The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Carl
Honestly Howard, I agree with your stance but not your justification. If you want to harm yourself fair enough, but if it's in the name of liberty don't deprive others of the chance to harm themselves however they please too.


But as I said, heroin is far more dangerous to the consumer and to society at large. You can smoke 20 a day for a lifetime and there's about a 1 in 8 chance you'll cop the big C. You might develop a great hacking cough but other than that you'll go about your business, have a family, hold down a job etc etc.

You take crack cocaine for a few weeks even and your world will fall apart. You'll lose your job, your home, your family, you'll turn to crime and prostitution to feed your habit, you'll end up with all sorts of unpleasent diseases and you'll wind up dead in a gutter within a few years. (Christmas is here; go and spend a week working for Crisis in London and you'll see what I mean - look at the faces of some of those young people)

Quite frankly, the two things; a fag habit or a crack/heroin habit; are incomparable.
Reply 21
I'm not saying that coke etc etc isn't more harmful than a 20 a day habit. But you can't say that proscribing cigarettes is an attack on one's liberty, but proscribing other drugs isn't. My problem is with that justification.

Ask Zooropa; he actually believes it, and so will argue it much better.
Howard
Not really. Smokers pay 8 billion a year in tax but only cost the NHS 2 billion. So I'm subsidizing you!!
But wouldn't most of the money people spent on smoking be spent in other ways? A significant amount of that money spent on other things would create additional tax revenue either directly through VAT or through countless other taxes such as the extra tax some companies would pay for their increased profits/takings etc.

The difference wouldn't as big as you are claiming.
Reply 23
Roger Kirk
But wouldn't most of the money people spent on smoking be spent in other ways? A significant amount of that money spent on other things would create additional tax revenue either directly through VAT or through countless other taxes such as the extra tax some companies would pay for their increased profits/takings etc.

The difference wouldn't as big as you are claiming.


But VAT is only levied at 17.5% Tax on tobacco is very much greater than that. What would you propose? Taxing toothpaste at 3000%?

In any event, this is just a small part of the equation. You aren't even considering the loss of capital gains tax from all the tobacco companies (running into billions) or what do do with all these unemployed tobacco industry workers. Or the effect on other industries that themselves rely upon the tobacco busines.
Howard
But VAT is only levied at 17.5% Tax on tobacco is very much greater than that. What would you propose? Taxing toothpaste at 3000%?

In any event, this is just a small part of the equation. You aren't even considering the loss of capital gains tax from all the tobacco companies (running into billions) or what do do with all these unemployed tobacco industry workers. Or the effect on other industries that themselves rely upon the tobacco busines.
But as I said above, the VAT was only one of the taxes in which some tax money would be gained.

Probably there would be a reduction in revenue, but not the amount you were claiming.

And from my first post in this thread, I said any banning of smoking would have to be gradual, seeing a reduction in smoking over a number of years. Hence any loss in revenue would be gradual over a number of years and hence there would be no sudden drop. This could easily be factored for over the years with no major changes needed to spending, just small gradual changes.
Just how big do you want the government to be?

We dont need the government to tell us how to look after ourselves. Besides, how come market forces can't solve our problems? 'CHoice' remember?

What would you call a system with neo-liberal conomics and authoritarian rule?
No, all drugs should be legal.
Whipping out the tobacco companies leads to restructuring in the economy, which has a one off cost. In return, you get permanent returns from getting those resources away from producing consumables which burn in 5 minutes and into something more desirable (grow different things, get factories to make other stuff, transport other goods etc).

Overall, it'd probably be desirable on that front. Bear in mind, you now also need less cigarette lighters, matches, nicotine gums/patches etc. Small but it adds up.


Tax return is a much more tricky issue - tobacco allows governments to make huge profit ripping people for their addiction - which they are broadly happy to pay for.

You can do redistribute the tax over all other goods in the economy with greater weight on similarly addictive and high price elasticity of demand goods.


While economically possible - perhaps desirable - I wouldn't ban it outright anyway. It is a person's choice, especially if it's their own home, their own space etc.
President_Ben
It is a person's choice, especially if it's their own home, their own space etc.


So you think all drugs should be legal, for the above reason?
A ban on smoking because it's harmful to health???

Lets ban suicide whilst we're at it...
ForeverIsMyName
A ban on smoking because it's harmful to health???

Lets ban suicide whilst we're at it...


Or fatty foods...
LoveYourSlavery
Besides, how come market forces can't solve our problems?


In general, because markets are not perfect markets.


On other drugs, for release and consumption in the general population, cigarettes are much better drug than say alcohol which has an unpredictable effect on the user leading to violent behaviour at times and coordination loss. Primarily, loss of inhibitions and dodgy judgement!

In fact, heroin, cannabis and many other illegal drugs would be significantly safer if they were in general use compared to alcohol.

Other drugs which would be bad ideas: most stimulants (phets like speed), most tranqs (particularly say ketamine which is a disassociative - admittedly, most people are so unable to do anything on ketamine it may not be that big a deal), cocaine, crack and any drug that causes added audio-visual effects (hallucinations).

Anyway, comparison is meaingless if you reckon that all these drugs just carry too much risk and danger.

--------------

tis_me_lord
So you think all drugs should be legal, for the above reason?


Personally, yes - but that comes with a lot of conditions on education, distribution, quality control etc.
New-Very-Right.

No way should it be banned on private property. I cannot think of a single reason why it should. I know the government doesn't know better than me when it comes to my personal happiness.
President_Ben

In fact, heroin, cannabis and many other illegal drugs would be significantly safer if they were in general use compared to alcohol.

Other drugs which would be bad ideas: most stimulants (phets like speed), most tranqs (particularly say ketamine which is a disassociative - admittedly, most people are so unable to do anything on ketamine it may not be that big a deal), cocaine, crack and any drug that causes added audio-visual effects (hallucinations).


Heroin is safer than alcohol or tobaco when you're actually on it, because frankly your capable of **** all when you're high, but when you're looking for a fix heroin is nasty and will make you do horrible horrible thigns that smoking really can't compare to. Likewise crack cocaine, only that is slightly more danger prone when you're on it, because you feel invincible.

Ketamine and hallucinogens I fully support, becuase most of them are non addictive, and who the hell can commit a crime when they can't even tell where they end and the walls begin?
Ferret_messiah
Heroin is safer than alcohol or tobaco when you're actually on it, because frankly your capable of **** all when you're high, but when you're looking for a fix heroin is nasty and will make you do horrible horrible thigns that smoking really can't compare to. Likewise crack cocaine, only that is slightly more danger prone when you're on it, because you feel invincible.


Depending on the distribution system, education level etc. heroin isn't that bad. Quite a few people can get addicted following medical proceedures and can live very function lives afterwards provided they get medical assistance with it all. They can be pretty near fully functional while the drug is going through them (after the intitial hit).

Ketamine and hallucinogens I fully support, becuase most of them are non addictive, and who the hell can commit a crime when they can't even tell where they end and the walls begin?


Seriously risk of self harm, leaving the gas on, starting fires, all kinds of domestic accidents...
President_Ben
Depending on the distribution system, education level etc. heroin isn't that bad. Quite a few people can get addicted following medical proceedures and can live very function lives afterwards provided they get medical assistance with it all. They can be pretty near fully functional while the drug is going through them (after the intitial hit).


Supervised medical procedures are a world apart from common addiction. This is why you can be given morphine as a painkiller after surgery but can't buy it over the counter when asprin fails you. To compare the two is just silly.


Seriously risk of self harm, leaving the gas on, starting fires, all kinds of domestic accidents...


That really isn't as common as propoganda would make out. My ex and I did a lot of mushrooms and acid, and a few times on weed, and never got into such situations. There was one time when she was scared that she'd poured bleach into a glass instead of water, but a smell test coupled with remembering things prior to the trip soon proved she hadn't and all was well.
papz_007
If smoking was stopped full stoped it would save the nation millions of pound year. But on the other hand the vast ammout of money made of tax made of fags is a large sum so nation may not save as much.

But besids from money surely banning smoking will benefit the nation because its healtly for everyone, especially for people working were smoking occurs on a daily bases.


what do you thing?? should smoking be BANNED FULL STOP?


Yes it would be great for the health benefits but its a non starter, in our generation anyway. People aint just going to stop smoking. If it were enforced, it would open up an even bigger smuggling market than there already is and perhaps costing even more money, what with no duty on cigarettes and trying to stop smuggling.
Reply 37
I can't see it being a wise idea to ban smoking; cigarette companies will probably note an increase in sales!

Bascially we humans should have the right to screw up our lives if we want. Human rights and all that jazz! Smoking as a habit does not affect other people's liberty really-if you don't like it, move. If someone smells dodge, move. If someone was firing bullets, move [just thought I'd throw that in to cover all extreme hobbies]
ruthiepooos
I can't see it being a wise idea to ban smoking; cigarette companies will probably note an increase in sales!

Bascially we humans should have the right to screw up our lives if we want. Human rights and all that jazz! Smoking as a habit does not affect other people's liberty really-if you don't like it, move. If someone smells dodge, move. If someone was firing bullets, move [just thought I'd throw that in to cover all extreme hobbies]


If you choose to screw up your life, should you have the right to free medical treatment, covered by the taxpayer? As a non-smoker, I don't want to pay for smokers to get NHS treatment for their crappy lungs.
Ferret_messiah
If you choose to screw up your life, should you have the right to free medical treatment, covered by the taxpayer? As a non-smoker, I don't want to pay for smokers to get NHS treatment for their crappy lungs.


On the whole, smoking earns the government 4 times more than it costs the NHS - they pay for themselves 4 times over.

Latest