Goodz13
October 15th, 2002, 08:52 AM
If you smoke, have you ever tried to quit?
If you don't smoke, did you? How did you quit?
If you don't smoke, did you? How did you quit?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Smokers
JeffB
October 15th, 2002, 09:15 AM
Great, I'm the first voter (after the poll creator) :)
I've never smoke.
There is too much people that smoke. And I must pay (with taxes and the like) for them. It will not disturb me if they use their OWN money when they get "sick" ;)
JeffB
I've never smoke.
There is too much people that smoke. And I must pay (with taxes and the like) for them. It will not disturb me if they use their OWN money when they get "sick" ;)
JeffB
Simon666
October 15th, 2002, 09:52 AM
And I must pay (with taxes and the like) for them. If you also take into account of people smoking disregarding the presence of non-smokers you have to pay for your own sickness too, caused by the consequences of indirect smoking. :mad: I really hate the fact that smokers think they are the majority and can smoke whereever they want. I think in California (if I'm correct) they have tough laws on smoking, isn't it? Would love to see that in Belgium.
Ungi
October 15th, 2002, 10:17 AM
Yes I am a smoker, but a smoke very less (about 2 cigarettes per day). There was a time where I smoked more, but now I feel good with 2 cigarettes.
But I dont want to quit smoking. I think it smells and tastes good!
(It smells good if you smell the "fresh" cigarette smoke but not the pub smoke!)
But I dont want to quit smoking. I think it smells and tastes good!
(It smells good if you smell the "fresh" cigarette smoke but not the pub smoke!)
Amn
October 15th, 2002, 10:30 AM
Never smoked either.
sometimes i pity people that stand there and think they look "cool" (especially girls) with some twisted gestures with their cigarettes. I ve become to think that smoking is more of a social phenomenon than simply - smoking. Nevertheless, democracy here does help, but being a passive-smoker sucks :(
In norway, a law has been introduced which forbids pubs, cafees and clubs to tolerate smoking inside area. Only smoking on the street property is allowed. The law has not been put to action yet by the way (i think). Should step-in in 2003 imho.
sometimes i pity people that stand there and think they look "cool" (especially girls) with some twisted gestures with their cigarettes. I ve become to think that smoking is more of a social phenomenon than simply - smoking. Nevertheless, democracy here does help, but being a passive-smoker sucks :(
In norway, a law has been introduced which forbids pubs, cafees and clubs to tolerate smoking inside area. Only smoking on the street property is allowed. The law has not been put to action yet by the way (i think). Should step-in in 2003 imho.
Mick
October 15th, 2002, 01:28 PM
Most of the US is pretty tough on smokers. Bars, workplace, resturants. One county (montgomery) in Maryland even went so far as to ban it in public places eg: outside. But the law got struck down. As for smokers in the states, from my experience most of them have manners and go outside or away from people when smoking. And we (smokers) are not the majority in the states. They tax cig's to death like 5.00 (us) a pack around here I hear it's 7.00 (us) in new york. That's pretty stupid, because people just go to other states to get lower taxed smokes or order over the internet. What's next a higher beer tax. And I don't recall asking anyone to 'take' care of me should I become sick from smoking. Everything gives you cancer, so enjoy life :)
You can't dicate people's behaviour. That's not a goverments responsability or right.
You can't dicate people's behaviour. That's not a goverments responsability or right.
Goodz13
October 15th, 2002, 01:50 PM
Well spoken.
I'm a smoker struggling with the addiction. I've quit severial times, but Nico has always gotten the best of me.
Cigs are $8.00 Can here, but the price doesn't stop people from buying them. Everyone I know either buys smokes from the Natives or rolls their own.
They've been trying to pass a law that prohibbits you from smoking in public places (Bars, Coffie shops, pool halls, etc) around here, but it has yet to come into play.
It's hard to quit when the majority of the people I know smoke.
I've tried the patch, gum and alternative smoke (All sorts). They work for a while, but when you wean yourself off of these, the addiction kicks right back in and it only takes one puff.
I'm a smoker struggling with the addiction. I've quit severial times, but Nico has always gotten the best of me.
Cigs are $8.00 Can here, but the price doesn't stop people from buying them. Everyone I know either buys smokes from the Natives or rolls their own.
They've been trying to pass a law that prohibbits you from smoking in public places (Bars, Coffie shops, pool halls, etc) around here, but it has yet to come into play.
It's hard to quit when the majority of the people I know smoke.
I've tried the patch, gum and alternative smoke (All sorts). They work for a while, but when you wean yourself off of these, the addiction kicks right back in and it only takes one puff.
Mick
October 15th, 2002, 02:05 PM
There is a pill you can take, it's like a anti-depressant that works well in killing the craving. I don't know if it's available where you are, but I've known some people that have taken it. And they have stopped. I just don't choose to do so ;) I don't know the name of the pill but I did a quick search on the web and found this which sounds like what I'm talking about:
---->
You may also have heard about a new pill, ZybanR that can help you stop smoking. This pill alters brain chemistry much the same as popular anti-depressants medication and requires a prescription. Especially if you have been unable to quit even using nicotine substitutes, this pill may be right for you.
---->
You may also have heard about a new pill, ZybanR that can help you stop smoking. This pill alters brain chemistry much the same as popular anti-depressants medication and requires a prescription. Especially if you have been unable to quit even using nicotine substitutes, this pill may be right for you.
Goodz13
October 15th, 2002, 02:12 PM
Yah it's here.
I know a girl who took that. She smokes again. She lasted about 6 months.
She's a Pot smoker too so that could have had something to do with her starting back up.
I know a girl who took that. She smokes again. She lasted about 6 months.
She's a Pot smoker too so that could have had something to do with her starting back up.
Mick
October 15th, 2002, 02:20 PM
Hmm well at least it cured the physical addiction. But I guess she needs help with both mental addiction and physical addiction. I just don't see myself coding all day long without sucking down coffee and chain smoking outside ;) And what about downing a couple of brewski's man gotta have a smoke with that, and after dinner *lol* mines def a mental addiction, but then I'm not trying to stop so am I really addictted? :)
galathaea
October 15th, 2002, 03:30 PM
Tobacco is a shamanic drug used by many indigenous peoples of the Americas in their rituals. But its not used like cigarettes are around the world (the urgent, constant smoke of those who are trying to escape the stress of industrial society). But because Nicotiana is a Solanaceous plant, it has a high affinity for sucking up strongly oxidizing heavy metals from the soil, and several of its compounds are converted to carcinogenic benzopyrenes on combustion, so there are a lot of health risks associated with addictive use.
There are many other smokable products used around the world, however, many without the major risks of tobacco. So I ask (rather surreptitiously) smoke what?
There are many other smokable products used around the world, however, many without the major risks of tobacco. So I ask (rather surreptitiously) smoke what?
galathaea
October 15th, 2002, 07:26 PM
My previous comment wasn't meant as a promotion of smoking tobacco. Its a hideous health problem, for the user and those around them. I just wanted to point out that the legalization issues are much more complicated because I don't think it is ever right to rob a people of their sacraments, even if they are abused by non-sacramental users. This has happened many times in the past, and it is sad. Whole populations have been forced to lose their religious rites in place of governments who placed a flag on their soil and sold pieces of paper saying that the land was not owned by the people who lived there prior.
I understand that we have a big health problem in this world with smoking. But we can't prohibit it entirely. Just keeping it in private situations where no one is forced to partake in the consequences is the first step. Zyban is a great serotonergic drug that helps some people break from their addiction, but newer gene therapies are on the horizon too that may help restore dopaminergic receptor densities and stop the craving process (the "psychological" addiction) altogether.
Goodz13, your quest is noble. Kissing a smoker is never fun.
I understand that we have a big health problem in this world with smoking. But we can't prohibit it entirely. Just keeping it in private situations where no one is forced to partake in the consequences is the first step. Zyban is a great serotonergic drug that helps some people break from their addiction, but newer gene therapies are on the horizon too that may help restore dopaminergic receptor densities and stop the craving process (the "psychological" addiction) altogether.
Goodz13, your quest is noble. Kissing a smoker is never fun.
Gabriel Fleseriu
October 16th, 2002, 03:05 AM
Well, I smoke and I also tried to quit a few times. Didn't work, though. The patches were of no use and the gum tastes horrible. I spoke with a doctor once about this and he said "well, you should try quitting when you don't have too much stress"; ok - see you when I'm retired :)
It seems that I am the only smoker around here who's in the happy situation to have his own room at work and to be allowed to smoke while coding. Which actually isn't benefic for my health, on second thought.
A pack of cigarettes is 4.80 swiss franks (that is about $3.20). They say that they want to rise the price in future, though. And it is a nice tolerant society here. Most places (restaurants, bars, trains, hotels) have smoker and no-smoker areas and people do respect that, mostly.
It seems that I am the only smoker around here who's in the happy situation to have his own room at work and to be allowed to smoke while coding. Which actually isn't benefic for my health, on second thought.
A pack of cigarettes is 4.80 swiss franks (that is about $3.20). They say that they want to rise the price in future, though. And it is a nice tolerant society here. Most places (restaurants, bars, trains, hotels) have smoker and no-smoker areas and people do respect that, mostly.
Goodz13
October 16th, 2002, 08:47 AM
I find it very interesting that out of all the people that have voted, only 2 have quit.
It seems that people either smoke or have never started.
It seems that people either smoke or have never started.
Simon666
October 16th, 2002, 08:59 AM
I've read somewhere that nicotine is making you as addicted as heroine or something like that, so it doesn't really surprises me. The exact article I don't remember, but there is plenty on the web if you search. This (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html) is an example.
Yves M
October 16th, 2002, 09:18 AM
Nicotine is certainly the worst drug I ever took :/ It's the only one that got me hooked. I have quit a few times, but the longest I got off was two weeks. The reason it's hard right now to quit is even a bit more radical than Gabriel's. I work in the same room as my boss, and he smokes at work too. So even if I stopped I would still be seeing, smelling and inhaling cigarettes all day long. Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days ;)
Platinum Plus
October 16th, 2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Goodz13
If you smoke, have you ever tried to quit?
Hi Goodz13, I think you should have added the type of smoke folks smoke to your poll :D ... well you see, a number would actually shy away because they are on real bad smoke. Far worse than cigs and grandpas pipe. :(
Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days I thought the maf was more disciplined than that :rolleyes:
If you smoke, have you ever tried to quit?
Hi Goodz13, I think you should have added the type of smoke folks smoke to your poll :D ... well you see, a number would actually shy away because they are on real bad smoke. Far worse than cigs and grandpas pipe. :(
Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days I thought the maf was more disciplined than that :rolleyes:
Gabriel Fleseriu
October 16th, 2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Yves M
Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days ;)
If I were to try quitting, that would be the last thing I would do: make up a "quitting-team" with someone. I also wouldn't tell anyone about the attempt. It's the best, I think: if you manage to quit smoking, good for you. If you don't, at least you save yourself the nagging from those who knew about it (speaking out of personal experience) ;)
Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days ;)
If I were to try quitting, that would be the last thing I would do: make up a "quitting-team" with someone. I also wouldn't tell anyone about the attempt. It's the best, I think: if you manage to quit smoking, good for you. If you don't, at least you save yourself the nagging from those who knew about it (speaking out of personal experience) ;)
Mick
October 16th, 2002, 10:25 AM
I can't imagine what type of personallity I would wind up with if I quit nicotine and caffene. People probably wouldn't wanna be around me for a long time (*heh* which isn't much of a difference as it is now) ;) I'd much rather get up and walk around for a smoke than sit at my puter and smoke. I've done that and it's not as enjoyable tends to lead to chain smoking more.
Goodz13
October 16th, 2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Yves M
Nicotine is certainly the worst drug I ever took :/ It's the only one that got me hooked. I have quit a few times, but the longest I got off was two weeks. The reason it's hard right now to quit is even a bit more radical than Gabriel's. I work in the same room as my boss, and he smokes at work too. So even if I stopped I would still be seeing, smelling and inhaling cigarettes all day long. Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days ;)
I've done alot when I was young as well. I'd try anything once. Nicotine is also the one that defeated my will-power.
Nicotine is certainly the worst drug I ever took :/ It's the only one that got me hooked. I have quit a few times, but the longest I got off was two weeks. The reason it's hard right now to quit is even a bit more radical than Gabriel's. I work in the same room as my boss, and he smokes at work too. So even if I stopped I would still be seeing, smelling and inhaling cigarettes all day long. Last year we both tried to stop at the same time, but that lasted only for two days ;)
I've done alot when I was young as well. I'd try anything once. Nicotine is also the one that defeated my will-power.
Ungi
October 17th, 2002, 12:07 AM
I wont imagine how hard it is to stop smoking if you smoke about 20 or more cigarettes per day. For me it is even extremly hard to stop with 2 (!!) cigarettes per day. How should it be with 20??
Andreas Masur
October 17th, 2002, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Ungi
I wont imagine how hard it is to stop smoking if you smoke about 20 or more cigarettes per day. For me it is even extremly hard to stop with 2 (!!) cigarettes per day. How should it be with 20??
Well...at least ten times harder... :D
I wont imagine how hard it is to stop smoking if you smoke about 20 or more cigarettes per day. For me it is even extremly hard to stop with 2 (!!) cigarettes per day. How should it be with 20??
Well...at least ten times harder... :D
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by JeffB
There is too much people that smoke. And I must pay (with taxes and the like) for them. It will not disturb me if they use their OWN money when they get "sick" ;)
JeffB
Hey Jeff,
Actually, smokers subsidise most government spending, certainly here in the uk at least. If it wasn't for smokers, then non-smokers would have higher taxes to pay. Considering that cigarettes are taxed at around 85%, and that the price of a pack of 20 is around £4.50 ( $7 ), that's a **** of a lot of subsidy!
This is why smoking will never be banned, it raises too much revenue for the government. And it's a perfect thing to tax - simply because non-smokers have no sympathy with smokers over the price of a packet of cigarettes ...
So you see, the argument that non-smokers have to fund the healthcare of smokers with their taxes is a non-starter. Smokers pay more for it than the non-smokers do, yet they are often discriminated against when it comes to receiving treatment. Smokers are actually saving you money! There are reports published each year saying that smoking related ilnesses are costing the health service x number of million pounds per year, and this upsets non-smokers as they feel they are paying for it. However, if in the same report they offset this cost by the amount of revenue they have received from the sale of cigarettes, the report would have a completely different conclusion. It's all just political spin - and it appears to have worked on you.
I'm in no way endorsing smoking, it sucks. I am a smoker, and have been for 15 years (half my life). Each and every time I light one up, I remind myself how stupid I'm being, but that doesn't stop me. I tell myself each time that it will be my last packet, but it never is. I don't even enjoy smoking really, it's merely a habit. If i have a drink in one hand, I must have a cigarette in the other. It's purely behavioural ; having smoked since a kid, practically everything I've learned to do in my adult life, I've done with a cigarette in my hand. The biggest problem in giving up cigarettes, is in finding a substitute - and to date I've had no such luck ...
There is too much people that smoke. And I must pay (with taxes and the like) for them. It will not disturb me if they use their OWN money when they get "sick" ;)
JeffB
Hey Jeff,
Actually, smokers subsidise most government spending, certainly here in the uk at least. If it wasn't for smokers, then non-smokers would have higher taxes to pay. Considering that cigarettes are taxed at around 85%, and that the price of a pack of 20 is around £4.50 ( $7 ), that's a **** of a lot of subsidy!
This is why smoking will never be banned, it raises too much revenue for the government. And it's a perfect thing to tax - simply because non-smokers have no sympathy with smokers over the price of a packet of cigarettes ...
So you see, the argument that non-smokers have to fund the healthcare of smokers with their taxes is a non-starter. Smokers pay more for it than the non-smokers do, yet they are often discriminated against when it comes to receiving treatment. Smokers are actually saving you money! There are reports published each year saying that smoking related ilnesses are costing the health service x number of million pounds per year, and this upsets non-smokers as they feel they are paying for it. However, if in the same report they offset this cost by the amount of revenue they have received from the sale of cigarettes, the report would have a completely different conclusion. It's all just political spin - and it appears to have worked on you.
I'm in no way endorsing smoking, it sucks. I am a smoker, and have been for 15 years (half my life). Each and every time I light one up, I remind myself how stupid I'm being, but that doesn't stop me. I tell myself each time that it will be my last packet, but it never is. I don't even enjoy smoking really, it's merely a habit. If i have a drink in one hand, I must have a cigarette in the other. It's purely behavioural ; having smoked since a kid, practically everything I've learned to do in my adult life, I've done with a cigarette in my hand. The biggest problem in giving up cigarettes, is in finding a substitute - and to date I've had no such luck ...
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 06:55 AM
Smokers pay more for it than the non-smokers do, yet they are often discriminated against when it comes to receiving treatment. Smokers are actually saving you money! Depends on the healthcare system you're in. In the crappy UK one, this might be true. But I wouldn't be sure that a cost analysis would yield the same result in Belgium.Smokers pay more for it than the non-smokers do, yet they are often discriminated against when it comes to receiving treatment. Smokers are actually saving you money! That does not happen as often so that you could claim this is significant. If you are a smoker, you will be put on a lower place on a list of people waiting to receive a donor organ, but that is probably a minority in the wide spectrum of deseases smokers have and probably the only case where they are discriminated in.
Amn
October 17th, 2002, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Simon666
I've read somewhere that nicotine is making you as addicted as heroine or something like that, so it doesn't really surprises me. The exact article I don't remember, but there is plenty on the web if you search. This (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html) is an example.
Nicotine is MORE addictive than heroin. Its a strange but genuine fact.
I've read somewhere that nicotine is making you as addicted as heroine or something like that, so it doesn't really surprises me. The exact article I don't remember, but there is plenty on the web if you search. This (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html) is an example.
Nicotine is MORE addictive than heroin. Its a strange but genuine fact.
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Simon666
Depends on the healthcare system you're in. In the crappy UK one, this might be true. But I wouldn't be sure that a cost analysis would yield the same result in Belgium. That does not happen as often so that you could claim this is significant. If you are a smoker, you will be put on a lower place on a list of people waiting to receive a donor organ, but that is probably a minority in the wide spectrum of deseases smokers have and probably the only case where they are discriminated in.
You just picked me up on two points, and then agreed with me on both of them :)
Depends on the healthcare system you're in. In the crappy UK one, this might be true. But I wouldn't be sure that a cost analysis would yield the same result in Belgium. That does not happen as often so that you could claim this is significant. If you are a smoker, you will be put on a lower place on a list of people waiting to receive a donor organ, but that is probably a minority in the wide spectrum of deseases smokers have and probably the only case where they are discriminated in.
You just picked me up on two points, and then agreed with me on both of them :)
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 07:20 AM
I would not say agree, I would say adding clarification and nuances.
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 09:15 AM
But cigarettes are taxed BECAUSE smokers get sick. Without cigarette, [the're] will be less people sick, so it will cost less for government.
It's the same thing here (Canada), taxes on cigarette have again increasing recently. That have increase the buying of cigarette on "black market" (Can we say that in english?), so again, not a good point, more taxes, more crime.
JeffB
It's the same thing here (Canada), taxes on cigarette have again increasing recently. That have increase the buying of cigarette on "black market" (Can we say that in english?), so again, not a good point, more taxes, more crime.
JeffB
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JeffB
But cigarettes are taxed BECAUSE smokers get sick. Without cigarette, [the're] will be less people sick, so it will cost less for government.
JeffB
That is an incredibly naive view. No offence intended, but do you honestly believe that ?
By that rationale, if cigarettes were a health benefit, they wouldn't attract any tax ? There would be no duty to pay on them ? Not a chance ...
Cigarettes were being taxed even before we fully appreciated the health implications.
You have to ask yourself why governments tax anything in reality ? The answer is : because they can. Everything is taxed. At least in the UK that is true anyway. Anything that is not taxed is considered a 'loop hole', and the government wouldn't miss out on billions of pounds of smokers money ...
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads.
But cigarettes are taxed BECAUSE smokers get sick. Without cigarette, [the're] will be less people sick, so it will cost less for government.
JeffB
That is an incredibly naive view. No offence intended, but do you honestly believe that ?
By that rationale, if cigarettes were a health benefit, they wouldn't attract any tax ? There would be no duty to pay on them ? Not a chance ...
Cigarettes were being taxed even before we fully appreciated the health implications.
You have to ask yourself why governments tax anything in reality ? The answer is : because they can. Everything is taxed. At least in the UK that is true anyway. Anything that is not taxed is considered a 'loop hole', and the government wouldn't miss out on billions of pounds of smokers money ...
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads.
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 10:58 AM
That is an incredibly naive view. No offence intended, but do you honestly believe that ? Apparently Jase is going in against every credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry.
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads. All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads. All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by jase jennings
That is an incredibly naive view. No offence intended, but do you honestly believe that ?
Having public healtcare, yes, I'm sure that these smokers that lurk in hospital corridors COST MONEY, doctors get paid to take care of them.
You have to ask yourself why governments tax anything in reality ? The answer is : because they can. Everything is taxed. At least in the UK that is true anyway. Anything that is not taxed is considered a 'loop hole', and the government wouldn't miss out on billions of pounds of smokers money ...
True, that is how government work
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads.
I don't agree, if you need money for road, you create road taxes to pay it, if it goes to "War Chest" or Christmas party , then now it's another problem.
But I agree that even if smokers would pay for their cigarettes, it would still be taxed (probably), but that will only bring more money to the government and discourage people to start smoking.
JeffB
That is an incredibly naive view. No offence intended, but do you honestly believe that ?
Having public healtcare, yes, I'm sure that these smokers that lurk in hospital corridors COST MONEY, doctors get paid to take care of them.
You have to ask yourself why governments tax anything in reality ? The answer is : because they can. Everything is taxed. At least in the UK that is true anyway. Anything that is not taxed is considered a 'loop hole', and the government wouldn't miss out on billions of pounds of smokers money ...
True, that is how government work
And do you believe that all of the revenus raised on cigarettes are ploughed back into healthcare ? Because they're not. They contribute to huge government war chests. Just as petroleum tax isn't invested in cleaning up the environment, and road tax does not go on building roads.
I don't agree, if you need money for road, you create road taxes to pay it, if it goes to "War Chest" or Christmas party , then now it's another problem.
But I agree that even if smokers would pay for their cigarettes, it would still be taxed (probably), but that will only bring more money to the government and discourage people to start smoking.
JeffB
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Simon666
All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
Simon, it's exactly my opinion, just have trouble to explain :)
JeffB
All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
Simon, it's exactly my opinion, just have trouble to explain :)
JeffB
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 11:24 AM
I have trouble explaining myself verbally, written is no problem. I wish it were the other way around. :(
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Simon666
Apparently Jase is going in against every credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry.
Excuse me ?
Please show me a 'credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry' which makes the assertion that cigarettes are taxed because they make people sick. There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? Jeff is naive if he believes this.
Originally posted by Simon666
All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
I partially agree with you - but Jeff's assertion is that revenue's raised from smoking funds sick smokers in the healthcare system. And your assertion here is that the level of tax raised from cigarettes is indicative of the amount of money they spend on issues caused by smoking ? This just isn't true (in the UK at least) . It follows, therefore, that if you remove cigarretes from circulation, and assume that people no longer get sick from smoking, the government should be about even money then ? The money they lost on the revenue is no longer being spent on the sick smokers so the scales are balanced ? Nope, the government would have a tax deficit of billions of pounds per annum, and would be forced to impose heavier tax burdens elsewhere, to the disadvantage of the healthy non-smokers.
The tax is very much disproportionate to the product. In Mexico i can pick up 20 cigarettes whiuch have been imported from the UK
for 50 - 70p . However, in the UK where they are manufactured, they cost almost 10 times that.
Anyway, this is getting too political, so to get back to the point ...
Yes, I smoke - attempts to quit have so far failed, but i'm certain i will at some stage - maybe when i have children. It will require a life changing moment anyway - and hopefully not as an ill result of smoking tobacco. If only i had a greater tolerance to skunk weed, I'd have no need for tobacco. But as it is, that stuff makes me keel over:) Shame. I guess we just weren't designed to inhale smoke, which sounds fair enough i suppose. Perhaps we will evolve into a species that can ? Survival of the fittest and all that .. although I guess the fittest by defintion would be non-smokers :)
Apparently Jase is going in against every credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry.
Excuse me ?
Please show me a 'credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry' which makes the assertion that cigarettes are taxed because they make people sick. There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? Jeff is naive if he believes this.
Originally posted by Simon666
All taxes are brought together and redistributed. So you could say that no tax is being spend on what it is called for, but as far as I know governments name them as such in order to let people know about how much it is spending on these separate issues, and these figures may not match exactly, but they give a good impression.
I partially agree with you - but Jeff's assertion is that revenue's raised from smoking funds sick smokers in the healthcare system. And your assertion here is that the level of tax raised from cigarettes is indicative of the amount of money they spend on issues caused by smoking ? This just isn't true (in the UK at least) . It follows, therefore, that if you remove cigarretes from circulation, and assume that people no longer get sick from smoking, the government should be about even money then ? The money they lost on the revenue is no longer being spent on the sick smokers so the scales are balanced ? Nope, the government would have a tax deficit of billions of pounds per annum, and would be forced to impose heavier tax burdens elsewhere, to the disadvantage of the healthy non-smokers.
The tax is very much disproportionate to the product. In Mexico i can pick up 20 cigarettes whiuch have been imported from the UK
for 50 - 70p . However, in the UK where they are manufactured, they cost almost 10 times that.
Anyway, this is getting too political, so to get back to the point ...
Yes, I smoke - attempts to quit have so far failed, but i'm certain i will at some stage - maybe when i have children. It will require a life changing moment anyway - and hopefully not as an ill result of smoking tobacco. If only i had a greater tolerance to skunk weed, I'd have no need for tobacco. But as it is, that stuff makes me keel over:) Shame. I guess we just weren't designed to inhale smoke, which sounds fair enough i suppose. Perhaps we will evolve into a species that can ? Survival of the fittest and all that .. although I guess the fittest by defintion would be non-smokers :)
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 11:49 AM
Please show me a 'credible medical study not sponsored by the tobacco industry' which makes the assertion that cigarettes are taxed because they make people sick.
With that line I was referring to the undisputable medical proof that cigarettes make people sick, not to the fact that cigarettes are taxed because they make people sick. Dokters don't keep themselves busy with taxes, they have enough trouble paying them.There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? I hope you meant "There is some argument that cigarettes make people sick, but are they only taxed because they make people sick ?[/B] If you don't, my point about the medical studies is firmly standing. And if you do, governments are indeed cynical about taxes, the (proven) fact that it makes people sick is indeed probably just an excuse, but it is a very good one. Governments sometimes forbid and/or restrict gambling, but organize it themselves as a lottery. And your assertion here is that the level of tax raised from cigarettes is indicative of the amount of money they spend on issues caused by smoking ? No, the point was that most taxes represent at some point the cost to society. In case of cigarettes it is probably some indication on what it costs to society to smoke. You are focussing just on cancer and so I think, but tobacco causes a wide range of diseases. It might cover some of the costs, but probably more or less. The uncertainty is because of the fact that government (due to short term tax revenues) AND tobacco companies oppose to a real, extensive cost analysis taking all factors into account that make smoking more (cancer, heart disease,...) and less (shorter life span thus lower pension) expensive.Anyway, this is getting too political, so to get back to the point ... Well, I have to agree on that one. :D
With that line I was referring to the undisputable medical proof that cigarettes make people sick, not to the fact that cigarettes are taxed because they make people sick. Dokters don't keep themselves busy with taxes, they have enough trouble paying them.There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? I hope you meant "There is some argument that cigarettes make people sick, but are they only taxed because they make people sick ?[/B] If you don't, my point about the medical studies is firmly standing. And if you do, governments are indeed cynical about taxes, the (proven) fact that it makes people sick is indeed probably just an excuse, but it is a very good one. Governments sometimes forbid and/or restrict gambling, but organize it themselves as a lottery. And your assertion here is that the level of tax raised from cigarettes is indicative of the amount of money they spend on issues caused by smoking ? No, the point was that most taxes represent at some point the cost to society. In case of cigarettes it is probably some indication on what it costs to society to smoke. You are focussing just on cancer and so I think, but tobacco causes a wide range of diseases. It might cover some of the costs, but probably more or less. The uncertainty is because of the fact that government (due to short term tax revenues) AND tobacco companies oppose to a real, extensive cost analysis taking all factors into account that make smoking more (cancer, heart disease,...) and less (shorter life span thus lower pension) expensive.Anyway, this is getting too political, so to get back to the point ... Well, I have to agree on that one. :D
irona20
October 17th, 2002, 11:50 AM
:D
I have 3 brothers and 3 sisters, yes, it is truth :) All smoke, so I had to be original, and I don't smoke, and I hate the smell :D :D
I have 3 brothers and 3 sisters, yes, it is truth :) All smoke, so I had to be original, and I don't smoke, and I hate the smell :D :D
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 12:01 PM
I have 3 brothers and 3 sisters, yes, it is truth You did not need to mention "yes, it is truth". Judging your reaction on my opinion (on your request) about abortion, I'll take you on your word on this one.
irona20
October 17th, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Simon666
You did not need to mention "yes, it is truth". Judging your reaction on my opinion (on your request) about abortion, I'll take you on your word on this one.
:D Simon, it was only a joke :p
You did not need to mention "yes, it is truth". Judging your reaction on my opinion (on your request) about abortion, I'll take you on your word on this one.
:D Simon, it was only a joke :p
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 12:03 PM
Oh, and by the way, I don't mean anything by it and I certainly do not wish to start that discussion again, please, this is about smoking, that's sensitive enough already.
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Simon666
I hope you meant "There is some argument that cigarettes make people sick, but are they only taxed because they make people sick ?[/B] If you don't, my point about the medical studies is firmly standing.
Nope, I meant "There is NO argument ...", as in "there can be no argument...". Cigarettes make people sick. That is irrefutable. What I meant was that there can be no argument about this, it is a fact. I think we are both saying the same thing :)
I hope you meant "There is some argument that cigarettes make people sick, but are they only taxed because they make people sick ?[/B] If you don't, my point about the medical studies is firmly standing.
Nope, I meant "There is NO argument ...", as in "there can be no argument...". Cigarettes make people sick. That is irrefutable. What I meant was that there can be no argument about this, it is a fact. I think we are both saying the same thing :)
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 12:21 PM
Nope, I meant "There is NO argument ...", as in "there can be no argument...". Did you formulated this incorrect or am I learning an English lesson in the proces that this can have two meanings? :confused: I'm glad you agree on that one by the way.
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by jase jennings
There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? Jeff is naive if he believes this.
You're saying that government can impose such taxes on anything even if this is good? Milk is not taxed, it cost the lowest possible. Milk is good, therefore, there is no cancer or respiration trouble associate to it. If you let your government tax anything, again, that's another problem.
It follows, therefore, that if you remove cigarretes from circulation, and assume that people no longer get sick from smoking, the government should be about even money then ? The money they lost on the revenue is no longer being spent on the sick smokers so the scales are balanced ? Nope, the government would have a tax deficit of billions of pounds per annum, and would be forced to impose heavier tax burdens elsewhere, to the disadvantage of the healthy non-smokers.
I don't follow your logic here. Maybe you could give me an example so I can understand your point. The government will still have deficit, it has nothing to do with cigarettes, every government got deficit. If you are trying to tell that government get more taxes than they spend on sick smokers, I agree, government make money with these smokers, but still, they want to discourage smokers, so that's why they taxes a lot.
Anyway, this is getting too political
Agree :)
JeffB
There is no argument that cigarettes make people sick, but they are only taxed because they make people sick ? Jeff is naive if he believes this.
You're saying that government can impose such taxes on anything even if this is good? Milk is not taxed, it cost the lowest possible. Milk is good, therefore, there is no cancer or respiration trouble associate to it. If you let your government tax anything, again, that's another problem.
It follows, therefore, that if you remove cigarretes from circulation, and assume that people no longer get sick from smoking, the government should be about even money then ? The money they lost on the revenue is no longer being spent on the sick smokers so the scales are balanced ? Nope, the government would have a tax deficit of billions of pounds per annum, and would be forced to impose heavier tax burdens elsewhere, to the disadvantage of the healthy non-smokers.
I don't follow your logic here. Maybe you could give me an example so I can understand your point. The government will still have deficit, it has nothing to do with cigarettes, every government got deficit. If you are trying to tell that government get more taxes than they spend on sick smokers, I agree, government make money with these smokers, but still, they want to discourage smokers, so that's why they taxes a lot.
Anyway, this is getting too political
Agree :)
JeffB
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 12:54 PM
How could I not agree on that one ?
An english lesson ? Perhaps. Whether or not it is gramatically correct as written, I could not confidently say, but it is a common way of speaking. I was simply saying that ' There is no argument', meaning that such an argument does not exist, that there is not an argument on that point, that it cannot be argued (well, it could, buy it would be a losing argument).
An english lesson ? Perhaps. Whether or not it is gramatically correct as written, I could not confidently say, but it is a common way of speaking. I was simply saying that ' There is no argument', meaning that such an argument does not exist, that there is not an argument on that point, that it cannot be argued (well, it could, buy it would be a losing argument).
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by JeffB
You're saying that government can impose such taxes on anything even if this is good? Milk is not taxed, it cost the lowest possible. Milk is good, therefore, there is no cancer or respiration trouble associate to it. If you let your government tax anything, again, that's another problem.
Sorry Jeff, yes, Milk is taxed. We pay 17.5% of the value of the milk to the government , every time we buy it. In the UK, there is no escaping taxation. We are the most taxed nation in the European Union - lovingly referred to as "Rip Off Britain". And no, we don't like it. They continue to add taxes after promising they won't, but we can do nothing. We may vote them out, and bring in another government who will promise not to add any new taxes - but even if they stick to their word, the existing taxes will never be dropped. We pay around the same price for 1 litre of fuel as Americans pay for 5 litres. And yet the oil comes from the same source. Why is it 5 times more expensive ? Tax. Around 85-90% of the price we pay at the petrol pump goes directly to the government, and in return we see little benefit. In fact, taxes are raised steadily, yet the quality of government service is getting worse rapidly ...
Can you sense my frustrations yet ? I have my visa's for Australia - I'm going to go and live there next summer :)
Originally posted by JeffB
I don't follow your logic here. Maybe you could give me an example so I can understand your point. The government will still have deficit, it has nothing to do with cigarettes, every government got deficit. If you are trying to tell that government get more taxes than they spend on sick smokers, I agree, government make money with these smokers, but still, they want to discourage smokers, so that's why they taxes a lot.
I gave an example. My point is that the taxes raised from tobacco sales far exceed the expenses incurred as a result of smoking, by billions of pounds. The government don't want us to stop smoking, it would cost them too much.
Still too political :)
You're saying that government can impose such taxes on anything even if this is good? Milk is not taxed, it cost the lowest possible. Milk is good, therefore, there is no cancer or respiration trouble associate to it. If you let your government tax anything, again, that's another problem.
Sorry Jeff, yes, Milk is taxed. We pay 17.5% of the value of the milk to the government , every time we buy it. In the UK, there is no escaping taxation. We are the most taxed nation in the European Union - lovingly referred to as "Rip Off Britain". And no, we don't like it. They continue to add taxes after promising they won't, but we can do nothing. We may vote them out, and bring in another government who will promise not to add any new taxes - but even if they stick to their word, the existing taxes will never be dropped. We pay around the same price for 1 litre of fuel as Americans pay for 5 litres. And yet the oil comes from the same source. Why is it 5 times more expensive ? Tax. Around 85-90% of the price we pay at the petrol pump goes directly to the government, and in return we see little benefit. In fact, taxes are raised steadily, yet the quality of government service is getting worse rapidly ...
Can you sense my frustrations yet ? I have my visa's for Australia - I'm going to go and live there next summer :)
Originally posted by JeffB
I don't follow your logic here. Maybe you could give me an example so I can understand your point. The government will still have deficit, it has nothing to do with cigarettes, every government got deficit. If you are trying to tell that government get more taxes than they spend on sick smokers, I agree, government make money with these smokers, but still, they want to discourage smokers, so that's why they taxes a lot.
I gave an example. My point is that the taxes raised from tobacco sales far exceed the expenses incurred as a result of smoking, by billions of pounds. The government don't want us to stop smoking, it would cost them too much.
Still too political :)
Simon666
October 17th, 2002, 01:30 PM
We are the most taxed nation in the European Union - lovingly referred to as "Rip Off Britain". Have you an article to prove that? I've never heard of that. Percentually it might be true, but in size the Germans deliver the greatest net value to the EU.
They continue to add taxes after promising they won't, but we can do nothing. I've heard they are planning to make the taxations on gas more uniform across the EU in the future in order to avoid concurrence disadvantages. So there is hope for England some point in the future. :D
I gave an example. My point is that the taxes raised from tobacco sales far exceed the expenses incurred as a result of smoking, by billions of pounds. The government don't want us to stop smoking, it would cost them too much. I wouldn't be sure about that one. As I've said before, a good cost analysis does not exist. But it is true that it would certainly hurt them in the short term, which is what matters to politicians. I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
They continue to add taxes after promising they won't, but we can do nothing. I've heard they are planning to make the taxations on gas more uniform across the EU in the future in order to avoid concurrence disadvantages. So there is hope for England some point in the future. :D
I gave an example. My point is that the taxes raised from tobacco sales far exceed the expenses incurred as a result of smoking, by billions of pounds. The government don't want us to stop smoking, it would cost them too much. I wouldn't be sure about that one. As I've said before, a good cost analysis does not exist. But it is true that it would certainly hurt them in the short term, which is what matters to politicians. I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Simon666
Have you an article to prove that? I've never heard of that. Percentually it might be true, but in size the Germans deliver the greatest net value to the EU.
It's not a question of net value to the EU, it's a matter of pricing. It is more expensive in Britain to buy products and services than it is anywhere else in Europe, and the prices are inflated both directly by taxation (i.e. v.a.t. and other sales taxes), but also indirectly by taxation on goods and services forced upon the supplier of the goods - so the costs of the supplier are transferred into the cost of the product. You get to the point where some items are more tax than they are cost and profit, such as cigarettes and fuel. Do you know it's cheaper to buy toothpaste in canada that has been manufactured in britain and exported to canada, than it is to buy it in britain. How can that be ? Tax ...
I've heard they are planning to make the taxations on gas more uniform across the EU in the future in order to avoid concurrence disadvantages. So there is hope for England some point in the future. :D
In France, the price of a litre of fuel is 1/3 of the price you would pay for it in the southeast of england - and all that separates the two are 20 miles of ocean. Government policy differentiates the price. As for uniform taxation across the EU, we're not in the Euro yet. I'm of the opinion that losing our currency and financial independence ; the ability to set our own interest rates etc, is too high a cost to pay. And inevitably, if we change to the Euro, everything will just get even more expensive, as it has proved in Spain. However, I'm open minded on this ...
I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
Why?
Have you an article to prove that? I've never heard of that. Percentually it might be true, but in size the Germans deliver the greatest net value to the EU.
It's not a question of net value to the EU, it's a matter of pricing. It is more expensive in Britain to buy products and services than it is anywhere else in Europe, and the prices are inflated both directly by taxation (i.e. v.a.t. and other sales taxes), but also indirectly by taxation on goods and services forced upon the supplier of the goods - so the costs of the supplier are transferred into the cost of the product. You get to the point where some items are more tax than they are cost and profit, such as cigarettes and fuel. Do you know it's cheaper to buy toothpaste in canada that has been manufactured in britain and exported to canada, than it is to buy it in britain. How can that be ? Tax ...
I've heard they are planning to make the taxations on gas more uniform across the EU in the future in order to avoid concurrence disadvantages. So there is hope for England some point in the future. :D
In France, the price of a litre of fuel is 1/3 of the price you would pay for it in the southeast of england - and all that separates the two are 20 miles of ocean. Government policy differentiates the price. As for uniform taxation across the EU, we're not in the Euro yet. I'm of the opinion that losing our currency and financial independence ; the ability to set our own interest rates etc, is too high a cost to pay. And inevitably, if we change to the Euro, everything will just get even more expensive, as it has proved in Spain. However, I'm open minded on this ...
I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
Why?
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Simon666
I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
I agree with that. Ex-smokers would spend their money elsewhere and their would be less disease ;)
JeffB
I think the long term effects of banning smoking would be positive economically.
I agree with that. Ex-smokers would spend their money elsewhere and their would be less disease ;)
JeffB
galathaea
October 17th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Milk is taxed in some of the US states too, for the same reason most things are taxed: economics. The theory goes: we want to support our states dairy farmers so we tax all out of state milk imports so local farmers can sell at inflated prices.
But back on target. Why BAN? As I said in an earlier post, there is an important consideration that must be recognized: tobacco is a sacrament in MANY religions all across the Americas. Just because that may sound silly to some does not justify yet another injustice to these people. Yes, there are SERIOUS health risks associated with the chronic, intense, manic smoking of those in industrial society, and this needs to be fixed. But through health training and addiction and drug therapies. A "don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot" legal solution only promotes the establishment of illicit drug cartels, as we saw in alcohol prohibition and the modern "war on drugs." Fortunately, there are some new therapies on the horizon (retroviral gene therapies are a major one) that may be able to restore receptor density and help cure addictive dopaminergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic pathways in the brain.
But back on target. Why BAN? As I said in an earlier post, there is an important consideration that must be recognized: tobacco is a sacrament in MANY religions all across the Americas. Just because that may sound silly to some does not justify yet another injustice to these people. Yes, there are SERIOUS health risks associated with the chronic, intense, manic smoking of those in industrial society, and this needs to be fixed. But through health training and addiction and drug therapies. A "don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot" legal solution only promotes the establishment of illicit drug cartels, as we saw in alcohol prohibition and the modern "war on drugs." Fortunately, there are some new therapies on the horizon (retroviral gene therapies are a major one) that may be able to restore receptor density and help cure addictive dopaminergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic pathways in the brain.
JeffB
October 17th, 2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by galathaea
Milk is taxed in some of the US states too,
In Canada too, but nothing compare to Cigarette, and a too taxed milk will be crazy, since there is people that have just enough money to buy some milk, public opinion would be a lot more "angry" if milk taxes increse by 40 % (like it has been with cigarette some time ago)
But back on target. Why BAN?
I'm not trying to promote cigarette banning. As you said, it would only promote people to find whether another drug to use or to buy cigarrette on illegal market, but we must think at a long term. Futur generations must not be encouraged to smoke. Taxes will discourage them ;)
JeffB
Milk is taxed in some of the US states too,
In Canada too, but nothing compare to Cigarette, and a too taxed milk will be crazy, since there is people that have just enough money to buy some milk, public opinion would be a lot more "angry" if milk taxes increse by 40 % (like it has been with cigarette some time ago)
But back on target. Why BAN?
I'm not trying to promote cigarette banning. As you said, it would only promote people to find whether another drug to use or to buy cigarrette on illegal market, but we must think at a long term. Futur generations must not be encouraged to smoke. Taxes will discourage them ;)
JeffB
Mick
October 17th, 2002, 03:10 PM
What are we really talking about? Banning pre-packaged cig's? Or banning tobacco? Banning tobacco is a joke like probition (banning alcohol) I can farm my own tobac here. In maryland we have a crop of farmers that farm tobacco. The local gov tries to push them to soybean yada yada I do believe they pay them to do so. So where is the money savings? And now you talk about underground interstate cig running which currently HAPPENS now. So you bring a criminal element into it. You gonna pay the wages for the workers who lose their jobs or the buisnesses that get hurt because they can't sell yet another product. As I recall George Burns smoked cigars and didn't die from them.
to quote "When Dr. Cohen asked the great comedian, holding his ever-present cigar, what his doctor said about his smoking, Mr. Burns' retort was "my doctor is dead!"
This is all about a persons personal decision to do this or do that. As I stated before I don't plan on having the goverment pay for me if I should get ill that's what assisted suicide laws are for ;). And if you want to talk about having to pay for health costs then... Illegal Aliens suck up a boat load of money from our health care. Should we ban them? wait we already did, how come it's not working? Raise the taxes on smokes I'll get mine over the internet or skip on down to Virgina to pick up lower priced smokes. The solution is to look for a 100% medical means to solve the mental/physical dependencies that people have to smoke. I enjoy smoking so I doubt that it would ever apply to me.
Also we are doing really good in reducing the number of kids who smoke with education. Most kids don't like to smoke, I think that's great. I can see a definate impact on the kids thru ads and education. Just you know, don't target me :)
to quote "When Dr. Cohen asked the great comedian, holding his ever-present cigar, what his doctor said about his smoking, Mr. Burns' retort was "my doctor is dead!"
This is all about a persons personal decision to do this or do that. As I stated before I don't plan on having the goverment pay for me if I should get ill that's what assisted suicide laws are for ;). And if you want to talk about having to pay for health costs then... Illegal Aliens suck up a boat load of money from our health care. Should we ban them? wait we already did, how come it's not working? Raise the taxes on smokes I'll get mine over the internet or skip on down to Virgina to pick up lower priced smokes. The solution is to look for a 100% medical means to solve the mental/physical dependencies that people have to smoke. I enjoy smoking so I doubt that it would ever apply to me.
Also we are doing really good in reducing the number of kids who smoke with education. Most kids don't like to smoke, I think that's great. I can see a definate impact on the kids thru ads and education. Just you know, don't target me :)
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by JeffB
Futur generations must not be encouraged to smoke. Taxes will discourage them ;)
JeffB
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
Futur generations must not be encouraged to smoke. Taxes will discourage them ;)
JeffB
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
Mick
October 17th, 2002, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by jase jennings
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
Agreed but it will also just make people buy them off the streets (black market). Consider. A carton of smokes cost like 50 bucks in Maryland. In Virginia it cost lets say 30 bucks (I don't have the exact price for VA but it's far cheaper). All I have to do is buy 1000 cartons of smokes a week in VA from various stores take a 5 minute drive across the border to MD and sell them for lets say 40 bucks a carton. A non-taxed profit of 10,000 bucks a week. If your of a criminal background who wouldn't want to take the risk of doing that? This is what I mean. If you ban tobacco people would still grow it ala 'Pot'. Pot's easier to get than booze for most young kids round here, so your not stopping anything. Taxes do beget more taxes. In MD we had this HUGE surplus of money that was just flushed down the toilet by the current and previous governers. Now we are looking at something like a $1.7 billion defict. So what are they doing, you guessed it raising taxes. The mentallity is.. ok we screwed up and blew all the money so lets just tax everyone then we can get a surplus again then blow it again then hey tax people again. It's getting to be just automatic with people taxing whatever they want because they can't solve problems with the money they have already been given.
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
Agreed but it will also just make people buy them off the streets (black market). Consider. A carton of smokes cost like 50 bucks in Maryland. In Virginia it cost lets say 30 bucks (I don't have the exact price for VA but it's far cheaper). All I have to do is buy 1000 cartons of smokes a week in VA from various stores take a 5 minute drive across the border to MD and sell them for lets say 40 bucks a carton. A non-taxed profit of 10,000 bucks a week. If your of a criminal background who wouldn't want to take the risk of doing that? This is what I mean. If you ban tobacco people would still grow it ala 'Pot'. Pot's easier to get than booze for most young kids round here, so your not stopping anything. Taxes do beget more taxes. In MD we had this HUGE surplus of money that was just flushed down the toilet by the current and previous governers. Now we are looking at something like a $1.7 billion defict. So what are they doing, you guessed it raising taxes. The mentallity is.. ok we screwed up and blew all the money so lets just tax everyone then we can get a surplus again then blow it again then hey tax people again. It's getting to be just automatic with people taxing whatever they want because they can't solve problems with the money they have already been given.
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 05:47 PM
I entirely sympathise. And you're right abouyt raising prices too high. They have done it here, so people cross the english channel into france and buy their cigarettes there instead. It's not against the law. So long as they are for 'personal use' and not for resale - afterall the chancellor is not stupid, he wants his cigarette duties. The problem here is with the british customs and excise in dover. If they decide that 2000 cigarettes could not possibly be for personal use (although I don't think there's a limit, if there is then it's high - like 10000) - they simply confiscate your cigarettes, impound your vehicle, and leave you t o make your way home. You will never see your car again, you will never see your ciggarettes again, you've lost all that money, and you have a very limited right of reply. This has been going on for some years now. It's a frightening prospect to ferry tobacco from france to england, even though it's not against any european or british trading laws. They have created such a mess. The chancellor is losing duties because british money is being spent in France, and the consumer is then getting their goods stolen by customs gestapo on the way back in. Outrageous. The only winners here are the french cash and carry. This situation went before the british courts recently, who ruled that their actions are illegal, that they are operating outside of their jurisdiction and were in no way following a mandate from the government. So what the **** were they doing then ?
It's getting so f****ed up over here. Since Tony Blair came into government in 1997, this country has gone down the toliet.
It's getting so f****ed up over here. Since Tony Blair came into government in 1997, this country has gone down the toliet.
Mick
October 17th, 2002, 05:53 PM
Yea my ex-wife was over in the United Kingdom for like 5 years for work purposes. She really would complain about the gas prices over there. But hey, the US goverment paid for alot of other things like housing etc so all in all she made out like a bandit. One thing she did like over there was you didn't have a concept of minutes for your cell phone it was just a monthly bill? Man I wish they would implement that in the US. But I guess we have more territory to cover with the cell towers.
jase jennings
October 17th, 2002, 06:43 PM
Really? Everybody i know pays by the minute. You get billed once a month, but you pay by the minute. DEpending which network you're on, the price varies quite alot. Vodafone have the best covergae, and charge around 30 - 40p per minute for cross network calls.
Simon666
October 18th, 2002, 03:09 AM
And inevitably, if we change to the Euro, everything will just get even more expensive, as it has proved in Spain. It has proved so not only in Spain, BUT IN THE ENTIRE EU. Just for information. It is a capitalistic world you know, and the middle class uses every change it can to make things more expensive, even if this is not necessary or even would make the opposite true. Take the transition from video to DVD : it costs less in transport (smaller volumer and weight) and probably also costs less making it, but for some reason they charge more. For games it is the same thing : prevously you had these large carton boxes with a big manual oand/or other goodies, now you get one of those lousy small DVD boxes, with either pocket manual or manual in pdf format, to be printed yourself, yet have game prices decreased? I don't think so.
And I also think the entire British policy on smoking and fuel taxes really sucks. English people sometimes just come to Belgium to buy cigarettes, it may even be for personal use only, but it certainly is very polluting and absurd to drive around 200 miles and cross the sea to buy lousy cigarettes. And English truck drivers also try to fill there tanks here whenever they can. There is also a black market, and this causes problems with local people sometimes and also attracts crime. I can know, our neighbours probably got rich via that kind of practics, or otherwise they couldn't afford to biuld a castle nextdoors.
And I also think the entire British policy on smoking and fuel taxes really sucks. English people sometimes just come to Belgium to buy cigarettes, it may even be for personal use only, but it certainly is very polluting and absurd to drive around 200 miles and cross the sea to buy lousy cigarettes. And English truck drivers also try to fill there tanks here whenever they can. There is also a black market, and this causes problems with local people sometimes and also attracts crime. I can know, our neighbours probably got rich via that kind of practics, or otherwise they couldn't afford to biuld a castle nextdoors.
Gabriel Fleseriu
October 18th, 2002, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by jase jennings
If they decide that 2000 cigarettes could not possibly be for personal use (although I don't think there's a limit, if there is then it's high - like 10000) - ...
10'000?? Whoa! Are you sure?
You are allowed to import 1 caton of cigarettes to Switzerland for personal use (pro person). There is a small loophole, saying that you are also allowed to have up to 10 spare packs more than that on you - that is 2 cartons best case - that is 400 cigarettes.
If they decide that 2000 cigarettes could not possibly be for personal use (although I don't think there's a limit, if there is then it's high - like 10000) - ...
10'000?? Whoa! Are you sure?
You are allowed to import 1 caton of cigarettes to Switzerland for personal use (pro person). There is a small loophole, saying that you are also allowed to have up to 10 spare packs more than that on you - that is 2 cartons best case - that is 400 cigarettes.
jase jennings
October 18th, 2002, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Gabriel Fleseriu
10'000?? Whoa! Are you sure?
You are allowed to import 1 caton of cigarettes to Switzerland for personal use (pro person). There is a small loophole, saying that you are also allowed to have up to 10 spare packs more than that on you - that is 2 cartons best case - that is 400 cigarettes.
Hi Gabriel,
Nope, I'm not sure at all :)
It depends where you are buying them. It always used to be that you could buy cigarettes 'duty-free', when on airplanes, in airport departure lounges, or ferries across the english channel. The limit per person was I believe 200 or 400 cigarettes. These would be cheaper because you would not pay any British duties, such as valued added tax and others. However, laws were revised because it contravened the open market that Europe was supposed to provide, so it was then made possible to buy as much as you like from mainland europe, providing it was not for resale. Many english entrepeneurs then set up businesses in France by opening up large 'cash and carry' warehouses, selling all manner of goods cheaper than you can buy them in the UK (because they do not have any UK tax on them). People around the UK now go on what are affectionately termed "Booze Cruises", where they drive across to France (or Begium I guess), fill up there cars with cigarettes, wine, beer, perfume and cheap fuel, sit around outside for a meal in a nice french cafe eating croissants and then drive back home, saving themselves sometimes hundreds of pounds in money and having a nice day out in France, effectively for free. Providing they can get past customs without losing their vehicle, their goods and their liberty that is - which is a gamble. You may just as well toss a coin to see if you are allowed to keep your car.
It's outrageous. Whatever happened to the open borders of the european community and free trade etc ? The british government are almost despotic in collecting their taxes ...
10'000?? Whoa! Are you sure?
You are allowed to import 1 caton of cigarettes to Switzerland for personal use (pro person). There is a small loophole, saying that you are also allowed to have up to 10 spare packs more than that on you - that is 2 cartons best case - that is 400 cigarettes.
Hi Gabriel,
Nope, I'm not sure at all :)
It depends where you are buying them. It always used to be that you could buy cigarettes 'duty-free', when on airplanes, in airport departure lounges, or ferries across the english channel. The limit per person was I believe 200 or 400 cigarettes. These would be cheaper because you would not pay any British duties, such as valued added tax and others. However, laws were revised because it contravened the open market that Europe was supposed to provide, so it was then made possible to buy as much as you like from mainland europe, providing it was not for resale. Many english entrepeneurs then set up businesses in France by opening up large 'cash and carry' warehouses, selling all manner of goods cheaper than you can buy them in the UK (because they do not have any UK tax on them). People around the UK now go on what are affectionately termed "Booze Cruises", where they drive across to France (or Begium I guess), fill up there cars with cigarettes, wine, beer, perfume and cheap fuel, sit around outside for a meal in a nice french cafe eating croissants and then drive back home, saving themselves sometimes hundreds of pounds in money and having a nice day out in France, effectively for free. Providing they can get past customs without losing their vehicle, their goods and their liberty that is - which is a gamble. You may just as well toss a coin to see if you are allowed to keep your car.
It's outrageous. Whatever happened to the open borders of the european community and free trade etc ? The british government are almost despotic in collecting their taxes ...
JeffB
October 18th, 2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by jase jennings
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Even if it is done, ALL governments should do the same, everyone will go buy their cigarettes elsewhere AND black market will rise. It's the same thing is the taxes are TOO big, whether it is the taxes or the prices, it's the same things. But anyway, how can a government impose such a price? Can a government impose that to tobacco compagnies?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
I did not say I like taxes to rise, if I say it, quote me and I'll be sorry. I don't want cigarettes taxes to rise too much, but I'm a non-smokers and my current taxes are used in health care, part of it to help smokers. It's something else. Cigarettes is bad, taxing it is IMO ok, if tomorrow they taxes more something that do not deserve to be taxesd (milk for example), they will have to find a good reason... Québec is the most taxed state of North America (inluding USA and Canada), so I pay enough taxes like that
JeffB
In that case, why don't the government just put up the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20, or better still, why not make that $50. That'd stop people smoking .... ?
Even if it is done, ALL governments should do the same, everyone will go buy their cigarettes elsewhere AND black market will rise. It's the same thing is the taxes are TOO big, whether it is the taxes or the prices, it's the same things. But anyway, how can a government impose such a price? Can a government impose that to tobacco compagnies?
Taxes aren't levied as a form of discouragement. You must be the only person I've heard say that they like taxes to rise. Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's something else.
I did not say I like taxes to rise, if I say it, quote me and I'll be sorry. I don't want cigarettes taxes to rise too much, but I'm a non-smokers and my current taxes are used in health care, part of it to help smokers. It's something else. Cigarettes is bad, taxing it is IMO ok, if tomorrow they taxes more something that do not deserve to be taxesd (milk for example), they will have to find a good reason... Québec is the most taxed state of North America (inluding USA and Canada), so I pay enough taxes like that
JeffB
jase jennings
October 18th, 2002, 01:31 PM
Exactly, so you agree that you cannot put the price of cigarettes up by so much that it will dissuade people from buying them - because this will just create a black market economy in tobacco. The government will lose it's revenue, yet the cost implications for the government will still be there - so everybody loses out (except the black market sellers).
I'm still a little concerned by your argument though ; Put taxes up, providing they don't affect you. Well thankyou. I appreciate that you have no sympathy with smokers, and nor should you. Let's also put more tax on hauliers too while we're at it. Doesn't bother me, I don't drive a heavy goods vehicle ...
But to get back to the original point, without smokers taxes, you would pay even more. Higher taxation on smokers isn't a solution. Better government spending is ... when you're in charge of billions of dollars of revenues, it's easy to let a few million fall by the wayside here and there - it's chicken feed compared to what's available. While this attitude continues, mugs like us have to work harder to make up the wasteage. That's how it appears to me anyhow.
Vive la revolution !
I'm still a little concerned by your argument though ; Put taxes up, providing they don't affect you. Well thankyou. I appreciate that you have no sympathy with smokers, and nor should you. Let's also put more tax on hauliers too while we're at it. Doesn't bother me, I don't drive a heavy goods vehicle ...
But to get back to the original point, without smokers taxes, you would pay even more. Higher taxation on smokers isn't a solution. Better government spending is ... when you're in charge of billions of dollars of revenues, it's easy to let a few million fall by the wayside here and there - it's chicken feed compared to what's available. While this attitude continues, mugs like us have to work harder to make up the wasteage. That's how it appears to me anyhow.
Vive la revolution !
JeffB
October 18th, 2002, 02:06 PM
Actually, I have nothing against smokers, except that here in the state I live, I'm paying for them. I would like to see the next generations having other concern then smoking. As for the lost of money, these billions of dollars would be spend elsewhere, probably in "entertainment" and activities. I don't smoke so I can go to cinema more often then someone having the exact same amount of money then me spending 10$ / week on cigarettes.
This is indeed an exploitation of the addictive drugs named "Nicotine", so if you're smoking, here another reason to stop : "Your government might exploit your bad habit and make money with you"
Well thankyou. I appreciate that you have no sympathy with smokers,
Don't take offense if you smoke, I have nothing against smokers. Smoking IS a bad habit, but we have all. I understand and respect people, smoker or not. I will give a cheers to those who have quit though! My sympathy stop to those who are irresponsable: smoking while pregnant, smoking in car with children (already see such a thing) and that kind of comportments.
Put taxes up, providing they don't affect you.
No actually, I'm trying to be objective. This don't affect me I know, so it's hard to be objective, but any bad habits should not be encouraged. I don't think there is a lot of smokers that want their children to smoke. And since these smokers, here at less, will cost money to government when they will get sick, they should understand why they are taxed. As for "too much taxed", I don't think cigarettes are yet too much taxed, they are "highly taxed", but not too much ;)
JeffB
This is indeed an exploitation of the addictive drugs named "Nicotine", so if you're smoking, here another reason to stop : "Your government might exploit your bad habit and make money with you"
Well thankyou. I appreciate that you have no sympathy with smokers,
Don't take offense if you smoke, I have nothing against smokers. Smoking IS a bad habit, but we have all. I understand and respect people, smoker or not. I will give a cheers to those who have quit though! My sympathy stop to those who are irresponsable: smoking while pregnant, smoking in car with children (already see such a thing) and that kind of comportments.
Put taxes up, providing they don't affect you.
No actually, I'm trying to be objective. This don't affect me I know, so it's hard to be objective, but any bad habits should not be encouraged. I don't think there is a lot of smokers that want their children to smoke. And since these smokers, here at less, will cost money to government when they will get sick, they should understand why they are taxed. As for "too much taxed", I don't think cigarettes are yet too much taxed, they are "highly taxed", but not too much ;)
JeffB
jase jennings
October 18th, 2002, 02:37 PM
I agree entirely with your first two points, but not with your last. But then we've discussed that last point at length in previous posts. Still, I completely respect your opinion. As we both come from two different sides of the same argument, it's inevitable that we will not completely agree :)
See you around ...
See you around ...
DavidJMoore
October 22nd, 2002, 01:47 AM
I am a smoker, tried to quit unsuccessfully numerous times. I can say this though, if non smokers get thier way and get all smokers to quit smoking, then they will really begin to B***H, when their taxes are increased by the Government's loss of the tax dollars from that sin tax. What next tax on toilet paper then everyone will pay thier share?
AbhijeetR
October 31st, 2002, 03:41 AM
Well, I think I have swung it back in favor of non-smokers from deadlock of 15:15.
Nice to see appreciable percent of voters quitting smoking. One more important thing is that many of smokers have tried (may be unsuccessfully ) to quit smoking or at least minimize smoking. They are smoking as they could not quit. So principally most of us agree to fact that it is better not to smoke.
Now, in my opinion, to quit smoking is not one day affaire. Person has to minimize smoking and in process finally get rid of it. It takes more of mental toughness than medication. This makes software professionals best candidates for being and continue to be non-smokers.
I do not have to quit smoking as I never started. But have definitely seen many friends quitting successfully. Initially for short periods but ultimately for ever. The key is keep trying.
Good Luck to .....
SMOKERS : May no cancer touch you before you die.
NONSMOKERS : May you need not die couple of years before destiny because person besides you smokes.
ALL QUITTERS : May you succeed earliest and never touch it again.
Abhijeet...
Nice to see appreciable percent of voters quitting smoking. One more important thing is that many of smokers have tried (may be unsuccessfully ) to quit smoking or at least minimize smoking. They are smoking as they could not quit. So principally most of us agree to fact that it is better not to smoke.
Now, in my opinion, to quit smoking is not one day affaire. Person has to minimize smoking and in process finally get rid of it. It takes more of mental toughness than medication. This makes software professionals best candidates for being and continue to be non-smokers.
I do not have to quit smoking as I never started. But have definitely seen many friends quitting successfully. Initially for short periods but ultimately for ever. The key is keep trying.
Good Luck to .....
SMOKERS : May no cancer touch you before you die.
NONSMOKERS : May you need not die couple of years before destiny because person besides you smokes.
ALL QUITTERS : May you succeed earliest and never touch it again.
Abhijeet...
codeguru.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.