Cigarettes - Why not ban them?, And I smoke Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I've never understood why cigarettes are not illegal.

I smoke. I don't want to but I have a habit and I don't have a lot of willpower.
When the going gets tough the fags come out. I gave up for seven years but started again. Stupid.

However - I'm not a law breaker (like 99% of the population) so if they were illegal I would not try and source them from some dealer.

So why go with this new "plain packaging" legislation.

Ban them. And put up taxes to raise the revenue lost so that all tax payers have to pay for the loss in income the Government receives.

We'd all be healthier and we'd have a fairer tax system not based on peoples habits that they struggle with. Just a thought

Well - a Random Rant

[Exhausted]

The government have had a go at reducing smoking by increasing the tax and getting it banned in workplace and public places.
I would like it to be banned in cars and lorry cabs as well. I saw some dangerous git getting out a fag and then lighting it the other day. Must be as bad as using a mobile phone IMO.
Watched a bit of a program the other night when a few of the UK's scroungers were on screen with debts and on benefits, non payment of rent and rates etc. Every one of them seemed to have a fag on whenever they appeared. I wondered how they could afford to smoke but not pay their rent. I got really pee'd off and changed channels.
I don't care what people do to themselves by using a known carcinogenic but as the NHS is under such pressure I do object to smokers using up our facilities because of their conscious habit.
Packaging in fancy boxes might be construed as advertising but I would have thought the manufacturers might be glad to get rid of the expensive box as long as it had a brand name on it. People who smoke know their brand and probably don't give the style of packet or any other message a second glance. How this nonsense about packaging came about Lord only knows but it has to be a real timewaster with, as far as I can see, no benefit.

[Andy Capp]

The government have had a go at reducing smoking by increasing the tax and getting it banned in workplace and public places.
I would like it to be banned in cars and lorry cabs as well. I saw some dangerous git getting out a fag and then lighting it the other day. Must be as bad as using a mobile phone IMO.
Watched a bit of a program the other night when a few of the UK's scroungers were on screen with debts and on benefits, non payment of rent and rates etc. Every one of them seemed to have a fag on whenever they appeared. I wondered how they could afford to smoke but not pay their rent. I got really pee'd off and changed channels.
I don't care what people do to themselves by using a known carcinogenic but as the NHS is under such pressure I do object to smokers using up our facilities because of their conscious habit.
Packaging in fancy boxes might be construed as advertising but I would have thought the manufacturers might be glad to get rid of the expensive box as long as it had a brand name on it. People who smoke know their brand and probably don't give the style of packet or any other message a second glance. How this nonsense about packaging came about Lord only knows but it has to be a real timewaster with, as far as I can see, no benefit.

Branding isn't about keeping customers, it's about getting them and I suspect smokers and drinkers pay for themselves, judging by the tax they pay. I don't begrudge scroungers smoking: I'd rather be a tax payer than a benefits receiver.

[Exhausted]

Branding isn't about keeping customers, it's about getting them and I suspect smokers and drinkers pay for themselves, judging by the tax they pay. I don't begrudge scroungers smoking: I'd rather be a tax payer than a benefits receiver.

It's not that they smoke, not all of them I might add, but scroungers who smoke but don't pay their dues so that you the tax payer is penalised by the shortfall of rental and rates. Those I begrudge.

[newres]

It's not that they smoke, not all of them I might add, but scroungers who smoke but don't pay their dues so that you the tax payer is penalised by the shortfall of rental and rates. Those I begrudge.

On the other hand they pay a disproportionately high level of tax on the fags. Assuming they're not duty frees.

[Exhausted]

On the other hand they pay a disproportionately high level of tax on the fags. Assuming they're not duty frees.

Yes, but it's my money that is paying the tax that I have already paid.