Ireland to ban Menthol Cigarettes and Rolling Tobacco from May

bodhrandude

has anyone seen this report before that Ireland is banning menthol cigarettes and rolling tobacco from May. There's a lot of rollie smokers out there, how are they going to police this, like especially if we get out of this pandemic, people will just buy tobacco overseas and bring it in to the country. (I just realised now that its from March last year)

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/ire...acco-from-may/

Hellotonever

This is some nanny state crap.

Quantum Erasure

Thats Menthol,


: rolleyes :

Qwertyminger

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/menthol-tobacco-ban-must-be-enforced-by-each-member-state-brussels-says-1.4431216?mode=amp

They're not banning rolling tobacco outright, just the menthol variety.

Just suck a polo mint while you're smoking. Although it is totalitarian bollocks to ban it.

scudzilla

There's a workaround, Rizla are doing polar blast filter tips that are normal filters, squeeze the end and crack the yoke inside and they're menthol.
This was supposed to come in last may

Rubberchikken

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

scudzilla

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Brilliant, so if all tobacco was banned and everyone in the country quit over night you'd be happy.

Be a good few years before the HSE seen any major difference but the loss to the economy would be overnight.

People like you would soon be begging smokers to start again when you're income tax goes up by 5/10% to cover the shortfall

Rubberchikken

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Obesity is far worse.

Grab All Association

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Over €1bn raised in taxes and duties on tobacco The smokers are not only covering their own costs, but funding the HSE. As mentioned above obesity is far worse. €1.1 billion cost to the state. T2 diabetes is a completely reversible condition.

Rubberchikken

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Smokers contribute far more to your care than you do to theirs. You’d be sobbing into your pillow any your tax bill if everyone gave up tomorrow.

Cookie_Monster

Grab All Association wrote: »

Over €1bn raised in taxes and duties on tobacco The smokers are not only covering their own costs, but funding the HSE.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Smokers contribute far more to your care than you do to theirs.

ah, go on then, so.
proof of claim?

B.A._Baracus

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Posts like these and even people like you annoy me. Anytime smoking is mentioned you get a hard on and say how you would love to see them banned. Yet your vision is so narrowed you cannot see past your own personal hate - such as the above mentioned 1 billion in tax gone ironically in a poof of smoke. You also fail to see that the government would look to other forms of taxation (of you!) to recoup those loses should they are never ban smokes.

Ps,
The "I'm paying for smokers in hospital" is an often over used wa*k of a line. Yes people in receipt of the medial card who have smoking related illness are being paid for by you, me and every other tax payer. But thousands of people out there who smoke and work. They ain't getting any free healthcare.

ILoveYourVibes

Very stupid.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Grab All Association wrote: »

Over €1bn raised in taxes and duties on tobacco The smokers are not only covering their own costs, but funding the HSE. As mentioned above obesity is far worse. €1.1 billion cost to the state. T2 diabetes is a completely reversible condition.

Imagine the tax take if they were to reduce the VAT and excise on cigarettes to make them more affordable and closer in price to the smuggled cigarettes. They could probably take in another 1/2 billion in taxes but they’d rather keep them extortionately priced and drive a huge % of the population into buying smuggled fags (although I’d imagine due to the pandemic smuggled fags aren’t as readily available as previous)

Fr Tod Umptious

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Imagine the tax take if they were to reduce the VAT and excise on cigarettes to make them more affordable and closer in price to the smuggled cigarettes. They could probably take in another 1/2 billion in taxes but they’d rather keep them extortionately priced and drive a huge % of the population into buying smuggled fags (although I’d imagine due to the pandemic smuggled fags aren’t as readily available as previous)

Well all that would happen there is that the smuggled price will go down because they need to get their market back, and thus the government will be left with less revenue and the smuggling will not have gone away.

Alternatively the smuggling might stop because the price floor will be too low for them to make a decent profit.
But the government would still be less off because their excise is still less and the lack of smuggling will not make it up.

Lux23

I remember when people called the smoking ban a nanny state action. Plus the sale of menthol smokes tobacco has been banned since May, so if this is new to you, you must not have been affected too much by the ban!

raven41

Not a smoker, never have been and no intention of taking up the habit. To me its another example (minimum pricing of alcohol is another) of the government slowly but surely tinkering with society and in the process, slowly removing peoples freedom. Everyone knows that they're bad for you, but instead of waving the metaphorical finger at people and telling them they are bold boys and girls, why not accept the fact that sometimes people engage in habits that are detrimental to their health, bearing in mind everyone knows the risks at this stage.
I expect to see more changes coming down the line on the basis that they are "for our own good".
More nanny state crap...

Bobblehats

I think if someone went so far as to do that, I’d probably be so at my wits end as to murder them entirely.

Haraldkare

It would be counterintuitive to ban tobacco. People will still be able to get tobacco, but instead of regulated tobacco it will be any sawdust thrown together in the black market. It would lead to more healthcare spending.

Timberrrrrrrr

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
it costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Do you enjoy a pint? Would you also e in favour of banning all alcohol products too because that also costs the state millions every year.

srsly78

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ah, go on then, so.
proof of claim?

It's a complex analysis, but a point to consider is that smokers die young and actually save the state a lot of money in pension/healthcare compared to a non-smoker that lives for a long time after retirement.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26242225/

The calculation varies depending on country/tax-rate/pension/lifespan etc.

srsly78

srsly78 wrote: »

It's a complex analysis, but a point to consider is that smokers die young and actually save the state a lot of money in pension/healthcare compared to a non-smoker that lives for a long time after retirement.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26242225/

The calculation varies depending on country/tax-rate/pension/lifespan etc.

Show that to your family when you're dying of lung cancer
They'll think you're a great lad.

srsly78

BrownFinger wrote: »

Show that to your family when you're dying of lung cancer
They'll think you're a great lad.

How is that relevant to an actuarial calculation over millions of people?

Parabellum9

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

There’s another habit you should really take up - it’s called minding your own business.

Brian?

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

That’s works so well for heroin and cocaine. Making them illegal has completely wiped out the problem. It’s wonderful.

razorblunt

Methols? No. They were my favourite mints. Hopefully Fox's Silvermints remain unaffected.

Wilhelm III

Smokers should be encouraged to stop, and be given as much help as they need to stop - but THAT, is precisely where the line should stop.

aziz

Parabellum9 wrote: »

There’s another habit you should really take up - it’s called minding your own business.

Reminds me off a great comment I heard in a smoking area of a pub.
A fella sitting at a table having a pint and a smoke when another man came out and sat at the table across from him

“Don’t you know those things will kill you “

“Well my grandfather lived to be 96”

“Oh,was he a smoker “

“ no, he knew how to mind his own business “

😷

jimmycrackcorm

scudzilla wrote: »

People like you would soon be begging smokers to start again when you're income tax goes up by 5/10% to cover the shortfall

Grab All Association wrote: »

Over €1bn raised in taxes and duties on tobacco The smokers are not only covering their own costs, but funding the HSE.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Smokers contribute far more to your care than you do to theirs. You’d be sobbing into your pillow any your tax bill if everyone gave up tomorrow.

It's almost as if people currently spending money currently on Tobacco would just suddenly use Euro notes in their fireplaces.

Better also to get rid of public transport because of the losses in fuel taxes.

aziz

One thing that bugs me as a smoker is why I can only buy something that’s bad for me in larger amounts.

I used to buy a 15g packet of tobacco and I could get a week out of it.

Now I can only buy a 30g pack but would tend to go through it in a week

bo0li5eumx12kp

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

It's a vital social crutch for soooooo many.

Archeron

aziz wrote: »

One thing that bugs me as a smoker is why I can only buy something that’s bad for me in larger amounts.

I used to buy a 15g packet of tobacco and I could get a week out of it.

Now I can only buy a 30g pack but would tend to go through it in a week

Agree 100%
Whatever the reason they banned ten packs, I immediately started smoking more when I could only buy a twenty pack. I know that may not sound right, but it's a horrible addiction i would love to be rid of, and it makes your mind work in a weird way. At times, I knew a ten pack would do a set time if I thought about when I was smoking and when I shouldn't be, so I made the pack last and smoked less as a result.
I hate that lately in many shops I go into, I'm advised that no we don't have 20 pack, would you like a 23 or 27 pack. I'm convinced that the big tobacco companies aim to make that the standard. How many people say they smoke a pack a day? Aaah, but how big is the pack. I'd say the tobacco companies loved the ten pack ban.

Why don't the government ban the larger packs?

MayoSalmon

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Taxpayers contribute to all manners of things they might be opposed to...nothing new there all at I'm afraid.

Annasopra

Thread title is untrue. Ireland didnt ban rolling tobacco.

https://www.joe.ie/fitness-health/smoking-588637

murpho999

Grab All Association wrote: »

Over €1bn raised in taxes and duties on tobacco The smokers are not only covering their own costs, but funding the HSE. As mentioned above obesity is far worse. €1.1 billion cost to the state. T2 diabetes is a completely reversible condition.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Smokers contribute far more to your care than you do to theirs. You’d be sobbing into your pillow any your tax bill if everyone gave up tomorrow.

This is often said but often omits how much health care smokers need in later life if they manage to live that long.

Also you need a lot more than €1bn a year to fund the HSE.

aziz

Knew one chap who would buy a ten pack when he was going on a night out with the lads,he didn’t smoke at any other time.

When the 10 pack ban came in he had to smoke 20 in one night

KaneToad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obesity is far worse.

Alcohol is worse again. No one ever bait the wife after a few smokes.

Obesity will eventually be worse than alcohol.

Atlantic Dawn

Perhaps the best solution is only to allow the purchase in 200 box cartons, would be €140 a go. This would leave those hooked with an instant sting every time they make a purchase and would make people think twice about starting.

deandean

Same happened when packs of ten cigarettes were banned. Lots of people limited themselves ro a pack of ten daily. Now you can only buy packs of 20. A stupid decision IMO.

Thelonious Monk

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

If you think about it, if people didn't die from smoking, they'd die from something else. They might live way too long and have to be cared for in homes and have nurses go to their houses and it could cost a hell of a lot more.

People don't live forever, we all die eventually, smoking is just one of the ways to die.

Archeron

Archeron wrote: »

Agree 100%
Whatever the reason they banned ten packs, I immediately started smoking more when I could only buy a twenty pack. I know that may not sound right, but it's a horrible addiction i would love to be rid of, and it makes your mind work in a weird way. At times, I knew a ten pack would do a set time if I thought about when I was smoking and when I shouldn't be, so I made the pack last and smoked less as a result.
I hate that lately in many shops I go into, I'm advised that no we don't have 20 pack, would you like a 23 or 27 pack. I'm convinced that the big tobacco companies aim to make that the standard. How many people say they smoke a pack a day? Aaah, but how big is the pack. I'd say the tobacco companies loved the ten pack ban.

Why don't the government ban the larger packs?

Same happened me, 10 was plenty. Then 20. Once I got a job it was 23. Well, it took a week to go from 20 to 23 but it happened quick enough. :pac:

Church on Tuesday

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

I despise cigarettes and "rollies" but people should be free to smoke if they so wish. Smoking ban in pubs and other areas was a godsend, so it's a happy medium, just continue to tax the **** out of it and have the relevant health warnings that come with it and let people decide for themselves.

tdf7187

KaneToad wrote: »

Alcohol is worse again. No one ever bait the wife after a few smokes.

Obesity will eventually be worse than alcohol.

Way I see it, stress is worse than any of those mentioned and is in fact the main root cause of those health issues. But you never hear it mentioned because the bean counters don't know how to calculate it and if someone can't put a cost on it it doesn't matter in this sick hyperconsumerist society.

bb1234567

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Indeed. 1 in 5 cancer diagnoses are directly attributable to excessive tobacco consumption. That's millions of cancer cases globally year in year out. Imagine if this wasn't the case, all the resources that could be better directed toward trying to treat cancers that occur among people who contract it by pure chance and bad luck. Such a waste of medical supplies/research/expertise trying to rectify the issues caused by such a completely useless habit and a cancer case with a completely modifiable cause/risk factor. Obviously I'm not saying that smokers shoudn't be eligible for the exact same quality of treatment but it's just such a pity that smokers couldn't kick the habit, for their own sake as much as the rest of us.

ShatterAlan

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

The tax smokers pay on tobacco pays for all your needs so you should be grateful.

ShatterAlan

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Kinda regret your stupid tax comment now, eh?


:pac:

Strumms

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The tax smokers pay on tobacco pays for all your needs so you should be grateful.

Smoking costs the tax payer approximately 172 million euros in 2016. That averages out to the state over a decade at ‘about’.... one billion seven hundred twenty million...

In addition to that, there are multiples of peoples expert hours spent treating conditions that smokers develop and present with as a result of smoking. Multiple beds, multiple surgery hours, screenings.. because of a ‘lifestyle’ choice and habit...a choice made BY somebody, not made for somebody..If a person develops a non lifestyle or non smoking related illnesses... it’s likely the smoker will beat you to that hospital bed, to that surgery time, to that rehab spot... because they choose to ignore expert advice and smoke. Smokers don’t become smokers by accident... habits are developed over time, the behaviors to develop habits are courtesy of choices...over time...

So 172 million in cost, the money as in TOTAL tax generated.... depending on the year, but can be as little as half of that.

ShatterAlan

Strumms wrote: »

Smoking costs the tax payer approximately 172 million euros in 2016. That averages out to the state over a decade at ‘about’.... one billion seven hundred twenty million...

In addition to that, there are multiples of peoples expert hours spent treating conditions that smokers develop and present with as a result of smoking. Multiple beds, multiple surgery hours, screenings.. because of a ‘lifestyle’ choice and habit...a choice made BY somebody, not made for somebody..If a person develops a non lifestyle or non smoking related illnesses... it’s likely the smoker will beat you to that hospital bed, to that surgery time, to that rehab spot... because they choose to ignore expert advice and smoke. Smokers don’t become smokers by accident... habits are developed over time, the behaviors to develop habits are courtesy of choices...over time...

So 172 million in cost, the money as in TOTAL tax generated.... depending on the year, but can be as little as half of that.

So canning and banning smoking will save money overall?


How about I bitch because I am a male, hence I shouldn't have to pay tax that goes towards breast cancer research and mammogrophy purely because I don't have tits? Hmm?


I'll pay DOUBLE to keep women healthy. You might say..."ah, smokers and boozers are taking a choice" Fine....then take no tax off cigs and have every smoker have that money put into a health fund so that it only goes towards people who develop tobacco related illnesses. None of the tax on smokes goes to parks or roads or the Civil Service or anything other than the treatment of smoking relating maladies and only those who smoke can avail of these services.



Go for it.

Richard Hillman

I have been using menthol filters for a while now with my tobacco. They'll never be able to ban those. Good luck getting your sniffer dogs trying to detect them at the ports.

Kimbot

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I wish all cigarettes were banned.
A more disgusting legal habit I can't think of.
It costs the state millions every year dealing with the effects of smoking and why we non smoking tax payers should be contributing towards smokers care is beyond me.

Alcohol also cost the state millions every year in dealing with its effects...... why not ban that too?

Sonics2k

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I have been using menthol filters for a while now with my tobacco. They'll never be able to ban those. Good luck getting your sniffer dogs trying to detect them at the ports.

Genuine question. Why do you think a dog wouldn't be able to smell menthol filters? It's quite a strong smell even to humans.