Skyrad 0 #1 March 9, 2011 So the UK Government has banned the display of Tobacco in any form in shops, it will still be available but people will have to ask for it. They will also be attempting to make cigarette manufacturers use only plain white packaging, personally I love the idea. I'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. Whats your thoughts on this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12680815When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #2 March 9, 2011 Same here in Canada. Artificially high pricing, through taxes, huge graphic warning labels taking up most of the package and they have to be kept out of sight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #3 March 9, 2011 Agreed - AND anyone buying a tobacco product should also be forced to smear extracted cancerous lung tissue on their (and any children they have) faces and clothes for each purchase. Most cigarette packs would then offer a wet wipe as an added feature. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #4 March 9, 2011 There's no logical reason not to support it. Or if someone thinks there is, please state it. Both alcohol and tobacco are things that one should have the right to consume in the case that it affects no one else. But that both have no good reason to be advertised and promoted. They're extremely dangerous and addictive, sure it's great for those in the industries, they get to make more money by using marketing schemes to get people addicted etc. Advertising and marketing has no affect on one's personal freedoms to consume it. With that said, I think the idea of trying to cut cigarettes out of movies scenes and things like that, is well... retarded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #5 March 9, 2011 Quote Agreed - AND anyone buying a tobacco product should also be forced to smear extracted cancerous lung tissue on their (and any children they have) faces and clothes for each purchase. Most cigarette packs would then offer a wet wipe as an added feature. Interesting idea, I salute your passion but I think thats a step too far old boyWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 March 9, 2011 QuoteI love the idea. I'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. Citizens should have the freedom of choice to smoke if they wish, and not at artificially inflated prices. If you support this, what are you going to do when someone uses the same idea for alcohol? For personal consumption of gasoline? And for skydiving? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #7 March 9, 2011 Quote Agreed - AND anyone buying a tobacco product should also be forced to smear extracted cancerous lung tissue on their (and any children they have) faces and clothes for each purchase. Most cigarette packs would then offer a wet wipe as an added feature. You mormons need to stop pushing your morality on everyone else!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #8 March 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteI love the idea. I'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. Citizens should have the freedom of choice to smoke if they wish, and not at artificially inflated prices. If you support this, what are you going to do when someone uses the same idea for alcohol? For personal consumption of gasoline? And for skydiving? Alcohol? Destroys lives and society, fine by me, raise away! Gasoline (Petrol) is already raised to those levels, Skydiving doesn't harm society so no worries.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 March 9, 2011 Quote Quote Agreed - AND anyone buying a tobacco product should also be forced to smear extracted cancerous lung tissue on their (and any children they have) faces and clothes for each purchase. Most cigarette packs would then offer a wet wipe as an added feature. Interesting idea, I salute your passion but I think thats a step too far old boy actually, as much as I despise smoking and as stupid as I think it is, my real belief is that people should be able to do what they like as far as it's concerned without the gov trying to socially engineer or exploit it. As long as they do it away from others that would be affected or annoyed by it or in a private location - i.e., be courteous about it. I'd be all for people being able to take a pill or a shot to get the same affect and penalties - that would be fine with me. Even if it has health effects for their own children, provided they deal with that too without asking me to pay for it. They get what they want without being intrusive like it is today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 March 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI love the idea. I'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. Citizens should have the freedom of choice to smoke if they wish, and not at artificially inflated prices. If you support this, what are you going to do when someone uses the same idea for alcohol? For personal consumption of gasoline? And for skydiving? Alcohol? Destroys lives and society, fine by me, raise away! Gasoline (Petrol) is already raised to those levels, Skydiving doesn't harm society so no worries. Gasoline causes pollution and wars for resources. Skydiving injuries create a burden on taxpayers from rescue squads and unpaid hospital bills. If you're gonna ban one societal burden, you might as well ban them all. At $5 for a pack of cigarettes, I'd say that tobacco prices are already artificially high enough, that if your theory had any merit, it would already be working. The fact is, tobacco is an inelastic demand item, that smokers will pay any price for. If you raise the price, they'll just do without somewhere else to continue to get their cigarettes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #11 March 9, 2011 Quote without asking me to pay for it. And there is the rub.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 March 9, 2011 QuoteThe fact is, tobacco is an inelastic demand item, that smokers will pay any price for. If you raise the price, they'll just do without somewhere else to continue to get their cigarettes. Not true. A quick Google search revealed a bunch of reports that contradict that view. According to this one, the tobacco companies do not agree with you either: www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #13 March 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe fact is, tobacco is an inelastic demand item, that smokers will pay any price for. If you raise the price, they'll just do without somewhere else to continue to get their cigarettes. Not true. A quick Google search revealed a bunch of reports that contradict that view. According to this one, the tobacco companies do not agree with you either: www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf Not only that, but actions like this are more focussed on preventing people from starting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 March 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe fact is, tobacco is an inelastic demand item, that smokers will pay any price for. If you raise the price, they'll just do without somewhere else to continue to get their cigarettes. Not true... Doesn't really matter from a freedom standpoint. People should be free to choose to participate in activities that may be unhealthy for them, whether it be smoking, riding a motorcycle, or jumping out of airplanes. The government shouldn't be in the business of artificially raising prices on some commodities because they want to punish people for doing certain things. If you raise the price of a pack of cigarettes from $5 to $10, then you might as well also raise the price of gasoline from $4 to $8. And what about beer? How expensive would a six-pack of beer have to be to discourage you from buying it? Once you set the precedent and start down this course, there is no telling where it will go. Just because you and others dislike smoking, doesn't mean that increasing the cost of smoking is a good idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #15 March 9, 2011 You don't know how good you've got it John, $8 a Gallon? That would be a REDUCTION in price in the UK, currently its $9.72 a gallon. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/09/petrol-prices-record-breaking-6-per-gallon A pack of 20 Super King B&H cigarettes costs $10.51 ($9.57 for regular length cigs) http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp?bmUID=1299707481452 You've got it all to look forward to.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #16 March 9, 2011 I do dislike smoking, and I do think that taxing it is an effective way to dissuade people from doing it. On the other hand, I agree that we need to avoid the government regulating private behavior through taxes. If all the tax money raised were set aside for treating smoking related diseases, funding smoking research, and the like, then I'd by okay with it, since that would mean that smokers are just paying for the burden they (collectively) put on society. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,400 #17 March 9, 2011 QuoteI'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. That is not the way it works. When it becomes too expensive to obtain it legally, the black market will step in to fill the demand."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #18 March 10, 2011 QuoteI do dislike smoking, and I do think that taxing it is an effective way to dissuade people from doing it. On the other hand, I agree that we need to avoid the government regulating private behavior through taxes. If all the tax money raised were set aside for treating smoking related diseases, funding smoking research, and the like, then I'd by okay with it, since that would mean that smokers are just paying for the burden they (collectively) put on society. This propaganda is how they get away with it. Smokers do not put an undue burden on scociety. A lot of people run up huge medical bills before they die, not just smokers, and many smokers die of something else before they ever cost a cent. It's a wash. Now add in the fact that most smokers die sooner than non smokers and think of the money saved from that in SSI payments, etc. If the govt. was smart, it would give them away free.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 March 10, 2011 QuoteI do dislike smoking, and I do think that taxing it is an effective way to dissuade people from doing it. On the other hand, I agree that we need to avoid the government regulating private behavior through taxes. If all the tax money raised were set aside for treating smoking related diseases, funding smoking research, and the like, then I'd by okay with it, since that would mean that smokers are just paying for the burden they (collectively) put on society. Remember when the Clinton Administration and many States sued the tobacco companies and justified it for just that reason? http://www.smokingaloud.com/lawsuit.html What rathole do you think that money disappeared down? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 March 10, 2011 I am always curious to see the tobacco industry treated this way, while the alcohol industry is not. And, while I would like to see both products fall out of favor, I struggle with the issue of the government deciding what can be advertised and what cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #21 March 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'd also like to see tobacco made so expensive that no one will purchase it. That is not the way it works. When it becomes too expensive to obtain it legally, the black market will step in to fill the demand. They tried this in Canada (taxing tobacco to death) and you are 100% correct, the black market stepped up to the plate. The Indians (who are tax exempt) are selling tobacco on their reservations. Technically they are only supposed to be selling to fellow Indians who live on the reservations, but when there are profits to be made and people looking for cheap smokes, laws are meant to be broken. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #22 March 10, 2011 QuoteThere's no logical reason not to support it. Or if someone thinks there is, please state it. Overpopulation.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #23 March 10, 2011 I think just not having children would solve that more effectively, and far less devastatingly to those involved. But I'm all for slimming down the population. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #24 March 10, 2011 I don't have a problem with advertising or selling fags - it's inconsiderate smokers that get on my tits. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #25 March 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere's no logical reason not to support it. Or if someone thinks there is, please state it. Overpopulation. You might have said that tongue in cheek, I don't know but you raise an interesting point. In the UK especially where we have a welfare state it is an unpalatable truth that increasing longevity is a costly business and one which we have no idea how we can pay for. Pensionable age is being increased and people in the UK will in the future be expected to work until 70. With fewer children being born the elderly will be the largest demographic if the trend continues, so who will pay for the societal burden that their old age will bring? http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
