New Ciggs rule (yes, another)

Terry · 10-07-2006 05:03PM

Red Alert wrote:

the public health service wouldn't be in such a mess if it wasn't for the smokers who are getting chronically and seriously ill at younger ages.

my tax is paying for this, therefore anything to discourage and coerce people to stop is good.

i would be interested to see the detailed statement you recieved that showed exactly what your taxes were spent on.
anyone else have one of these statements, or are everyones taxes paid straight into the health service?

EDIT: my 40 a day habit pays €3531.375 per year @75% tax.*
that's €105941.25 over 30 years. i think that's enough to pay for my inevitable cancer treatment.

*that figure is something someone else on this thread said was the amount of tax on cigarettes.

Wertz · 10-07-2006 07:09PM

One point from a former fulltime and now somewhat part-time smoker (I like a few puffs when I drink):

What if this strategy by the government was brought in on other legal items at some later stage...say for instance alcoholic spirits. Say they decided in their wisdom to get rid of nagan or half bottles and only allow the legal sale of full bottles...perhaps using the excuse that it's too easy for teenagers to get the cash together for...as a drinker would you feel aggrieved that you would be now forced to spend whatever it cost on a full bottle of said drink?
Wouldn't you worry that if you do indeed go on and buy that full bottle that you'll likely end up drinking it all, simply for the fact that it's there?
Alcohol causes probably as many health problems and costs the healthcare system just as much as tobacco currently does.
The above is a hypothetical analogy, just to try and illustrate to you high and mighty non-smokers what a futile move this is.

I had and have nothing against the workplace smoking ban, and it has no doubt improved the lives of non-smokers...I fail to see what good this move will do at all.

Incidentally, did anyone see the Horizon programme on smoking a few weeks back? They had an interview with a guy called Allen Carr, some self help guru. I hold no truck with self help gurus, but his points on nicotine addiction are spot on.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Carr

I definitely agree with him on the supposed horror of nicotine withdrawal being some sort of bogeyman for smokers looking to quit....quitting is easy, you just have to want to quit.
I smoked ~10 cigarettes yesterday....I probbaly smoked about 20 two saturdays before that, apart from the occasional spliff, I hadn't previously touched a cigarette in maybe 3 months...I might go another 3 months without touching another one. I find they make hangovers much worse, but I never get any withdrawal/cravings the next day.
Anyway, I'm waay off topic....but getting rid of 10-packs is a smoke and mirrors (pun unintentional) move on behalf of the dept of health, who make a seemingly proactive move on the scourge of addiction in this country; where's the funding for heroin addiction tratment centres? Oh wait, those cost money....this government loves to ban stuff, it's easy, makes for good press and it's a really cheap way to make it look as if they actually give a f*ck about the electorate...

Capt'n Midnight · 10-07-2006 09:42PM

Re the price, at present the Gov't keep increasing it a little at a time. No real disencentive to buyers. What they should do is not increase the price for a year or two and then bring in several years tax at once. The price of a 10 pack would be the same as a 20 pack and some of those tyring to give up might find the shock enough to help with the will power.

Main downside is that tobacco smuggling will take off again.

/OT there are moves afoot in the UK to consider charging obese people more for hospital treatment, any chance of something like that happening for smokers ??

Tellox · 10-07-2006 10:14PM

I hate this "smokers are 2nd class citizens" bull****.
"Your passive smoke is killing me!"
So **** off then.

Smoking is a choice. It doesnt become an addiction for a long, long time. Anybody can quit if they *really* wanted to. Infact, the nicotene leaves your body in around 72hrs or so. From then on, its habit.

Maybe we choose to smoke? Maybe we actually enjoy our cancer sticks?
I hate this anti-smoker regime.
"weh weh weh they're smoking in the pubs!"
"weh weh weh now the street is destroyed in fag butts!"

If you really want people to stop, just ****ing outlaw the things. If I cant get them, I wont smoke them. Making people buy 20 a day will just result in more smoking.

This country is completly backwards. Oh, and for the record - cancer is related with longterm smoking - 10years of 20 a day or so. And at 75% tax, this means I'd have paid around €17000 over 10years before my "eventual cancer". Im more than paid off. Dont want passive smoke? Advoid smokers. Thats what I did, even before the smoking ban.

Most people seem to be under the impression that one bit of passive smoking will give you cancer. That makes as much sense as saying the fumes coming from someone's drink will turn you alcoholic. I know its rotton getting a breathful of second hand smoke - smokers dont like that either. I hope you enjoy it when people are eventually smoking twice as much. "Making people buy more cigarettes will make people smoke less". Right. Giving a kid twice as many video games might encourage him to play sports!

Sleepy · 10-07-2006 10:16PM

Wertz wrote:

Anyway, I'm waay off topic....but getting rid of 10-packs is a smoke and mirrors (pun unintentional) move on behalf of the dept of health, who make a seemingly proactive move on the scourge of addiction in this country; where's the funding for heroin addiction tratment centres? Oh wait, those cost money....this government loves to ban stuff, it's easy, makes for good press and it's a really cheap way to make it look as if they actually give a f*ck about the electorate...

Exactly what's happening.

And for all you mis-informed people who think that smoking actually takes anything away from the health system, look into the facts before making wild assumptions. Smokers pay more tax than non-smokers. IIRC, we actually subsidise your healthcare bills.

10-07-2006 10:47PM

Pal wrote:

You may have chosen to have to smoke for 14 years but highly implausible. You only think you enjoyed it. That's the trick about smoking. Once you figure out how you are being fooled, it is straightforward enough to stop. The perceived pleasure of relieving the withdrawal created by the previous smoke is illusory. Enjoyment doesn't come into it.

What is it with non smokers that they cannot accept the fact that smokers actually can enjoy cigarettes?

I have a very basic belief in life, that this is my only life and I want to make the most of it. If something stops being enjoyable. I STOP. Drink was having a bad effect on my life, so I STOPPED, until I felt the time was right again. I'll quit smokes when I want to also. I absolutely enjo smoking. It's not a trick, it's true. I cannot convince you of this as you also cannot convince me that I do not enjoy it. After all. I'm the one taking it into my body.

FranknFurter · 11-07-2006 12:03AM

Its real simple the whole addiction issue, yes people can and do get biologically addicted, however when you stop the substance leaves your body in 72 hours, the rest is psychological. Not everyone has an addictive personality, therfore not everyone will be psychologically addicted, some can just stop, despite the media and government's bullsh1t spewed out to make non smokers believe otherwise.

For other reasons (not from smoking) I probably have a much shorter life expency than most here, some would say then why shorten it by smoking?
Point is, I want to ENJOY that time, not spend it worrying about it. If they raise the price for no GOOD reason, it limits the enjoyment I get for no good reason. I make my choices about my body, the ones I can control anyways, not the damned government.
Even my doctors dont tell me not to smoke, and actually one doctor I discussed this with, informed me that spending one day walking in the city center I would breath in MORE harmful chemicals that a pack of ciggarettes.

And as for taxes, at 28 years old, having worked (By choice), and studied, from the age of 15, under circumstances most adults would find unbelievable, I have paid my debt to society 10 times over as far as Im concerned. And the tax made from smokers is unbelievable, so dont even start that one unless you can back it up with numbers.

b

Bartronilic · 11-07-2006 12:12AM

FranknFurter wrote:

Noticed in yesterdays herald that I think its from next month on (?), cigarettes can only be sold in packs of 20.
No more 10 packs.

This I think has gone too far, first the insane price hike, now they are penalising lower income people who choose to smoke.
Makes me feel like the "mammy says no!" scenario.
If I choose to smoke myself to death (as Im sure somone will say), in my own home or outside, that is my decision.

How can the government deny individual choice like this?
First they charge a ridiculous amount for a pack, fine we accecpted that, then we now have to stand outside to smoke, fine, we accecpted that too,.... and now, they actually want to force people who normally have 10 a day to have 20?

I mean come on, this is big brother losing its mind.

b

The whole point of living in a country is so they can keep order and protect you and your fellow citizens which is what they're obviously trying to doin reducing smoking numbers. Don't like the rules? Go have a revolution or move to Ghana or whatever it is you moaners do.

Bartronilic · 11-07-2006 12:14AM

FranknFurter wrote:

And the tax made from smokers is unbelievable, so dont even start that one unless you can back it up with numbers.

Why don't you back it your claim with numbers Mr. John Player

FranknFurter · 11-07-2006 12:15AM

Bartronilic wrote:

Why don't you back it your claim with numbers Mr. John Player

Read the thread Mr. lazy git, the numbers have been posted already.

b

hill · 11-07-2006 12:16AM

None of you smokers seem to realise that this is all a fiendish plot to kill you off quicker in order to clear the hospital bed shortage.

Terry · 11-07-2006 12:18AM

how the hell is banning the sale of tens going to protect people?

kids today can easily afford to buy 20.

the fact of the matter is, if kids can afford to buy 10, then two kids can afford to pool their money and buy 20.
cigarettes are not legally availble to under 18's, so the people selling the cigarettes to kids should be sought out and punished. banning the sale of 10's is merely a political move made by an already failing government in an effort to boost it's standing before the upcoming elections.

Terry · 11-07-2006 12:21AM

hill wrote:

None of you smokers seem to realise that this is all a fiendish plot to kill you off quicker in order to clear the hospital bed shortage.

yes, just as holding back on a cure for cancer is a way of getting rid of people with genetic impurities and holding back on a cure for aids is a way of killing off promiscuous people.

FranknFurter · 11-07-2006 12:24AM

Exactly julep, and hell, who can deny that most kids spend at least 10 euro a week on phone credit, I mean c'mon, who are they trying to kid with the "children will not be able to afford them" bull.
Its the retailers who SELL to underage kids that should be held accountable for that even if it were true.

b

vector · 11-07-2006 01:12AM

Are boxes of 20 better value (per cigarette) then boxes of 10?

leche solara · 11-07-2006 02:12AM

Just to keep the oul' pot boilin'...

This banning of 10 packs is part of the original legislation by St. Micheal Martin (sic!) This was a multi faceted pice of work! It was all too much to be inflicted in one go. First they would ban it in the workplace (the pub!). Then when the plebs got used to it or broken down by it, comes round 2. In addition to the banning of the 10 pack (Johnnie Blues...) shops or cigarette retailers will not be allowed to display cigarettes in any part of the shop. The yellow B&H, the red Carrolls, the green Major, the red and white Silk Cut yada yada yada display cases will be gone:(

You'll have to sidle up to shopkeeper and wink maybe and say "Any smokes?" He'll pull back secret lid on counter display case to reveal a selection of his finest tobacco products, and you will point at the glass and indicate your preference.

So young boy wanting to smoke first time will have to overcome 2 hurdles - one to get money for 20 pack instead of 10; two to ask shopkeeper does he stock said products. No. 2 ask is big ask!!!

It might be easier to smoke condoms

nuttz · 11-07-2006 04:07AM

As a smoker, I welcome this legislation implementation, I also welcome the day when it is also not permitted for companies to promote alcohol consumption on TV/radio. (full stop).

Chakar · 11-07-2006 04:08AM

Come on people we all know that we all be better off if the smoker population decreases.

Parents smoke=children more likely to smoke.

Pal · 11-07-2006 08:21AM

Papa Smut wrote:

What is it with non smokers that they cannot accept the fact that smokers actually can enjoy cigarettes? I have a very basic belief in life, that this is my only life and I want to make the most of it. If something stops being enjoyable. I STOP. Drink was having a bad effect on my life, so I STOPPED, until I felt the time was right again. I'll quit smokes when I want to also. I absolutely enjo smoking. It's not a trick, it's true. I cannot convince you of this as you also cannot convince me that I do not enjoy it. After all. I'm the one taking it into my body.

I am a smoker and I hate being one.
I have an addiction and it freaks me out.
I will get clean soon I hope.
I will not stop trying until I do.

what do you enjoy about poisoning yourself ?

AdrianR · 11-07-2006 11:01AM

I'd be in favour of anything that dis-encourages people from starting to smoke. Apparantly if you are a smoker you have a 50% chance of dieing of a smoking related illness. Most smokers start in their very early teens, at a time when they don't really know any better, Even if having to buy 20 instead of 10 disencourages a small number it will be well worth it.

Slutmonkey57b · 11-07-2006 07:46PM

Tellox wrote:

This country is completly backwards. Oh, and for the record - cancer is related with longterm smoking - 10years of 20 a day or so. And at 75% tax, this means I'd have paid around €17000 over 10years before my "eventual cancer". Im more than paid off. Dont want passive smoke? Advoid smokers. Thats what I did, even before the smoking ban.

17,000 pays for cancer treatment? Hardly. I can pull you a bill for 6 hour's heart surgery that worked out at over 8 grand. That's just the surgery, not the 2 week's hospitalisation costs, the diagnostic test costs, the consultant's fees etc etc. Cancer treatments lasts months, and has years of follow-up tests, assuming you don't relapse, and it's very very expensive - even assuming you don't have surgery where anaethestist's fees are as much as the surgeon.

And fundamentally, why should non-smokers have to avoid the smokers? The smoking ban has put the situation where it should be - want to smoke? **** off outside and leave everyone else alone.

I love the "Hey it's my life, I'm responsible, **** off the nanny state" attitude that smoking and drinking and drug use all share - it's funny how that attitude wears off when the addict has to face the consequences down the line on the cancer ward, or the A&E or the rehab clinic. Then it's all "poor me, struck down by an addiction, the government should help us poor morons out". I'm all for personal responsibility on drug use (smoking, alcohol and illegal kinds), providing the users are prepared to sign up and accept the following consequences of their informed decision making:

1) You are not entitled to health insurance. This is a stretch on the current system of "insurers can charge you what they like provided they've got the statistics". This means that if you get sick, YOU pay for it - nobody bails you out from YOUR responsibilities.

2) You are not entitled to hospital treatment arising from any illness you get from your drug of choice. That means no cancer treatment for smokers. No A&E treatment for drunken morons who fell over/got in a fight/wandered out in front of traffic on a saturday night. No state sponsored rehab schemes for junkies.

3) You are also not entitled to a response from the 999 service. You call 999 because someone is drunk/drugged, you get jailed. Don't like it? Take some responsibility - you're taking a drug that might kill you, go ahead, but don't waste our time when it takes you.

4) No using "I'm a helpless junkie" as a defense for crimes committed to feed your habit. This also applies to drunks who get in fights or make other stupid mistakes, like burning down their house. If you get out of your faculties on something, then you're responsible for whatever happened while you were not in control of yourself. Don't like the consequence of getting off your face? Don't do it.

5) Group lawsuits brought by passive smokers against tobacco companies are extended to smokers as well. We've all known for decades smoking kills, so if you smoked in someone's face, then you're just as responsible as the people that sold you the smokes - if not more so, so you'll have to pay up when you lose. Smokers are also prevented from suing tobacco companies.

Terry · 11-07-2006 09:14PM

what the hell are you babbling about?

FranknFurter · 11-07-2006 10:46PM

Slutmonkey,
You make very little realistic sense in that long-winded post. Most of what you say in it is untrue and definitely not On Topic.

The topic is regarding the fact that they wont be selling packs of 10 anymore, only packs of 20, where, pray-tell, in that do you get your rant from? You never once mentioned your opinion on the actual topic. Maybe go start a "I hate smokers" thread, would make more sense. :rolleyes:

b

FranknFurter · 11-07-2006 10:53PM

Pal wrote:

You smoke because you are addicted to nicotine.

You do not choose to smoke.

You are deluding yourself and nobody else.

goodnight.

Thanks for telling me about myself Pal, very enlightening (*Yawn*)

and for the record Pal....

Yes I do choose to smoke. I do not want to give up therefore I am choosing to continue smoking, clear enough?

I'm not "deluding myself" tyvm as you say, Im perfectly aware of the consequences of my actions and choose to accecpt them.

goodnight.

Wertz · 11-07-2006 11:15PM

Oh here's a thought that came to me today on this topic....if we're really trying to cut the numbers of people smoking, would it not make much more sense to cut the tax/VAT on quitting aids like nicotine patches or gum?
I was astounded one day in the chemists to see the price of these....in many cases they were the same damn price as a 20 pack of fags!
I mean WTF? They're nicotine products, not tobacco products...they should be tax exempt. I don't think you're gonna get too many kids going halfers on blisterpack of Nicorette.
I think even our money grabbing Dpt of Finance can stretch to a few hundred thousand in lost revenue for such a worthwhile cause, no?

Slightly OT; I don't think these quitting aids are any good personally, but if they're nothing more than a psychological boost to these hopeless addicts we're told exist in their droves out there, then what harm can it do?

Oh and :rolleyes: @ slutmonkey; by your inherent flow of logic, surely those who choose to speed and/or drive dangerously aren't entitled to be cut free from the wreckage of a smashed car, ferried to A&E and treated for weeks for horrific injuries either eh?

Slutmonkey57b · 11-07-2006 11:29PM

FranknFurter wrote:

Slutmonkey,
You make very little realistic sense in that long-winded post. Most of what you say in it is untrue and definitely not On Topic.

It's a statement of opinion, so it by definition can't be "untrue", thank you for your great observational skills. My point is that whatever smokers are whinging about is totally irrelevant - whether it's the sale of 10's or the smoking ban, because at they end of the day, nobody's forcing you to smoke. The government isn't "forcing" you to buy 20's, or anything else. You're deciding to do it. So either put up or shut up.

Terry · 11-07-2006 11:52PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

It's a statement of opinion, so it by definition can't be "untrue", thank you for your great observational skills. My point is that whatever smokers are whinging about is totally irrelevant - whether it's the sale of 10's or the smoking ban, because at they end of the day, nobody's forcing you to smoke. The government isn't "forcing" you to buy 20's, or anything else. You're deciding to do it. So either put up or shut up.

the same logic could be applied to non-smokers, but telling people to "put up or shut up" won't get you anywhere.

by selling cigarettes, the government are giving us the right to smoke and that will continue until all tobacco products are completely outlawed. it doesn't matter if they sell them in packs of 200. they are still being sold, therefore giving us the right to consume said products.

Slutmonkey57b · 12-07-2006 12:43AM

julep wrote:

the same logic could be applied to non-smokers, but telling people to "put up or shut up" won't get you anywhere.

by selling cigarettes, the government are giving us the right to smoke and that will continue until all tobacco products are completely outlawed. it doesn't matter if they sell them in packs of 200. they are still being sold, therefore giving us the right to consume said products.

Eh, what? Your point is nobody's forcing non-smokers NOT to smoke? Nobody's debating the legality of smoking, just pointing out that smoking is a lifestyle choice, thus removing any rights you have to whinge about the price, package size, or anything else.

Terry · 12-07-2006 01:06AM

my point is that nobody is forcing non-smokers to endure second hand smoke.

smoking is not a lifestyle choice for me.
it's an addiction and i cannot quit. i have tried several times this year alone and been unsuccessful.
some people have quit. good for them. i, however, do not have the willpower required.

i hate smoking, but i also understand that it is an addictive habit. that is why i will not stand by and watch as non-smokers preach away about the dangers of smoking, while not actually doing anything to stop it.

you don't like smoking? go and talk to your local TD. tell them that you want tobacco products outlawed and give your reason (the health service one seems to be popular.)
before you ask, i've already spoken to three of the TD's that represent my constituency. if enough people do it, then something will be done about it.

Tellox · 12-07-2006 01:17AM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

It's a statement of opinion, so it by definition can't be "untrue", thank you for your great observational skills. My point is that whatever smokers are whinging about is totally irrelevant - whether it's the sale of 10's or the smoking ban, because at they end of the day, nobody's forcing you to smoke. The government isn't "forcing" you to buy 20's, or anything else. You're deciding to do it. So either put up or shut up.

What in the severe **** are you ****eing on about?

New Ciggs rule (yes, another)

Comments