Near-insane anti-smoking proposals sounded in UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,1101852,00.html

As a former smoker, I think this is pure madness.

As a non-smoker anything that can stop more people smoking is a good thing, I do think they should create something that gives the same effect as smoking without the smoke and health issues though, as a smoker without cigarettes is a very angry and annoying person.

Agreed.

Doubly agreed.

That's all fine and good, but people who are addicted will keep on buying smokes (inelastic demand); don't you think that this would an undue punishment on lower income groups (that have a disproportionately high level of tobacco addiction) ?

s5, do you seriously think that illegalizing tobacco is ever going to work?

Highly unrealistic and utopian.

Sorry, Olivia; I was actually referring to another portion of the article, which referenced a recommendation by the medical journal Lancet, which recently recommended that smoking in the UK ought to be banned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,1101622,00.html

It amounts to stealth prohibition, and is therefore lunacy.

Are there any Swedes on the board? I was told by a couple of Swedish colleagues that their government did the same thing with alcohol in attempts to curb drunkeness.

They said that instead of the law slowing consumption, people were now spending 300 bucks a night to get drunk. We were in Paris when I met them and they were double fisting bottles of single malt scotch and drinking it like water - said it was the less in cost than the shittiest swill they could get at home.

also : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3292979.stm

s5, nobody disagrees with the fact that the societal costs of smoking are being shouldered by all and that smoking in general is a serious drug addiction; what we disagree on are the measures that we would find successful in curbing this.

Nicotine dependence can be almost as bad as heroin.

But here in the UK cigarettes are already heavily taxed, providing revenue for the NHS, and other services. Smokers already pay for their cancer treatment, and help keep other peoples taxes low. I pay the equivalent of $8.20 US for each pack of cigarettes i buy. I'm not sure how this compares to american prices, but i suspect they are much lower over there.
Now, obviously as a smoker i have a vested interest in this, but putting my personal prejudices aside, The increased taxes on Cigarettes and Alcohol are part of this government's attack on the working class. Fags and Booze are the only luxuries readily available to low income bracket people, and also two of the most heavily taxed.
CD's aren't taxed, and yet if the government stuck a 10p tax onto cd sales, over the VAT, then they would get a huge amount of money. And next to no consumers would notice, but because CDs are a predominantly middle class luxury, they wouldn't dare do that for fear of alienating the powerful swing vote of middle england. So instead, they continue to up the tax for the working class, who are predominantly life long Labour voters.
So yes. In short, Government wants people to keep smoking, doesn't want to lose voters, and needs more money.

/rant

J

You realize that your proposal runs completely contrary to the entire cost amortization premise of progressive taxation, right? Nowhere else in our tax code do we apply a use/means test to a non profit arena. Whats more if youre going to do that you cant do it on a line item basis, you have to do it across the board, and then somehow you have to apportion and calculate that and then you have a completely actuarial society with half of the country working for the IRS.

I, occasional smoker that I am, pay for my own health insurance thank you very much. I don't need the government double dipping on my ass to divert my cash to corporate welfare and I pretty much gurantee you don't want your risk and use factors tabulated to their true cost either.