Cigarettes

caseyann

Not sure if i have right place,but since it was brought in by government i think it might be.
I have an issue with the twenty only packets being sold.
Now they said it was to stop under age smokers from smoking which i think is a load of cods wallop,as they merely put their money together and buy them anyway.
So anyone, why was for those who do want to smoke and only paid out for ten and only smoked ten be forced to buy twenty and pay the amount paid for on them?
What was the thinking behind this stupid move,they should have banned twenties and only sold tens.Or was that not enough to tax people on?

And please dont bother saying i should quit,i am sick of people trying to dictate my life to me.My health so my business.

Thanks Casey.

nesf

A perfect example of silly legislation which is well meaning but really is not going to achieve anything other than annoy people.

caseyann

nesf wrote: »

A perfect example of silly legislation which is well meaning but really is not going to achieve anything other than annoy people.

Between me and five of my friends,our smoking habit got worse with the 20 box brought in and the ten banned.If anything they increased the likely hood of smoking more.

zig

its on a par with the 10 o clock closing time for offys, basically politicians wanting to do something so they can say they did something. Im sure they had somewhat good intentions but I doubt they thought for one second about any consequences, instead they just blindly go with it.

zig

caseyann wrote: »

Between me and five of my friends,our smoking habit got worse with the 20 box brought in and the ten banned.If anything they increased the likely hood of smoking more.

that depends really on the person, my mother gets duty free ones from time to time, i.e. the 200 ( i think), but she doesnt smoke any more than if she was to buy single boxes. My point is, its the smoker, 10, 20, 50, it doesnt matter really, if you smoke you smoke and you're most likely going to have your next box ready if you are on your 9th fag out of the 10 box if you get me.

the groutch

caseyann wrote: »

And please dont bother saying i should quit,i am sick of people trying to dictate my life to me.My health so my business.

til our taxes have to pay for treating your lung cancer

zig

the groutch wrote: »

til our taxes have to pay for treating your lung cancer

afaik smoking leaves the country with a net profit tax wise when you take both ends into account.

questionmark?

the groutch wrote: »

til our taxes have to pay for treating your lung cancer

The OP will pay more than enough in tax on fags in a lifetime to cover the chance of this a bit like an insurance policy for the gov. Its not guaranteed to happen either and hopefully it wont.


Anyway back on topic. It was a stupid idea that I do believe lead to people smoking that bit more. How it was meant to stop school kids smoking is beyond me?

the groutch

zig wrote: »

afaik smoking leaves the country with a net profit tax wise when you take both ends into account.

quick, everyone start smoking, we'll smoke our way out of the recession :rolleyes:

zig

yes because thats exactly what I was implying

nesf

the groutch wrote: »

til our taxes have to pay for treating your lung cancer

Less of it please, that's completely off-topic and unhelpful.

Cú Giobach

It is a fact that many/most/some smokers (It's impossible to say the exact proportion) will smoke more if the have more cigarettes.
I smoke rollies and go through 1 25g pack every 2 days, if I get a 50g pack this will ALWAYS last less than 4 days, and the same is true for the majority of people I know.
As with many things when you have a lot of something you don't think about using it but as the amount you have lessens you become more aware of using it and usually (often subconsciously) use less.
This is as true for cigarettes as it is for washing up liquid or the milk you put in your tea.
Another bad move from our lords and masters in their ivory towers.

caseyann

zig wrote: »

its on a par with the 10 o clock closing time for offys, basically politicians wanting to do something so they can say they did something. Im sure they had somewhat good intentions but I doubt they thought for one second about any consequences, instead they just blindly go with it.

I believe if they had of went the other way,and banned 20's people would carry on smoking ten boxes,and if they run out in the day wait for next day for buying.Majority of the people i know this happened to them.
I agree they didnt think much into it.
Ofc you had people who smoked twenty in first place but that was their choice.
Most people would rather pay for the ten and not buy twenty at all.

zig wrote: »

that depends really on the person, my mother gets duty free ones from time to time, i.e. the 200 ( i think), but she doesnt smoke any more than if she was to buy single boxes. My point is, its the smoker, 10, 20, 50, it doesnt matter really, if you smoke you smoke and you're most likely going to have your next box ready if you are on your 9th fag out of the 10 box if you get me.

No it really doesnt,i have good will power but if i run out and know the cigarettes are there i will smoke them.If i cant sleep or bad day.
Smoking is an addiction somewhat can be controlled but if there will smoke.
Good for your mother though,she should quit

the groutch wrote: »

til our taxes have to pay for treating your lung cancer

I pay for all my own hospital bills doctors fees and life and my right to smoke as its my only vice.Do you drink?

questionmark? wrote: »

The OP will pay more than enough in tax on fags in a lifetime to cover the chance of this a bit like an insurance policy for the gov. Its not guaranteed to happen either and hopefully it wont.


Anyway back on topic. It was a stupid idea that I do believe lead to people smoking that bit more. How it was meant to stop school kids smoking is beyond me?

It really has i have seen it and i am confirmed as one of them.I have tried to put them away but because the urge is there i know they are in the house,i smoke them.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It is a fact that many/most/some smokers (It's impossible to say the exact proportion) will smoke more if the have more cigarettes.
I smoke rollies and go through 1 25g pack every 2 days, if I get a 50g pack this will ALWAYS last less than 4 days, and the same is true for the majority of people I know.
As with many things when you have a lot of something you don't think about using it but as the amount you have lessens you become more aware of using it and usually (often subconsciously) use less.
This is as true for cigarettes as it is for washing up liquid or the milk you put in your tea.
Another bad move from our lords and masters in their ivory towers.

That is exactly the truth control of smoking would have been better managed if people only spent for ten.And would probably feel alot prouder of themselves and even may bring about cutting them out altogether.
There was no incentive for quiting for me even when the prices went up.I can afford them.
I dont think they should have been allowed to dictate the 20 only packet being sold and rather the other way.
With teens they used to buy a ten packet between them.Now they are buying twenty packs between them.Causing more smoking.

JustinDee

I've seen people blame the government for the likes of unruly kids, violent crimes, bad drivers, various scandals and now, they're responsible for smokers' habits?

So 'Irish'.

Dannyboy83

JustinDee wrote: »

I've seen people blame the government for the likes of unruly kids, violent crimes, bad drivers, various scandals and now, they're responsible for smokers' habits?

So 'Irish'.

I think it's a fair complaint in this case.

A fat person may decide to only buy a regular size pizza because they fear they would consume an entire large pizza if they had it.
If the government come along and outlaw regular pizzas, fat people are doomed to overeat.

The actual reasons for their overconsumption is a different topic.
In this case, the government are forcing them into a detrimental behaviour pattern which they don't wish to engage in.

Triangla

Stock up when you can, especially when abroad.

Buy a cigarette holder that holds ten or 15. Basically enough to cover you until you get home. Looks the sh!t too.

And yes, it's a stupid rule. Whe I smoked I used to buy ten packs when I went out so was able to pace myself. 20 box just means you end up smoking more which defeats the purpose.

I like the pizza analogy above, very good.

Lapin

Its a good point OP.

The fact is - if someone has a packet of 20 they will smoke more of them over a given period of time

Back in the day it was possible to buy individual cigarettes.

If the government was serious about cutting down on smoking they would reintroduce this practice.

That way, someone who only smokes 6 or 7 a day could buy that amount rather than forking out for a pack of 20 every 2 days.

I like the pizza analogy too.

inforfun

Lapin wrote: »

Its a good point OP.

The fact is - if someone has a packet of 20 they will smoke more of them over a given period of time

Back in the day it was possible to buy individual cigarettes.

If the government was serious about cutting down on smoking they would reintroduce this practice. That way, someone who only smokes 6 or 7 a day could buy that amount rather than forking out for a pack of 20 every 2 days.

I like the pizza analogy too.

Wrong. If they were really serious they would ban selling cigarettes.

Never going to happen
Cigarettes are just a good way to tax the **** out of people without many complaints.
Till the point that it becomes a good idea to fly to Europe once a month because it is worh the plane ticket if you consider the price difference.

Why do you think that despite the "recession" cigarettes were left untouched 2 budgets in a row?

If you really want to see this country go down a recession, lets ban the selling of smokes.
I am a smoker but i wish i couldnt get them anywhere. That would make me quit. Nothing else will.

caseyann

inforfun wrote: »

Wrong. If they were really serious they would ban selling cigarettes.

Never going to happen
Cigarettes are just a good way to tax the **** out of people without many complaints.
Till the point that it becomes a good idea to fly to Europe once a month because it is worh the plane ticket if you consider the price difference.

Why do you think that despite the "recession" cigarettes were left untouched 2 budgets in a row?

If you really want to see this country go down a recession, lets ban the selling of smokes.
I am a smoker but i wish i couldnt get them anywhere. That would make me quit. Nothing else will.

I know i am the same way,i have had failed attempts at quiting,i said that to and few people said the same. Why they dont ban it altogether from the country.Because wouldnt be in their interest to lose the cash.
I wonder would most Irish who smoke and non Irish who have a right to vote,be in favour of banning them right out.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Pains me to say it but I think this was a smart move.

I go to college in the north where they're still available. What I find is social smokers tend to buy 10 packs for nights out, then have a few left for the next day which leads to more smoking

In the republic they don't bother getting 20packs cos its 8.50 a pop. Then just bum a few smokes whilst out.

We're not the only country who do it - in netherlands they sell 19packs for some odd reason.

zig

caseyann wrote: »

I know i am the same way,i have had failed attempts at quiting,i said that to and few people said the same. Why they dont ban it altogether from the country.Because wouldnt be in their interest to lose the cash.
I wonder would most Irish who smoke and non Irish who have a right to vote,be in favour of banning them right out.

I think banning them would shoot crime through the roof tbh. It would be ultimate drug dealers market, can you imagine it, you would have 1000s of customers instantly in one area alone, even if only a third of them went the illegal route to feed their habit the dealers would clean up.

caseyann

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pains me to say it but I think this was a smart move.

I go to college in the north where they're still available. What I find is social smokers tend to buy 10 packs for nights out, then have a few left for the next day which leads to more smoking

In the republic they don't bother getting 20packs cos its 8.50 a pop. Then just bum a few smokes whilst out.

We're not the only country who do it - in netherlands they sell 19packs for some odd reason.

I disagree,a smoker is not put off by a price.
Social smokers are not the same thing.They only smoke for a night out,and most of them split them between them.

zig

caseyann wrote: »

No it really doesnt,i have good will power but if i run out and know the cigarettes are there i will smoke them.If i cant sleep or bad day.
Smoking is an addiction somewhat can be controlled but if there will smoke.
Good for your mother though,she should quit

indeed:), but yea fair enough if people genuinely smoke more when they have more then they should be reducing the packs. I think the theory was that kids cant afford a 20 pack, that line of thinking is complete nonsense though

Lapin

inforfun wrote: »

Wrong. If they were really serious they would ban selling cigarettes.

Never going to happen
Cigarettes are just a good way to tax the **** out of people without many complaints.
Till the point that it becomes a good idea to fly to Europe once a month because it is worh the plane ticket if you consider the price difference.

Why do you think that despite the "recession" cigarettes were left untouched 2 budgets in a row?

If you really want to see this country go down a recession, lets ban the selling of smokes.
I am a smoker but i wish i couldnt get them anywhere. That would make me quit. Nothing else will.

By selling them individually, the taxman could take more revenue than selling them in packs of 20. Something like 49 cent a cigarette would earn more than the cost of a 20 (or 10) pack. The government have no intention of banning cigs because they are such an earner.

The reason they haven't been touched in recent budgets is precisely because access to Europe is now cheaper than ever.

I go to Europe about once a month and usually stock up when I'm there. *

But when I have 2 or 4 hundred cigarettes in the house I usually fly through them. Smoking twice as much and giving away packs to mates.

*
The government is cracking down on this now too. At an airport in Italy last week I was told that they can no longer sell tobacco products to passengers travelling to Ireland. The shop assistant told me that it was officially an EU regulation but in reality that is bullshít. He said it only applies to passengers travelling to Ireland.

caseyann

Lapin wrote: »

By selling them individually, the taxman could take more revenue than selling them in packs of 20. Something like 49 cent a cigarette would earn more than the cost of a 20 (or 10) pack. The government have no intention of banning cigs because they are such an earner.

The reason they haven't been touched in recent budgets is precisely because access to Europe is now cheaper than ever.

I go to Europe about once a month and usually stock up when I'm there. *

But when I have 2 or 4 hundred cigarettes in the house I usually fly through them. Smoking twice as much and giving away packs to mates.

*
The government is cracking down on this now too. At an airport in Italy last week I was told that they can no longer sell tobacco products to passengers travelling to Ireland. The shop assistant told me that it was officially an EU regulation but in reality that is bullshít. He said it only applies to passengers travelling to Ireland.

I havent read the rest of your post yet .But imagine those singles smokes were only 10 pence each,and a packet of ten was one pound :eek: Is that right i was told that before.

Penny Dreadful

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I think it's a fair complaint in this case.

A fat person may decide to only buy a regular size pizza because they fear they would consume an entire large pizza if they had it.
If the government come along and outlaw regular pizzas, fat people are doomed to overeat.

The actual reasons for their overconsumption is a different topic.
In this case, the government are forcing them into a detrimental behaviour pattern which they don't wish to engage in.

I disagree with this. No one is forced to bug cigarettes, to smoke them all quickly or slowly just as no one is forced to buy a large or small pizza, to decide to opt for a pepparoni pizza which is worse for you than a vegetarian pizza.
People have free will and choice. They choose to smoke or not.

zig

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I disagree with this. No one is forced to bug cigarettes, to smoke them all quickly or slowly just as no one is forced to buy a large or small pizza, to decide to opt for a pepparoni pizza which is worse for you than a vegetarian pizza.
People have free will and choice. They choose to smoke or not.

written like a true non smoker, its simply not as black and white as that

Bottle_of_Smoke

caseyann wrote: »

I disagree,a smoker is not put off by a price.

A confirmed regular smoker - yes completely agree

Social smokers are not the same thing.They only smoke for a night out,and most of them split them between them.

My point is social smokers are not the same thing. I think having a 10 pack makes them more likely to become full time smokers - it was them I was talking about are put off by the E8.50 price tag. When you're a social smoker you get the odd craving during the day, not like a real smoker but probably enoguh to spend 4.25 on a 10 pack - 8.50 on a 20 pack is more offputting though


I don't think the splitting between them is that prevalent - most bum them off mates.

caseyann

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A confirmed regular smoker - yes completely agree




My point is social smokers are not the same thing. I think having a 10 pack makes them more likely to become full time smokers - it was them I was talking about are put off by the E8.50 price tag. When you're a social smoker you get the odd craving during the day, not like a real smoker but probably enoguh to spend 4.25 on a 10 pack - 8.50 on a 20 pack is more offputting though


I don't think the splitting between them is that prevalent - most bum them off mates.

Sorry i see the conundrum you present.
LOL i wish i could go back to days of bumming smokes off mates and all of us only having the ability to have five.
I think social smokers should really just not do it in first place.If no hold over them why even bother.
I dont drink so that is my only vice to relax.

Penny Dreadful

zig wrote: »

written like a true non smoker, its simply not as black and white as that

I accept that by being a non smoker I do not understand the addiction side of things. However, I do think, that whether its junk food for overeaters or cigarettes for smokers, at no stage has anyone ever been forced to a) start or b) continue to indulge in this behaviour. There is a lot of help out there for people who wish to stop smoking. Again I say that as someone who has never had to access the services but I see and hear them advertised frequently.
Ultimately we all know that smoking is bad for you at best and is more than likely going to cause cancer and/ or some other potentially fatal illnesses. So whether you can buy your cigarettes in 10s or 20s this isn't going to change. A smoker decides to continue to smoke, decides to go to the shop/vending machine and buy the cigarettes, decides to buy a lighter / matches to light that cigarette and decides to smoke all the cigarettes they have.
I have yet to see any government encourage this behaviour.

inforfun

Lapin wrote: »

By selling them individually, the taxman could take more revenue than selling them in packs of 20. Something like 49 cent a cigarette would earn more than the cost of a 20 (or 10) pack. The government have no intention of banning cigs because they are such an earner.

The reason they haven't been touched in recent budgets is precisely because access to Europe is now cheaper than ever.

I go to Europe about once a month and usually stock up when I'm there. *

But when I have 2 or 4 hundred cigarettes in the house I usually fly through them. Smoking twice as much and giving away packs to mates.

*
The government is cracking down on this now too. At an airport in Italy last week I was told that they can no longer sell tobacco products to passengers travelling to Ireland. The shop assistant told me that it was officially an EU regulation but in reality that is bullshít. He said it only applies to passengers travelling to Ireland.

I cant even remember when i bought a pack in Ireland. I travel regurarly myself and i have people (non smokers) bring me smokes when they travel.
I cant remeber the moment when i decided not to buy here anymore and just bring lots from abroad but indeed, in the beginning i smoked more but after a while that wasnt the case anymore.
If anything, when the end of my stack is in sight i start smoking less.

Overall i would say i cut down on smokes by about 25% since buying them abroad.

Dannyboy83

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I accept that by being a non smoker I do not understand the addiction side of things. However, I do think, that whether its junk food for overeaters or cigarettes for smokers, at no stage has anyone ever been forced to a) start or b) continue to indulge in this behaviour.

Again, as I said earlier, the reasons for addiction are a different topic.
We would need a separate forum entirely to discuss the various reasons why people become addicted to x,y,z and continue to pursue it.

As a non-drinker, I am still capable of understanding that people do and why people do become addicted to alcohol tho, and that I have 'free will' to decide wheter to drink, while the addict has a far more limited 'free will' i.e. I am not physically or psychologically compelled to consume, they are.

I also understand that if you outlaw the sale of a 1 litre vodka bottle in favour of 5 litre bottle, you are placing the people who are guaranteed to consume the substance (i.e. addicts) into a lethal position.
Granted it is much more immediate but the point stands that you are removing a tool which they can use to moderate their usage.

If more consumption = more damage, then the government, by removing a tool which people can use to moderate their consumption - while not necessarily 'encouraging' damage, are not allowing the enduser to mitigate it either.

I have yet to see any government encourage this behaviour.

Our governments encourage this approach to everything, it's nothing new in Ireland imo, Our governments usually keep their blinkers on tight.

They have a history of hiding from problems rather than dealing with them and hope that people will go to the UK to deal with whatever it is they need to deal with - we'll have run out of letters in the alphabet for abortion cases before long.

For example, I know people who are psychologically dependent on anabolic steroids. You cannot be physically addicted to steroids, but the psychological addiction is very real.
For a smart and informed user, the government's stance makes little difference, because they are educated and sufficiently connected.

Not so in the case of addicts or newcomers, the fact that these performance enhancing drugs are illegal in Ireland means some people who are dependent on them are willing to go to crazy lengths and pay ridiculous amounts of money to acquire them.
Some young men will inject things into their body, when they've purchased it from a complete stranger in a different country and simply have no idea what are actually putting into their body.
This is totally unnecessary.
It could be dispensed from a pharmacy, the risk would be obliterated and the novelty would probably wear off before long anyway.

But the legal stance in this country forces them into a detrimental behaviour pattern which they don't wish to engage in.

Will the enduser seek help for the root cause of their addiction at some stage? Possibly.
Is it morally appropriate that our government force them into a detrimental position until and during the stage at which they seek help? Not in my opinion.

In the case of food addictions, you can never 'quit' food, you need it to survive, so it has to be controlled, rather than quit.

p.s.
I don't agree with outlawing the sale of cigarettes. We are already the cigarette smuggling capital of Europe, this would just send things out of control entirely.
Just last year, I heard about people who bought contraband cigarettes which turned out to be saw dust or something similar. It's difficult to believe that our government is actually driving people to take these kind of risks while adopting the hypocritical stance that it's for their own good:pac:.

JustinDee

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The actual reasons for their overconsumption is a different topic.
In this case, the government are forcing them into a detrimental behaviour pattern which they don't wish to engage in.

Nobody is forcing anyone to smoke.

The smoker starts the cycle off. Not a government. Government cashes in on the smoker's poor willpower, yes. They don't force the smoker to smoke or sap their resistance to light another durrie.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I wonder if the government will ban naggins anytime soon and only allow us to buy shoulders.