Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    As a non-smoker I can't ever remember being bothered by someone smoking on the street.

    Don't think it'll be too long before smokers become such social pariahs, they only go out to work and to buy essentials. :rolleyes:

    Fourth hand smoke is now a health hazard now.
    They must be making this up, surely?
    I hate smoking myself, but I've never seen people doing it in the street as a problem.
    What bothers is me is when someone smokes at a bus shelter - you can't get away from them because you're waiting for your bus! :mad:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)

    I guess a public finance initiative would work fine in the case of the shelters, just make them excludable and charge smokers 20p a time to get in. The full social cost of smoking is £3.74 billion higher than revenues from smoking, so it would be making it even, really. .
    Today's Times, page 35, has a slightly different take on the economics,

    " Tax revenue from tobacco sales is about £10 billion. The cost of treating related diseases is half that, at most"

    Article: Philip Collins
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Today's Times, page 35, has a slightly different take on the economics,

    " Tax revenue from tobacco sales is about £10 billion. The cost of treating related diseases is half that, at most"

    Article: Philip Collins
    The full social cost of smoking is estimated at £13.74 billion.

    http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima..._March__10.pdf
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Nicotine being the addictive ingredient in cigarettes, you may as well ban cigarettes entirely.

    "You have to have respect for those who smoke, and those who don't."

    People shouldn't be breathing smoke at you. If they do then it's likely to be accidental.
    Yeah, you may aswell ban them. I could understand letting cigarettes be legal if they did anyone any good, but they really don't have any positive benefits. It makes you ill, makes you die quicker, makes you smell, reduces your ability to smell and taste things. I don't know why it still exists tbh :confused: Its like drinking a small diluted amount of poison every day for no good reason.

    Like i've said, my main problem is when people stand in the exit of EVERYWHERE smoking. Which then makes everyone walk through a smoke cloud, i mean have some respect for gods sake.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Yeah, you may aswell ban them. I could understand letting cigarettes be legal if they did anyone any good, but they really don't have any positive benefits. It makes you ill, makes you die quicker, makes you smell, reduces your ability to smell and taste things. I don't know why it still exists tbh :confused: Its like drinking a small diluted amount of poison every day for no good reason.

    Like i've said, my main problem is when people stand in the exit of EVERYWHERE smoking. Which then makes everyone walk through a smoke cloud, i mean have some respect for gods sake.
    I personally smoke because the thought of giving myself emphysema leading to an early death arouses me :sexface:

    If you ban cigarettes there will be a public uproar. The amount of smokers easily outnumber the militant anti-smokers. Most people are too apathetic about it to give a ****.

    "Mithridates is most famously said to have sought to harden himself against poison, both by taking increasing sub-lethal doses of the poisons to build tolerance, and by fashioning a 'universal antidote' to protect him from all earthly poisons"
    Taking poison is apparently good :yy:

    I'll agree with you when people stand in the exits of places smoking. As I said, you should respect those who smoke, and those who don't. That rule applies to both smokers and non-smokers alike. I very rarely smoke in doorways unless it's pissing it down.

    On the flipside, anti-smokers have already made us smoke outside, so therefore we do, and if it happens to be in a doorway because we don't want to get wet then sobeit.
    What would you rather smokers do ; smoke inside, or smoke outside?
    Smoking in doorways seems to be the lesser of two evils compared to smoking inside from where I'm standing :holmes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ritchie888)
    everyone must wear ponchos!
    My ex used to enjoy naked poncho girl...

    Did I just say that out loud?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Why should non-smokers have to suffer from the nasty stench and the second-hand smoke that smokers produce, usually without concern for other people - so long as they can get a fix from their addiction?

    I propose that smoking is banned from the streets.

    However, to not make it so unfair on smokers - most places would have several smoking shelters - with one no more than 10 minutes walk from another. These would be covered areas where smoking would be permitted. A smoker could stop there, have a smoke and carry on walking - without affecting non-smokers.
    This would be ridiculous, smoking shelters 10 minutes apart all over the country? You must be special. Or a Troll.
    • Offline

      2
      (Original post by The Procrastinator)
      My ex used to enjoy naked poncho girl...

      Did I just say that out loud?!
      :|

      Way uncool!
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Boobies.)
      The full social cost of smoking is estimated at £13.74 billion.

      http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima..._March__10.pdf
      From the article you quote:

      "Taxation of tobacco contributes £10 billion to HM Treasury annually; however, we calculate that the costs
      to society from smoking are much greater at £13.74 billion. Every cigarette smoked is costing us money.
      These societal costs comprise not only the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (£2.7 billion) but also the loss
      in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9 billion) and increased absenteeism (£2.5 billion); the cost of
      cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million); the cost of smoking related house fires (£507 million), and also
      the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers (£4.1 billion) and passive smokers (£713 million)."

      Have no yet read the small print, however the economic output loss from the death of smokers , £4.1 billion ,appears to be a clutching at straws inclusion to justify the argument.

      The loss of output re breaks etc argument could readily be levelled at World Cups, Royal weddings etc

      I would like them very much to rework the costings taking into account the savings to the state of paying pensions etc for a lesser period of time, making allowance for smokers possibly requiring less state nursing care support later in life in comparison with long lived non smokers. Subject to how one wishes to make assumptions the economics can be argued either way.

      I could also reluctantly make the point, though I am somewhat loathe to use stereotypes, that as the incidence of smoking is reported as apparently higher amongst certain disadvantaged social groups, and those groups are more dependant upon state aid than the average, that the economic savings from their deaths, earlier than might have been, would be, on a strictly fiscal basis, advantageous to the finances of the state.

      The article is certainly not a slam dunk re your case.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Ban Margaret Thatcher from the streets.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      Never really saw the problem with people smoking outside? The impact on other people is tiny

      Stop trying to control what other people do...

      (Original post by boobies.)
      The full social cost of smoking is estimated at £13.74 billion.

      http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima..._March__10.pdf
      The article also says that smokers pay something like £11bn in duty. It argues that the price of a pack go up from £6 to £7 - not really a strong argument for banning
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by DJKL)
      From the article you quote:

      "Taxation of tobacco contributes £10 billion to HM Treasury annually; however, we calculate that the costs
      to society from smoking are much greater at £13.74 billion. Every cigarette smoked is costing us money.
      These societal costs comprise not only the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (£2.7 billion) but also the loss
      in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9 billion) and increased absenteeism (£2.5 billion); the cost of
      cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million); the cost of smoking related house fires (£507 million), and also
      the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers (£4.1 billion) and passive smokers (£713 million)."

      Have no yet read the small print, however the economic output loss from the death of smokers , £4.1 billion ,appears to be a clutching at straws inclusion to justify the argument.
      I think you'll find that when the Department for Transport take into account the full social cost of building roads they account for the negative externality of loss of output from people who would have lived if they had not died in road traffic accidents. Similarly, loss of output from people who blow themselves up with fireworks are considered an external cost of firework production/consumtion.
      Its an extremely valid argument, and it applies to deaths by cigarette consumption - just because it takes longer for you to die doesn't mean it's not the same thing.

      (Original post by DJKL)
      The loss of output re breaks etc argument could readily be levelled at World Cups, Royal weddings etc
      Indeed. What's your point? A loss of output is a loss of output, and hence a negative externality.

      (Original post by DJKL)
      I would like them very much to rework the costings taking into account the savings to the state of paying pensions etc for a lesser period of time, making allowance for smokers possibly requiring less state nursing care support later in life in comparison with long lived non smokers. Subject to how one wishes to make assumptions the economics can be argued either way.
      This seems relatively fair, you'd have to judge how many people died from smoking related diseases after retirement age, on average how many years after retirement age and times this by yearly pension entitlement. I'll agree with that one, but I don't think it will have a significant effect on the findings.

      (Original post by DJKL)
      I could also reluctantly make the point, though I am somewhat loathe to use stereotypes, that as the incidence of smoking is reported as apparently higher amongst certain disadvantaged social groups, and those groups are more dependant upon state aid than the average, that the economic savings from their deaths, earlier than might have been, would be, on a strictly fiscal basis, advantageous to the finances of the state.
      I think the idea of making a quantifiable economic judgement on the fact that people who smoke would or would not claim more money than they would generate in the period between actual death and their potential death if non-smokers is ever so slightly completely absurd. Take into account loss of output from grieving relatives, the cost of raising any children who are left behind, and general fall in wellbeing for all affected by the death renders your argument invalid.

      (Original post by DJKL)
      The article is certainly not a slam dunk re your case.
      No, it is not. However, when addressing the cost to society of smoking you insinuated that related health costs to the NHS are all that needs to be accounted for in the pricing of cigarettes, which is clearly wrong. It seems as though you are trying to disqualify the costs of smoking to society, when in fact they are solid economic reasons to increase tax on cigarettes. Without fully considering these external costs, the output/consumption of cigarettes will remain too high and price will be too low. The market fails.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jacketpotato)
      Never really saw the problem with people smoking outside? The impact on other people is tiny

      Stop trying to control what other people do...


      The article also says that smokers pay something like £11bn in duty. It argues that the price of a pack go up from £6 to £7 - not really a strong argument for banning
      This was in response to someone suggesting that people pay twice the social costs of smoking in taxation, and wasn't an argument for banning at all. :curious:

      I'm personally fine with people smoking in their own houses, but tbh i just don't see the point of it. Might as well ban it and stop people ruining their own health for no good reason.

      And just because you think an effect is tiny, doesn't mean it isn't a problem. I refer again to the fact that most smokers do us all the pleasure of standing right outside the entrances to buildings so that everyone has to walk through damaging smoke. Why should I have to walk through harmful chemicals in my day to day life because you want to slowly ingest poison either because you think it makes you look cool or think it 'calms you down'?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Shelters would definitely produce a close community of smokers. :daydreaming:

      But in all seriousness the effects of second hand smoking outside are negligible, or so I am led to believe.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      I personally smoke because the thought of giving myself emphysema leading to an early death arouses me :sexface:

      If you ban cigarettes there will be a public uproar. The amount of smokers easily outnumber the militant anti-smokers. Most people are too apathetic about it to give a ****.
      I know. Lack of political will is the major problem with a democratic political system. It is a shame. Also, another thing - I wouldn't say I'm a militant non smoker, I'm just someone who would rather the world be without it, especially as some of my friends smoke, and they reek.

      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      "Mithridates is most famously said to have sought to harden himself against poison, both by taking increasing sub-lethal doses of the poisons to build tolerance, and by fashioning a 'universal antidote' to protect him from all earthly poisons"
      Taking poison is apparently good :yy:
      I'm sure the adverse health affects far outweigh the advantages of being partially protected in the case of potential poisoning.

      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      I'll agree with you when people stand in the exits of places smoking. As I said, you should respect those who smoke, and those who don't. That rule applies to both smokers and non-smokers alike. I very rarely smoke in doorways unless it's pissing it down.

      On the flipside, anti-smokers have already made us smoke outside, so therefore we do, and if it happens to be in a doorway because we don't want to get wet then sobeit.
      We 'made you' smoke outside because your actions were having an adverse effect on our health, despite us doing nothing wrong. If you decided to stamp on my foot every day I'd be inclined to make you stand outside too haha

      (Original post by Drunk Punx)
      What would you rather smokers do ; smoke inside, or smoke outside?
      Smoking in doorways seems to be the lesser of two evils compared to smoking inside from where I'm standing :holmes:
      To be honest, I'd rather you just smoke in your houses, or not at all. If there were some positive external benefits of it, then i might be more empathetic towards smokers, but there isn't. Moreover, there aren't really any private benefits, apart from lung-disease related hard-ons.
      The lesser of two evils is still an evil, and if it does no good, why have it?
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Boobies.)
      I think you'll find that when the Department for Transport take into account the full social cost of building roads they account for the negative externality of loss of output from people who would have lived if they had not died in road traffic accidents. Similarly, loss of output from people who blow themselves up with fireworks are considered an external cost of firework production/consumtion.
      Its an extremely valid argument, and it applies to deaths by cigarette consumption - just because it takes longer for you to die doesn't mean it's not the same thing.



      Indeed. What's your point? A loss of output is a loss of output, and hence a negative externality.


      This seems relatively fair, you'd have to judge how many people died from smoking related diseases after retirement age, on average how many years after retirement age and times this by yearly pension entitlement. I'll agree with that one, but I don't think it will have a significant effect on the findings.



      I think the idea of making a quantifiable economic judgement on the fact that people who smoke would or would not claim more money than they would generate in the period between actual death and their potential death if non-smokers is ever so slightly completely absurd. Take into account loss of output from grieving relatives, the cost of raising any children who are left behind, and general fall in wellbeing for all affected by the death renders your argument invalid.



      No, it is not. However, when addressing the cost to society of smoking you insinuated that related health costs to the NHS are all that needs to be accounted for in the pricing of cigarettes, which is clearly wrong. It seems as though you are trying to disqualify the costs of smoking to society, when in fact they are solid economic reasons to increase tax on cigarettes. Without fully considering these external costs, the output/consumption of cigarettes will remain too high and price will be too low. The market fails.
      I really cannot see how GDP loss is a valid "cost".

      1. It presumes full employment and that when these individuals die then there is no available manpower to take their place, therefore GDP falls, a permanent loss. This presumes a perfectly managed state where the labour element of the means of production is fully utilised. This is fallacious.

      2. Drop in GDP is not a cost to the state, drop in tax yes, not in GDP.

      3. The figures assume a working age to 74. I am presuming the loss of GDP calculated assumes a working life to this age.I am not sure this is fully valid.

      4. The lower utilisation of healthcare benefits provided by the state is not insignificant. As the age profile of the population continually skews towards those inactive by age, vis a vis economic activity, this cost is being seen all too clearly.

      I struggle to see clearly that "Cough Up" makes the economic case. When costing anything surely all economic benefits of early death need to be brought into account. The article costs absence from work re illness, yet if more people live longer there is going to be an increase in absences for those still in work caring for their parents in old age. None of the savings to the state arising from early death are brought into account.(Pensions, housing, dental, doctor etc)

      I do not dispute looking at the issue on an all cost basis but lost GDP is to me a red herring, lost tax on lost GDP might be valid, but I think the case has to be made that the later life total GDP of the deceased is not picked up by someone else entering the workforce, I don't think this case is made.

      Taking the foregoing into account the lost GDP figures (if we allow full employment) should be calculated to give the lost tax to the state instead, savings from early death computed and the sums redrawn. On the basis of the real cost to the state, and the figures given adjusted, the case is not made.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      So, if your argument is to be based on smell...

      Why should non-farters have to suffer from the nasty stench and the second-hand fart that farters produce, usually without concern for other people - so long as they can get a fix from their addiction?

      I propose that farting is banned from the streets.

      However, to not make it so unfair on farters - most places would have several farting shelters - with one no more than 10 minutes walk from another. These would be covered areas where farting would be permitted. A farter could stop there, have a fart and carry on walking - without affecting non-farters.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'd personally like smokers to be a bit more considerate of who they are smoking around and where. When I go see my beloved football team, I have to walk through 20+ smokers standing outside the only entrance + exit to my seats. I don't mind what smokers do to themselves but when I have to breathe second-hand smoke, it really irritates me. I personally do not want to breathe in that kinda stuff and do my best to avoid any kind of pollution to my lungs where possible.

      Obviously a total ban or street ban isn't going to happen but I'd like smokers to be a little more considerate. That being said, I can see smokers losing more of their rights in the future.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Isn't drinking on the streets illegal? I see no reason why smoking shouldn't be the same.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Blah12345678)
      I'd personally like smokers to be a bit more considerate of who they are smoking around and where. When I go see my beloved football team, I have to walk through 20+ smokers standing outside the only entrance + exit to my seats. I don't mind what smokers do to themselves but when I have to breathe second-hand smoke, it really irritates me. I personally do not want to breathe in that kinda stuff and do my best to avoid any kind of pollution to my lungs where possible.

      Obviously a total ban or street ban isn't going to happen but I'd like smokers to be a little more considerate. That being said, I can see smokers losing more of their rights in the future.
      I assume none of these bother you when you walk down the street, though.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_...r_contaminants
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.