack of Heineken while I judge you :mad:

Terry

The_Minister wrote: »

I just posted this in the Expand Your Horizons forum.
It doesn't apply to cigarettes, but I think it demonstrates quite well that our alcohol policy is in error.

Feckin' spammer.



I'd like to see them banned. Two reasons.
1. I'd be more likely to quit.
2. To see the faces on the current non-smokers when they realise that they are going to have to pay taxes to fund health care for those who smoked before the ban.

Picture their faces when they realise that the government are now down about €2 billion a year on taxes from tobacco products.

Kimia

OP is completely right. The government is raking it in on tax from cigarettes and then you have these morons saying that it's to fund the health system when the smokers eventually get lung cancer and need treatment.

Firstly, I see absolutely no evidence that all these billions of euros from cigarette tax are going to our health system.

Secondly, what about fat people and obese related illness. Why is there not a tax on your weight? I know you can't tax food in the same way as cigarettes as it's the person choice to over eat which is different to smoking, but it's the same principle - they are going to be putting pressure on the health system yet nothing is done about that.

Also what about drink? Alcoholic treatment centres, liver disease etc - why isn't drink taxed more?

All the above put strain on the health system - taxing cigarettes is just an easy way for the government to make easy money which they most certainly do not put towards the health system.

Imagine if all the smokers gave up! Our economy would crumble from the billions of euros lost. Why don't they just ban cigarettes if they feel that strongly about it? They won't because they make a fortune off smokers.

And I am a smoker. And to be honest I've no problem being taxed more if it does go towards a proper and decent health system. But it doesn't, therefore I'll buy my cigs anywhere I can to save a few bob.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

jochenstacker

Well put, exactly my point, smokers are being singled out and everyone else is free to kill themselves as they see fit.
In short, I smoke and if you don't like it, too bad.
I know that plenty of people have "opinions" about my smoking, but as they say, opinions are like ar*eholes, everyone's got one.

waitinforatrain

Kimia wrote: »

Imagine if all the smokers gave up! Our economy would crumble from the billions of euros lost.

Only by design. You'd swear that the whole capitalist idea was based on tobacco the way some of ye talk.

Red Alert

I'm fed up of smokers. Smoking breaks, smoking shelters... the list goes on. Then of course, the rest of us dare not trample on their 'rights', which seem to be be based on the idea that they can pollute the airspace the rest of us have to share.

brendanuk

Borderless trade inside EU is a sham. Why do i have to go to spain to buy cigarettes why cant i just order them from the internet.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

jochenstacker

brendanuk wrote: »

Borderless trade inside EU is a sham. Why do i have to go to spain to buy cigarettes why cant i just order them from the internet.

Some stuff you can order online, pay whatever duty is applicable and have it sent to you.
Most larger British chains in the North make this impossible by demanding a NI postcode and only offering home delivery on large, expensive items that cost up to 50% more from the same chain here, therefore conspiring to price gouging to which I was referring in the original post.

Other items (such as cigarettes and alcohol), must be purchased personally in the country you want it from (be that France, Germany, etc...) and brought over yourself. So, either fly there, or get a cheap trip via ferry, buy your booze and fags (as many as you want) and bring them back.

My name is URL

Red Alert wrote: »

I'm fed up of smokers. Smoking breaks, smoking shelters... the list goes on. Then of course, the rest of us dare not trample on their 'rights', which seem to be be based on the idea that they can pollute the airspace the rest of us have to share.

That sort of blind ignorance really pisses me off.

Do people make it a priority to pollute your 'space'?

It was banned inside business premises, what more do you want?

When you walk through a town do you blabber on about how the cars & trucks are polluting your airspace?

You could always use those 2 dangly things coming out of your arse cheeks to gtfo and go somewhere else, but then you couldn't get all high and mighty about the persecution you suffer at the hands of these clean air killers

waitinforatrain

My name is URL wrote: »

That sort of blind ignorance really pisses me off.

Do people make it a priority to pollute your 'space'?

It was banned inside business premises, what more do you want?

When you walk through a town do you blabber on about how the cars & trucks are polluting your airspace?

You could always use those 2 dangly things coming out of your arse cheeks to gtfo and go somewhere else, but then you couldn't get all high and mighty about the persecution you suffer at the hands of these clean air killers

If you had your sense of smell left you'd probably feel the same as him.

My name is URL

waitinforatrain wrote: »

If you had your sense of smell left you'd probably feel the same as him.

I can smell your bullsh!t, howzat?

Weak argument there really. I don't know anyone thats lost their sense of smell by smoking

Fighting Irish

copacetic wrote: »

rubbish. The tax take on cigarettes comes nowhere near to covering the cost of smoking related illness.

:rolleyes:

Dublin_Gunner

Red Alert wrote: »

I'm fed up of smokers. Smoking breaks, smoking shelters... the list goes on. Then of course, the rest of us dare not trample on their 'rights', which seem to be be based on the idea that they can pollute the airspace the rest of us have to share.

Do you drive? If so, touche.

Unless you walk within a scarily close distance of every smoker you pass by, your argument is just a tad ridiculous.

Cigarette smoke is hardly causing smog or global warming / greenhouse effects etc.

People stating that the price is going up to make people stop are talking right out of their non-smoked ar$eholes.

I'd love to see what Mr. Taxman would do if every smoker decided to either a) purchase cigarettes abroad, or b) gave up.

This country is really becoming a joke, bending over backward with ridiculous rules to please some back-bench gobsh1te.

"Well we can't ban smoking, but lets make it look like we're doing something by, erm, banning advertising??"

While their at it, without realising that they receive tax on the adverts (VAT on the print / design), tax in the income of the designers & print companies - some of whom may have to lay off staff merely because of the ban on cigarette advertising.

The government if anything, should be encouraging MORE advertising, to get people to buy more things - cigarettes included.

The bloody nanny state is really grinding my gears - do they not realise people can actually make decisions for themselves, and banning the advertising will not stop young people smoking, or reduce the amount of cigarettes bought / sold.

This stupid law goes hand in hand with the reduction of off-licence opening hours. So now the young-uns are just getting drunk earlier. Great move, twats.

Can we not ask for the CV of these eejits in government before we go into the bloody voting office?

What gonna be next - banning old age?? I mean, god knows that costs us probably the most in healthcare than any other ailment - and its one that guaranteed to continue. Pity you can't tax it............

jochenstacker

I can only refer to the South Park episode Butt Out.
It's not about health concerns and being concerned for other people safety.
It's about ars*holes forcing their will onto others and taking away a little bit of their freedom and enjoyment.
Fair enough, we go outside to smoke and rampant advertising of cigarettes in school probably isn't a good idea.
But that is not enough for some people.
They simply hate the fact that you smoke and want to force their will onto you. This has nothing to do with health and everything with controlling you and forcing their will onto others.
These people can't sleep if they knew that somewhere, someone is havign a cigarette.
If they manage to eradicate smoking, they'll move onto the next thing.
Meat eaters, drinkers, junk food lovers, people who do not do the prescribed amount of exercise, etc...
If these people wouldn't concentrate on smoking, they'd do something else, spying on people if they have opinions that differ from what the state prescribes or loading people into gas chambers because "they're only following orders (it's not my fault I love it)".

waitinforatrain

My name is URL wrote: »

I can smell your bullsh!t, howzat?

Weak argument there really. I don't know anyone thats lost their sense of smell by smoking

I did. Stop smoking for a few days you'll start to see just how disgusting it smells

jochenstacker

It's so much better in Pubs now you can smell BO, farts, the jacks (bad) and the kitchens (frequently worse)

Sage'sMama

Buy smokes up North now,save about 2 euro per packet

waitinforatrain

jochenstacker wrote: »

It's so much better in Pubs now you can smell BO, farts, the jacks (bad) and the kitchens (frequently worse)

...drink somewhere that isn't a ****hole