Smoking and Gambling, why is it still legal? Watch

sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 6 years ago
#21
(Original post by DCFCfan4eva)
Uhhh think you might have to do a bit a more research
Yeah ofc it's causes cancer and health problems but I was comparing it to drugs like heroin and meth. People who smoke aren't stupid they know the dangers
0
reply
xoxAngel_Kxox
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 6 years ago
#22
I agree with banning smoking to some extent, but at the same time we as humans have free will and I feel it would be patronising to ban something that many enjoy. There should be more help for those wanting to stop though. It's not as though people who smoke don't know what could happen if they carry on.

Gambling is a little different because, in some form, the majority of people do it. Whether you have a game of bingo at a pub quiz, play the lottery, play on the 2p machines at a seaside arcade.. it's all "gambling", and can be addictive. Most people have the will power to stop gambling when they need to, and it is a very small minority of people who are unable to do this.

People can be addicted to absolutely anything. Literally anything in the world people can be addicted to, but the majority of people aren't, and gambling provides nothing more than entertainment for most.

Where would you draw the line at gambling? What about stocks and shares? That's a very big gamble, yet many people base their entire careers on watching the stock markets and invest company assets accordingly.
0
reply
politics_student
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 6 years ago
#23
I personally don't smoke or gamble, but I do believe that individuals can make their own life choices, insofar as they don't affect others. Obviously if someone blows smoke into someone's face, that's curbing the other person's freedom to not have smoke in their face as most non-smokers won't want second hand smoking. With gambling, a responsible person knows the risks and if they continue to do so, that's their own choice.

(Also, smokers are taxed quite heavily, so money is reinvested back in to the economy).

The bottom line is if people want to smoke, drink, or gamble, they're going to do so, regardless of whether such activities are legal or not.
0
reply
politics_student
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 6 years ago
#24
(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
I agree with banning smoking to some extent, but at the same time we as humans have free will and I feel it would be patronising to ban something that many enjoy. There should be more help for those wanting to stop though. It's not as though people who smoke don't know what could happen if they carry on.

Gambling is a little different because, in some form, the majority of people do it. Whether you have a game of bingo at a pub quiz, play the lottery, play on the 2p machines at a seaside arcade.. it's all "gambling", and can be addictive. Most people have the will power to stop gambling when they need to, and it is a very small minority of people who are unable to do this.

People can be addicted to absolutely anything. Literally anything in the world people can be addicted to, but the majority of people aren't, and gambling provides nothing more than entertainment for most.

Where would you draw the line at gambling? What about stocks and shares? That's a very big gamble, yet many people base their entire careers on watching the stock markets and invest company assets accordingly.
This. Where is the line drawn beyond gambling, drinking, or smoking. If it provides enjoyment for the person concerned and doesn't affect others, then it is intrusive to ban certain things just because someone doesn't like them.
0
reply
LorenMcCain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 6 years ago
#25
Totally agree that the government should be involved but I'm not sure that banning will be an affective way to pursue. Obviously taxing will increase prices on cigarettes but many people will keep buying them no matter what. It's an addiction. Honestly I don't know what would be a better way, I incline to think that it should be a grassroots thing, from the bottom up, not vise versa.
0
reply
NewFolder
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report 6 years ago
#26
(Original post by Konnichiwa)
Law is supposed to protect us, not turn a blind eye and allow us to commit acts that would destroy our livelihoods.
...
Gambling can be harmless and highly enjoyable if done in moderation. Some people also enjoy smoking.

I don't like smoking, but some people do. I personally don't think it's worth doing anything as dangerous as smoking just for enjoyment, but others do so when they are fully aware of the risks of doing so. Their body, their decision.

A lot of people enjoy gambling and do it a lot, without adverse effect. A minority of people become addicted to gambling. But most people gamble without any significant negative effects.

We can't just ban everything that can be harmful to people in some circumstances, otherwise life would get very boring. What we should do instead, is inform people of the risks of doing certain things, let them make the decision whether to do it or not, and then if they choose to do it and something bad happens, then that's their problem. We can't just say "that's bad, you can't do that", because these are adults who are capable of making their own decisions, and it is a free country after all.
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 6 years ago
#27
(Original post by Konnichiwa)
Law is supposed to protect us, not turn a blind eye and allow us to commit acts that would destroy our livelihoods.
No, the law is supposed to protect us from the actions of others.

What we do to ourselves is our business and ours alone.
0
reply
Aspiringlawstudent
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 6 years ago
#28
Paternalism is disgusting.
0
reply
Daniel George
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 6 years ago
#29
simply, they make so much money from tax etc...and people who gamble rarely make money anyway....so they (the government etc) do not lose out - but rather gain from peoples stupidity (anti-smoking and gambling)
0
reply
Sebb01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 6 years ago
#30
One point to make to counter the argument that "what people do with their life is their choice and none of anybody else's business" is that smoking destroys you, and you will eventually require nhs support. The cost on the NHS as a result of smoking related ilnesses, (and alcohol is another big cost on the NHS) makes it OUR BUSINESS because we pay TAXES!!

Put that one up your pipes and SMOKE IT!

...er, no wait, don't smoke it, I'm trying to be anti-smoker here, lol!
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#31
Report 6 years ago
#31
(Original post by Sebb01)
One point to make to counter the argument that "what people do with their life is their choice and none of anybody else's business" is that smoking destroys you, and you will eventually require nhs support. The cost on the NHS as a result of smoking related ilnesses, (and alcohol is the biggest cost on the NHS) makes it OUR BUSINESS because we pay TAXES!!
Your argument is nonsensical.

There is a far bigger income from taxation on cigarettes than the outgoing from costs to the NHS in treating smoking-related illnesses. That is even if you inflate the costs by ignoring the fact that people who die from a smoking related illness would eventually have died from something else which would still have caused expense, so not all of the costs are actually attributable to smoking. And finally, smokers die earlier and save the country billions in state pension payments.

Smoking probably generates 4-5 times the revenue that it costs.
0
reply
Sebb01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 6 years ago
#32
You say my argument is nonsensical but you don't even address it. You make an entirely different point: Does smoking make the government more money than it costs them. I don't know wether it does or doesn't. But you never addressed my point: We pay taxes for the NHS, smokers use up NHS services so in that sense it is our business or at least not "non of our business!"
0
reply
Nick100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 6 years ago
#33
Or maybe we could treat people like adults and let them make their own choices.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 6 years ago
#34
(Original post by Sebb01)
You say my argument is nonsensical but you don't even address it. You make an entirely different point: Does smoking make the government more money than it costs them. I don't know wether it does or doesn't. But you never addressed my point: We pay taxes for the NHS, smokers use up NHS services so in that sense it is our business or at least not "non of our business!"
So your argument is analogous to saying "Person X gave me £20 then made me spend £3 buying them a pint - that's my business and I'm not happy about it because I only have a £6 budget for buying pints".

Well, that argument *is* nonsensical - sorry. You can add some of the extra £20 you received to your pint-buying budget so that aspect of your life isn't affected at all, *and then* spend the remaining £17 on something else, just like the government can add some of the £9bn they receive in cigarette taxation to the NHS budget and then spend the remaining £7bn on something else, and the NHS is no worse off. It's your business only in the sense that in the first example you have an extra £17, and in the second example the government has an extra £7bn per year.
0
reply
Sebb01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 6 years ago
#35
(Original post by Nick100)
Or maybe we could treat people like adults and let them make their own choices.
Some choices hurt more than just yourself. Some can destroy an entire family, and then sum!
0
reply
Sebb01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 6 years ago
#36
(Original post by Forum User)
So your argument is analogous to saying "Person X gave me £20 then made me spend £3 buying them a pint - that's my business and I'm not happy about it because I only have a £6 budget for buying pints".

Well, that argument *is* nonsensical - sorry. You can add some of the extra £20 you received to your pint-buying budget so that aspect of your life isn't affected at all, *and then* spend the remaining £17 on something else, just like the government can add some of the £9bn they receive in cigarette taxation to the NHS budget and then spend the remaining £7bn on something else, and the NHS is no worse off.
Im very skeptical that nhs is getting the costs back. Otherwise I doubt you would see hospitals complaining of the costs. Recently they were complaining of how it costs 6 billion. Would they be complaining if they were getting it all back from the government?

Also, money ain't everything. Just because something makes the government more money doesn't make it right. Human life is more important than money.
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 6 years ago
#37
(Original post by Sebb01)
You say my argument is nonsensical but you don't even address it. You make an entirely different point: Does smoking make the government more money than it costs them. I don't know wether it does or doesn't. But you never addressed my point: We pay taxes for the NHS, smokers use up NHS services so in that sense it is our business or at least not "non of our business!"
The amount contributed in cigarette taxes by smokers more than covers the cost of treating them on the NHS. Us non-smokers are net beneficiaries of smokers.

Put it another way: if everyone in Britain stopped smoking tomorrow, there would be LESS NHS resources for the rest of us, not more. We should be thankful for smokers providing us with these extra resources.
0
reply
Sebb01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 6 years ago
#38
I doubt very much the nhs would be complaining an suggesting higher costs on smokers if that were the case.
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 6 years ago
#39
(Original post by Sebb01)
I doubt very much the nhs would be complaining an suggesting higher costs on smokers if that were the case.
It is the case, look up the figures for yourself. What you may now conclude about the rationality of the NHS's alleged statement is up to you.

Overeating, unhealthy lifestyles and obesity on the other hand are a catastrophic drain on the NHS's resources.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 6 years ago
#40
(Original post by Sebb01)
I doubt very much the nhs would be complaining an suggesting higher costs on smokers if that were the case.
Well, the NHS aren't only concerned with the effects of smoking on their budget. It's reasonable that they want people to stop 'killing themselves' through smoking even if they do happen to make money from it, because they are a health service and improving people's health is their raison d'etre, not making money.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (139)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (211)
26.98%
Not great so far... (281)
35.93%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All