Bob FM

Swan song is typical of the anti smoker, in misrepresenting what others post. Where in my piece (which I assume you are referring to) did I say UKIP would take a pro-smoking stance. The stance is of Pro Choice, one of the Key Stones of any Democracy. Also I did not in any way indicate that smoking wasn't harmful, although statistically only 8% of smokers are likely to become ill from smoking throughout their life time. The 50% so often bandied around about the likely death amongst smokers, is actually 50% of the 8% not 50% of the total. And again it is based on 'smoking related'. Smoking is a 23% trigger for Lung cancer, which means there are 77% of 'other' triggers. All that said the issue of bans was nothing to do with smoker health or for that matter the public's health, it was for 'worker health'. Ironically 80% of all those working in Hospitality (both smoker and non smoker) were happy with their environment. The simple fact remains when you analyse the 'reasons', anti smokers complain about smoking you are constantly faced with these adjectives, smelly, filthy, disgusting, rarely do you hear, the smoke is killing me, because it isn't. If one then objectively looks at solutions, as I did as a non smoker, it then becomes obvious that improved ventilation/filtration and or separate smoking rooms is the solution to allow choice. Smokers and tolerant non smokers have co-existed in harmony for decades. The other irony of smoking bans is that non smoking friends go outside with their smoking friends. So I say to Swan Song and others. The facts are out, you just need to seek them out. I find it quite ironic that a poster of a forum entitled British Democracy would deny that right to 14 million people, 6 million more than voted in this current Government. Oh just as an aside David Cameron and his party voted 2 to 1 against a total smoking ban, but now David has done a 'u' turn on his view, I wonder why.?

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: (1) What does it cost in foreign exchange to import the 'stuff
'in the first place? (2) The cost to the Health Service is only a small part of the total amount. (3) What does it cost to keep them on on Social Security whilst ill? (4) What is the Tax and N.I, loss to the Exchequer whilst they are ill? (5) What other benefits do they receive whilst ill: Income Support, rate-rebate, free school lunches for their children, etc.? I fear that you have a very narrow view of 'economic cost'. Would you provide the source of those statistics which you have quoted?

* Would you find the statistics to support your claim (smoking related diseases)? Why are pension providers willing to give smokers a special deal? Their actuaries are interested only in the statistical evidence. Are you claiming that premature death is unrelated to smoking- particularly heavy smoking? Should people wish to smoke let them do it. But to claim that they, 'Smoke for England' in terms of their economic contribution is sheer Alf Garnet nonsense.

If an income, from being a vendor of ale, is becoming increasingly parlous
to obtain, will you be returning to journalism very soon? Presumably, there may be a post pending with UKIP. On the other hand, NF may be very angry towards you, now he's had more information about your previous Human Resource choices. Life has never been easy I'm afraid; just soldier on.

mkpdavies

The government makes money out of imports. Companies pay to import, which they pass on to the customer and the theives add even more tax on too.

Bottom line. If you don't believe a person should be able to smoke and you don't beleive a person should be allowed to let them smoke in their property, then you are a fascist. No better than Hitler, Stanlin or any other wannabe dictator who demands others have to live by their code.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

B.A.Ware

According to statistics your average smoker dies ten years prematurely therefore they don't claim pension for ten years, they don't use hospitals, doctors, dentists or opticians for ten years, they don't claim any benefits for ten years including the heating allowance, they also don't use any energy or produce any CO2 for ten years helping counter global warming so not only are us smokers smoking for England we are smoking for the world

As for free school lunches for their children the majority of smoking related illnesses happen to smokers later in life so i fear it is yourself who has the very narrow view

And if you really want to go down this road try doing some research.

Healthy people place biggest burden on state - Telegraph

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

Mark Croucher

On the smoking, I defer to the answer by BA, who saw your nonsense before me, but posted essentially the same rebuttal to your anti-smoking tripe

As to the latter, I'm not sure of the relevance to the current thread.

M

Aardvark

I believe that I've posted elsewhere the point that the Lithuanian government has opted not to tax cigarettes because the saving on pension costs of dead smokers far outweighs any tax revenue they are likely to receive.

I don't like smoky atmospheres and I won't dine in the presence of smokers. apart from a couple of fags as a teenager, and a few cigars when I tried to be cool, I've never smoked. That said, the hundred per cent ban is wrong. If we can license premises for food, entertainment, betting and alcohol then we can license them for smoking. If the premise has the facility for smoke rooms or filtration systems then smoking should be allowed. Workers who want to work in non-smoke filled atmospheres can work for the pubs and clubs without a license. By giving the power to license to the local council the decision becomes a local one and the elctorate can rid themselves of councillors who tend too much in one direction or the other.

Smokers cast votes as do huntsmen, speeding drivers, hoodies and alcoholics. One day they'll all go out and vote for someone who treats them like adults and the puritans will be stuffed.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Geoffrey Collier

BA Ware: So we agree that smoking is detrimental to health. The economic cost of smoking, cannot be supported by using research statistics generated in another country. Slight error there.

Mortality statistics are class related. Higher the social class, longer the life expectancy. The higher social groups pay higher taxation during their working lives, so that would have to form part of any calculation to arrive at those conclusions which you are trying to achieve. The lower social groups are more dependent upon State support, during their lives, than the higher social groups. (That is certainly not intended to be a criticism).

Public houses are on the decline, thousands have disappeared over recent years. The reasons are complex, demographic change, economics, breathalysers, home comsumption, competing attractions, a million reasons. The small pub, like the small workshop, appears to be in terminal decline.
The small shop, likewise, is being being replaced. Giant supermarkets, large
pubs of the wetherspoon type, are on the ascendancy. Those changes, like many changes, will confer advantage and disadvantage: that is the nature of change. Talking in terms of fascist, Stalinists, and the like, as some do, is hardly rational or relevant.

Aardvark

The decline in small shops and pubs could be ameliorated by the government actually considering the people that use them rather than the supermarket chains and big brewers that fund their political party.

Taxation is a tool of social policy. You increase taxes on booze and fags and you do indeed hurt the 'lower' social classes disproportionately. As they are less likely to vote this is not an issue. The Labour vote is only in decline as the middle class pips begin to squeak. Petrol price rises are going to cause real problems for suburbia as they realise that the loss of the corner shop will not be compensated for by the 10 mile round trip to the favoured out of town location for every conceivable service.

I use public houses regularly and I see virtually no pensioners in most of them. The higher duties have ensured that the OAP has virtually deserted the £3 a pint pub. I'm beginning to wonder how much longer I can afford to drink out.

We are going to be left with a sad society deprived of places where people can meet in a convivial atmosphere for a glass of beer, a fag and a chinwag. It might be progress/change, but I think we could do more to slow the pace. Treating adults with respect concerning their lifestyle choices would go a long way to making our society a happier place.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Mikeuk

I'm currently being bombarded with emails from Ashley Mote, who is apparently out and about with his battle-minibus issuing proclamations as if nothing had ever happened.

Maybe he and this geezer should get together, sort of like Batman and Robin.

B.A.Ware

Cant remember anyone saying it wasn't.

Thats great news so we can discount all of the smoking studies that have been done in other countries.

Also do you dispute healthy people live longer therefore cost the state more.

Theres also a lot of rich people that use tax avoidance loopholes as well unlike your average Joe.

I see you choose to use extremes and totally ignore the vast majority of middle income earners who don't get state support of which there are plenty of smokers
You seem to be missing the point, 1700 pubs have closed since the smoking ban, in 2006 it was 500 most of these were small independent pubs.

The point here Geoffrey is the government forced PRIVATE establishments to ban smokers from there premises there was no demand for it or market forces would have prevailed, how can you say that is not fascist.

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.