Smoking - Ban it?

Forums › Off topic › Smoking - Ban it?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#1555634 19-May-2016 14:45

Fred99:

reven:

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking. If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it. but no, don't out law it. Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol).

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make. If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.

Plus, as I understand it, smokers not only pay for their treatment in tax, they also tend to die earlier and faster, saving the taxpayer even more money on healthcare, pensions and assisted living. I've been told that smoking has a pretty much cost neutral or positive effect on the nation coffers.

If anything it is in the Govts (financial) interest to encourage smoking to reduce the number of baby boomers living to a ripe old age on National Super. I'm not even going to go into the socioeconomic demographics of smoking.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1555638 19-May-2016 14:52

BlueShift:

Fred99:

reven:

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking. If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it. but no, don't out law it. Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol).

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make. If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.

Plus, as I understand it, smokers not only pay for their treatment in tax, they also tend to die earlier and faster, saving the taxpayer even more money on healthcare, pensions and assisted living. I've been told that smoking has a pretty much cost neutral or positive effect on the nation coffers.

If anything it is in the Govts (financial) interest to encourage smoking to reduce the number of baby boomers living to a ripe old age on National Super. I'm not even going to go into the socioeconomic demographics of smoking.

Do you have links to these metrics?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1555641 19-May-2016 14:57

networkn:

idle:

What a great idea! I have always wanted a government to control my life, and when they do look after my health, perhaps I will live forever. And let's not just stop at cigarettes, think of the harm that comes from all that sugar! So let's ban sweets and chocolates and ice-cream. And how about obesity? Time for the government to step in and ban KFC and McDonalds! All fat people should be put in special camps to "learn" their errors and to recant and eat green stuff. Yeah, all that would sort the country. Great idea!

Umm are you serious? You understand you NEED fat AND sugar to live?

I'm sorry but idle never suggested banning fat and sugar - only banning things that lead to excessive fats and sugars. Nothing wrong with that idea, especially for our children.

Last time I checked human beings do not need "sweets and chocolates and ice-cream" or "KFC and McDonalds" to live.

Kirk

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1555647 19-May-2016 15:04

Disclaimer: These opinions are mine. Any similarity between these opinions and those of other people, alive or dead, is purely coincidental. And if they died from smoking, also ironic.

I used to smoke 30+ a day. I had my last cigarette a little after 10:00pm (Australian central time) on Friday 06 June 1997, standing outside an Indian restaurant in Adelaide's Rundle Street after eating a very good rogan josh. A couple of hours later my wife went into labour, several hours after that my daughter was born, and I have never smoked (or missed it) since. At first I didn't care if other people smoked around me but the longer I have been smoke-free the less tolerant I have become.

My view is this: If smoking wasn't a thing and somebody tried to bring cigarettes to market now, there'd be an FDA-type organisation somewhere that would test them, find the various toxins and carcinogens, and say "No way - these things are pure poison." We've had this knowledge for a long time now, so why isn't it used to take them off the market? Plenty of other items been removed from sale once we knew how dangerous they were. When I was a child, my mother's ironing board had a square of asbestos screwed down at one end to sit the hot iron on - try selling that today.

In my first office job (after I left the purified-air sanctuary of the computer room) I sat next to a guy who smoked almost 60 a day, the pile of butts growing in the huge ashtray on his desk as he lit one after another, all day long. Like making asbestos iron rests, you can't do that any more. Personally I'd be very happy if smoking was illegal in New Zealand, but it's not, so the best I can hope for is to be protected from the potential harm caused by those who do. The government and councils are doing this, gradually banning smoking in more and more public places. Soon your own home will be the only place left where you can smoke, and that's fine by me. I don't have to visit you.

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1555659 19-May-2016 15:19

MikeB4:

BlueShift:

Fred99:

reven:

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking. If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it. but no, don't out law it. Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol).

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make. If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.

Plus, as I understand it, smokers not only pay for their treatment in tax, they also tend to die earlier and faster, saving the taxpayer even more money on healthcare, pensions and assisted living. I've been told that smoking has a pretty much cost neutral or positive effect on the nation coffers.

If anything it is in the Govts (financial) interest to encourage smoking to reduce the number of baby boomers living to a ripe old age on National Super. I'm not even going to go into the socioeconomic demographics of smoking.

Do you have links to these metrics?

A paper from the taxpayer union states that "Even anti-smoking group ASH’s own expert estimates that tobacco excise tax is around three times the actual costs to the public health system caused by smoking".

This paper also contains a Q&A section that may be of interest. Given this isn't source metrics but I imagine it is a close enough indication for this discussion.

http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/passive_income

Kirk

CruciasNZ

887 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 134

Trusted

#1555680 19-May-2016 16:13

If second hand smoke wasn't toxic or really obnoxious (doubly so when you have a smoke sensitive form of asthma) then I would say let them kill themselves if they wish, but choosing to smoke should automatically opt them out of state funded healthcare related to breathing difficulties.

When considering second hand smoke, I would vote for a full ban without hesitation.

Professional Forum Lurker

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1555684 19-May-2016 16:19

BlueShift:

Fred99:

reven:

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking. If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it. but no, don't out law it. Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol).

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make. If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.

Plus, as I understand it, smokers not only pay for their treatment in tax, they also tend to die earlier and faster, saving the taxpayer even more money on healthcare, pensions and assisted living. I've been told that smoking has a pretty much cost neutral or positive effect on the nation coffers.

If anything it is in the Govts (financial) interest to encourage smoking to reduce the number of baby boomers living to a ripe old age on National Super. I'm not even going to go into the socioeconomic demographics of smoking.

Makes me wonder why we banned smoking in prisons....

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1555685 19-May-2016 16:20

andrew027:

Disclaimer: These opinions are mine. Any similarity between these opinions and those of other people, alive or dead, is purely coincidental. And if they died from smoking, also ironic.

I used to smoke 30+ a day. I had my last cigarette a little after 10:00pm (Australian central time) on Friday 06 June 1997, standing outside an Indian restaurant in Adelaide's Rundle Street after eating a very good rogan josh. A couple of hours later my wife went into labour, several hours after that my daughter was born, and I have never smoked (or missed it) since. At first I didn't care if other people smoked around me but the longer I have been smoke-free the less tolerant I have become.

My view is this: If smoking wasn't a thing and somebody tried to bring cigarettes to market now, there'd be an FDA-type organisation somewhere that would test them, find the various toxins and carcinogens, and say "No way - these things are pure poison." We've had this knowledge for a long time now, so why isn't it used to take them off the market? Plenty of other items been removed from sale once we knew how dangerous they were. When I was a child, my mother's ironing board had a square of asbestos screwed down at one end to sit the hot iron on - try selling that today.

In my first office job (after I left the purified-air sanctuary of the computer room) I sat next to a guy who smoked almost 60 a day, the pile of butts growing in the huge ashtray on his desk as he lit one after another, all day long. Like making asbestos iron rests, you can't do that any more. Personally I'd be very happy if smoking was illegal in New Zealand, but it's not, so the best I can hope for is to be protected from the potential harm caused by those who do. The government and councils are doing this, gradually banning smoking in more and more public places. Soon your own home will be the only place left where you can smoke, and that's fine by me. I don't have to visit you.

Any connection between the curry and going into labour?!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1555687 19-May-2016 16:24

networkn:

100% support the banning of smoking. Disgusting habit with zero positives from either a social or health perspective.

We discriminate on it as part of our recruitment process.

OOI is it legal to do that?

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1555688 19-May-2016 16:26

Geektastic:

BlueShift:

Fred99:

reven:

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking. If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it. but no, don't out law it. Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol).

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make. If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.

Plus, as I understand it, smokers not only pay for their treatment in tax, they also tend to die earlier and faster, saving the taxpayer even more money on healthcare, pensions and assisted living. I've been told that smoking has a pretty much cost neutral or positive effect on the nation coffers.

If anything it is in the Govts (financial) interest to encourage smoking to reduce the number of baby boomers living to a ripe old age on National Super. I'm not even going to go into the socioeconomic demographics of smoking.

Makes me wonder why we banned smoking in prisons....

Because its a workplace for the guards and other workers. Workplaces were made smoke free under legislation... but I do get your point ;-)

Kirk

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1555692 19-May-2016 16:30

CruciasNZ:

If second hand smoke wasn't toxic or really obnoxious (doubly so when you have a smoke sensitive form of asthma) then I would say let them kill themselves if they wish, but choosing to smoke should automatically opt them out of state funded healthcare related to breathing difficulties.

When considering second hand smoke, I would vote for a full ban without hesitation.

Why opt them out - they are on a pay as you die health plan - the tax they have paid has paid for their healthcare along with the healthcare of some non smokers.

Kirk

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1555693 19-May-2016 16:35

When I breathe in air I breathe out carbon dioxide. Dangerous stuff, that. It can even kill you. Maybe breathing in the presence of others should be banned.

Someone already pointed out the effect of noxious fumes from vehicles. If you drive yours anywhere near me, I will inhale some of your very nasty particulate matter and my life will probably be shortened by so many nanoseconds. Let’s ban vehicles.

Wood heaters create terrible air pollution and don’t do a lot for our carbon footprint, either. Ban ‘em.

Do you like meat? Sorry, those cows crapping everywhere and the fertiliser dumps to grow their food are destroying the environment, never mind the methane they emit. Ban those too.

Ban it ban it ban it. That’ll solve everything. Just look how it has eliminated marijuana from this country!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1555695 19-May-2016 16:36

Geektastic:

networkn:

100% support the banning of smoking. Disgusting habit with zero positives from either a social or health perspective.

We discriminate on it as part of our recruitment process.

OOI is it legal to do that?

Yeah it is legal - smoking is not included in the human rights act so it is not considered discrimination.

Kirk

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1555700 19-May-2016 16:40

Rikkitic:

When I breathe in air I breathe out carbon dioxide. Dangerous stuff, that. It can even kill you. Maybe breathing in the presence of others should be banned.

Someone already pointed out the effect of noxious fumes from vehicles. If you drive yours anywhere near me, I will inhale some of your very nasty particulate matter and my life will probably be shortened by so many nanoseconds. Let’s ban vehicles.

Wood heaters create terrible air pollution and don’t do a lot for our carbon footprint, either. Ban ‘em.

Do you like meat? Sorry, those cows crapping everywhere and the fertiliser dumps to grow their food are destroying the environment, never mind the methane they emit. Ban those too.

Ban it ban it ban it. That’ll solve everything. Just look how it has eliminated marijuana from this country!

This is ridiculous and I believe you know it.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1555703 19-May-2016 16:51

MikeB4:

This is ridiculous and I believe you know it.

Of course it's ridiculous. I'm using exaggeration to make a point. It is a time-honoured debating tactic. The serious argument that underlies it is that banning doesn't solve anything and I am against it in principle. People who force you to breathe in their smoke are just inconsiderate donkeys. That can be improved (not solved, admittedly) through education, just as attitudes about drink-driving have been changed. Other strongly-enforced regulatory measures can also help. I just don't believe banning is the right answer.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7