Why 2 years?

[Jon L. Obscene]

The UK gov is now passing new smoking laws.

Part of this is a ban or smoking in goverment offices.
They hope to bring this in by 2006.

I don't get it, if they gonna do it why not just say "Effective of 2morrow"
Whats the difference? :huh:

And while I'm on the subject, a hypotheitical question.

What effect do you think a total out and out ban on smoking bring to the uk?

Jonno :cool:

[DanB]

I thought it was 2008?

[Cheese]

The UK gov is now passing new smoking laws.

Part of this is a ban or smoking in goverment offices.
They hope to bring this in by 2006.

I don't get it, if they gonna do it why not just say "Effective of 2morrow"
Whats the difference? :huh:

And while I'm on the subject, a hypotheitical question.

What effect do you think a total out and out ban on smoking bring to the uk?

Jonno :cool:

I guess part of the reason is to give businesses a chance to adapt to new rules and to educate the general public of the new law.

I don't think many laws get passed overnight, there is always a "honeymoon" period.

What effect will it bring the UK? Empty pubs, but busy beer gardens.

[Mathea]

thats what ppl thought here..... but the bars are still full n ppl r smoking outside... just bitching about it

[TheDave]

whats the point? i dont smoke and i hate having it in my face but i haven't been in a smokey pub or club for years.

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Dan .... No 2006 they just said on the news :)

@Cheese.... Actually many interviews and surveys have suggested more trade.
And when I said ban, I meant a total ban on smoking anywhere. Period! like prohibition type thing.

@Dave....Why am I a redneck? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

I'm interested in how Witherspoons handles this proposed ban.

I reckon they'll bring it in early and as an added bonus I reckon they won't let you smoke outside.

Remember this is the chain of pubs that won't play music in their bars, makes you take off your cap (or damn fine hat) and has banned swearing...

[Cheese]

@Cheese.... Actually many interviews and surveys have suggested more trade.
And when I said ban, I meant a total ban on smoking anywhere. Period! like prohibition type thing.


Most publicans fear a drop in custom. I reckon it'll drop and then raise back up to where it was before or slightly lower.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Thats not what I said, I said the ones that have already ban smoking have been reporting a rise in trade.
I guess there are many people who wont go to a pub to eat or whatever cos of smoking. wheras most the regulars will still go pub and just either not smoke or smoke outside.

This is possibly the best way to stop people smoking, it will ween some people off because they wont be arsed to go for a smoke.
Could be a good thing, plus having now found out the damage pasive smoking does then I think it's fair.
A break up of pubs that do and pubs that don't allow smoking would be best :)

Jonno :cool:

[TheDave]

@Dave....Why am I a redneck? :huh:

Jonno :cool:
you wanna? you really wanna go for it? i'm tempted

[vidcc]

Why do people assume that bars will be empty if smoking is banned?..perhaps more non smokers would use them...the ones that seldom do because of the smoke..... probably not an insignificant amount

[Cheese]

Ireland has seen something like a 15% drop in trade since their ban of smoking in bars.

[Jon L. Obscene]

you wanna? you really wanna go for it? i'm tempted

I did'nt ask you for you not to tell me :rolleyes:

Fire away :01:

@Cheese ......Really? well I actually would have thought it does but the reports I've seen say it's been good in parts of london and scotland.
But apart from the trade loss what about other consiquences? The effect it will have on stress at the workplace?

But there's a health issue on the other side which cannot be ignored for simple ££'s and pleasure.

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

I did'nt ask you for you not to tell me :rolleyes:

Fire away :01:

@Cheese ......Really? well I actually would have thought it does but the reports I've seen say it's been good in parts of london and scotland.
But apart from the trade loss what about other consiquences? The effect it will have on stress at the workplace?

But there's a health issue on the other side which cannot be ignored for simple ££'s and pleasure.

Jonno :cool:

I haven't said that I am against the ban, I think that it is a good idea. It will, however, result in a drop in trade. If you can link me to your stats on London and Scotland I'd be most interested in reading them.

It will be an inconvience to a smoker like myself but I feel the health benefits, as a whole, particularly to those who work in the bar trade more than weighs that out.

I don't mind smoking in the street...means I can have a sneaky joint. :shifty:

[Rat Faced]

Theres been a Ban on Smoking in Government Buildings for years, however they implemented it via... No Smoking as they are Refurbished or New...

Guess they dont have many left to Ban Smoking in now :lol:

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Cheese.... I never said you were against it :blink:

I can't give you links cos I can't be arsed to look, I saw it on the news. can you gove me links to the Irish pubs you talk of? Or links to say I'm wrong?
I would be interested to see :)

And bear in mind I'm a smoker too, for the best part of 17 years and I'm kinda sitting on the fence on this one, can't make up my mind if it's good or not.

Jonno :cool:

[clocker]

Remember this is the chain of pubs that won't play music in their bars, makes you take off your cap (or damn fine hat) and has banned swearing...
If you presented an operation model like that to the average college business major he'd probably be vastly amused.
What are they thinking?
A pub for Puritans?

Boy howdy, sign me up.

[Smurfette]

LOL, so many pondering the profitability of pubs/clubs and no-one wondering where the government would find the money they'd lose from cigarette tax if smoking were banned completely.
From a Labour government we could expect the current Public Enemy #2 - car drivers - to bear a lot of the burden, whereas the tories could be expected to raise VAT again (this time putting the full amount onto books/newspapers & sanitary towels - yes, girls, they're considered a 'luxury'!) and cut back on 'publlc spending' (grants, schools, services etc).

[Cheese]

@Cheese.... I never said you were against it :blink:

I can't give you links cos I can't be arsed to look, I saw it on the news. can you gove me links to the Irish pubs you talk of? Or links to say I'm wrong?
I would be interested to see :)

And bear in mind I'm a smoker too, for the best part of 17 years and I'm kinda sitting on the fence on this one, can't make up my mind if it's good or not.

Jonno :cool:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4016645.stm

I think we can agree to disagree here as you have a habit of arguing points for the sake of it. The statistics seem to similarly disagree.

[lynx]

In the situation where some bars are non-smoking, and others still permit smoking it is very likely that groups of non-smokers will go to the former in preference to the latter. The rise in trade shows that there is obviously a demand for non-smoking establishments.

However, it does NOT show that this level of demand is sufficient to offset the drop in demand from smokers who will simply stay at home. As has already been stated, on average Irish pubs have seen a 15% drop in turnover. It remains to be seen what winter brings. I would guess that places selling food have probably held their ground while the others have seen a much bigger drop. Unfortunately I don't have any figures to back that up.

I know quite a few pubs which could not stand a 15% drop in turnover. A bigger drop would send a lot to the wall. There's a lot said on both sides about people having to work in smoky atmosphere, one side saying the air should be smoke free, the other side saying no-one forces them to work there. If the pub is closed both sides will be right!

A total ban on smoking will never work, and will never be introduced. Organised crime would love it, imagine the profits they would make. The government makes billions every year from smoking, the crime syndicates would love to tap into that market. However, one effect might be to severely limit the amount of drugs available - why take the risk of getting and transporting something which is universally illegal when you can make bigger profits with stuff which is sold legally a mere 22 miles off our shores.

[Jon L. Obscene]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4016645.stm

I think we can agree to disagree here as you have a habit of arguing points for the sake of it. The statistics seem to similarly disagree.

I've never argued a point which was proven, I simply stated what I saw on the news. That link is an interesting read , thankyou :)

In answer to both Smurfette and Lynx , I've always said if they banned smoking it would cripple the gov economy and they would put the tax on other stuff like petrol.But that is wrong.
At present the UK gov receives approx £8.2 billion per year from tobacco products.
It costs the NHS approx £8.6 billion per year to treat smokers who have developed various illnesses.
As for the underworld smuggling etc, yes that would happen, but then again, it's happening now. Tobacco smuggling costs the gov something like £3 billion per year as it is.
So what is the cure?

I seriously think a ban in public will stop many people smoking, or at least cut them down, now surely the health of the nation is far more important than a few pubs?

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

It costs the NHS approx £8.6 billion per year to treat smokers who have developed various illnesses.
:

Whilst that statistic is true, its also spin... I rather doubt that smoking causes Broken legs, collar bones etc..

And im quite sure that a number of those other illness's are also suffered by none smokers and have nothing to do with smoking.

If you only take the illness that is proven to be linked to smoking, then the figure drops considerably... especially when you also add in that smoking has only increased the risk of these other illness's, and that none smokers also suffer from them.

The Treasury makes a huge profit from Smokers, Drinkers and Drivers...

[lynx]

Ratty, you beat me to it there. :P

It also needs to be remembered that if smoking stopped immediately sand consequently government income from tobacco also stopped, people suffering from smoking-related illnesses would still be around. But probably not for long since there probably wouldn't be enough money to treat them, or anyone else for that matter.

One other little point that seems to have been overlooked. People are saying that smokers can go outside. I hope there are going to be some good ash bins. I believe the current on-the-spot fine for littering is £50. Recently introduced. Coincidence? I think not.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Whilst that statistic is true, its also spin... I rather doubt that smoking causes Broken legs, collar bones etc..

And im quite sure that a number of those other illness's are also suffered by none smokers and have nothing to do with smoking.

If you only take the illness that is proven to be linked to smoking, then the figure drops considerably... especially when you also add in that smoking has only increased the risk of these other illness's, and that none smokers also suffer from them.

The Treasury makes a huge profit from Smokers, Drinkers and Drivers...

As I said, this is what I thought until last night, the nhs spend approx £8.6 billion per year on "Smoking related treatment" , I'm afraid the overall amount spent is more than 3 times that.

The biggest problem I see with a complete ban would be the sudden influx of sevierly ill people.
I'll give you an example.
Someone who is 75 and has smoked for 50 years and has breathing problems etc just stops smoking, their body will reject that intensely and they will in actual fact become worse. I know this thru experience.
So it's possible the a complete ban would have an adverse economic effect and actually cost the nhs MORE than it is spending now. But that would be short term.
If we look forward far enough, a complete ban on smoking would irradicate so many things.
Unfortunately given humanities history, no doubt something else will come along to match it in severity.

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

Smoking Related illness costs £1.5 Billion per year

Source (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/humancosttobacco~UKpicture)

Plus, just because its illegal, does not mean people will stop... or no one would be smoking Dope :rolleyes:

This "Smoking Related Illness" includes things like illness from people that used to smoke and dont any more.. ie: "Related". This wont stop, as there are millions of smokers currently :P

The money that the Government received in Duties alone in 2002-2003 was £8.055 Billion... thats a profit of nearly £6 Billion.

Source (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact16.html)

That profit excludes the amount it makes in VAT, Corporation Tax on the Tobacco Companies and Income Tax on the Tabacco Company Employee's etc...

You work out the math :P

[Jon L. Obscene]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:T7TmZzxvkxQJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/536633.stm+smoking+related+illness+costs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:1Vedyyjd_BQJ:www.hda-online.org.uk/html/improving/smoking_financial.html+smoking+related+illness+costs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It would appear you're right RF :ph34r:

I shall be emailing the BBC for misleading information on the news last night :dry:

The woman stated

£8.2 billion in revenue and £8.6 spent on smoking related illness :dry:

They lied :angry: the bloody news lied to me :angry:

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

Now add in the Corporation Taxes and Income Taxes of all those involved in SELLING Tobacco.... and Taxes on investments..... :whistling

Its Big Money mate ;)

The Government will nudge people to give up smoking, just for the look of it.. they dont want them to though ;)

The NHS does, but their advertisements are there to fullfil its mandate... notice none of those ads are from the Government themselves... just the NHS and the Charities :P

The Government iDepartments will pay for advertisements that are popular... eg: Direct Payment for benefits etc... but not stuff that actually COSTS them loss of income :rolleyes:

Maybe im getting a lil cynical in my old age


:ph34r:

[lynx]

They lied :angry: the bloody news lied to me :angry:
It's not on.

Who do they think they are, Tony Blair?

[Barbarossa]

Whilst that statistic is true, its also spin... I rather doubt that smoking causes Broken legs, collar bones etc..

And im quite sure that a number of those other illness's are also suffered by none smokers and have nothing to do with smoking.

If you only take the illness that is proven to be linked to smoking, then the figure drops considerably... especially when you also add in that smoking has only increased the risk of these other illness's, and that none smokers also suffer from them.

The Treasury makes a huge profit from Smokers, Drinkers and Drivers...

It's estimated that it costs the NHS up to £3bn a year to treat problems relating to alcohol abuse too... I think this takes into account alcohol-related illnesses and the results to alcohol-related violence, accidents, etc.

Alcohol is another huge money-spinner for the Government, which causes far more social problems that smoking. :unsure:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Now add in the Corporation Taxes and Income Taxes of all those involved in SELLING Tobacco.... and Taxes on investments..... :whistling

Its Big Money mate ;)

The Government will nudge people to give up smoking, just for the look of it.. they dont want them to though ;)

The NHS does, but their advertisements are there to fullfil its mandate... notice none of those ads are from the Government themselves... just the NHS and the Charities :P

The Government iDepartments will pay for advertisements that are popular... eg: Direct Payment for benefits etc... but not stuff that actually COSTS them loss of income :rolleyes:

Maybe im getting a lil cynical in my old age


:ph34r:

Oh I agree dude, the only thing that changed my mind was what I saw on the news last night.
I've always said smoking would never be banned cos the gov can't afford it to be.
If it was banned all these people would be delighted but what they don't realise is that the revenue lost from it would be put on other things, most likely petrol and other stuff people NEED and have no choice in buying it.

which ever way you look at it, as always the people will pay.

@Lynx ..... Moira Stuart I think :unsure: :lol:

@CM . ......Alcohol is a major problem, but the actual health risks are fewer than smoking, the majority of alcohol related nhs spending is thru accidents and fights etc.
Also you're correct in saying the revenue is high, I do know that there is actually 300% duty on wine alone. thats a lot of revenue.
But having said that I think something like 60% of petrol is tax, we're simply over taxed.
The worst being car tax.
Annual income = £5.2 billion
Annual Opperating costs = £247 million

Source (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:HxjUMNKuslwJ:www.nao.org.uk/pn/01-02/0102335iii.htm+UK+gross+annual+vehicle+excise+billion&hl=en&ie=UTF-8http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:HxjUMNKuslwJ:www.nao.org.uk/pn/01-02/0102335iii.htm+UK+gross+annual+vehicle+excise+billion&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Iactuallythought it was higher than that but anyway, what happens to the other 4.9 billion? :blink:

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

I did mention that earlier, but people seem more concerned about business loss etc :frusty:

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

Interesting economic discussion chaps. The balance of revenues from smoking against the costs to the NHS.

Please don't anyone make the mistake of bringing in the cost of human suffering and misery into the equation. That might put an awkward slant on all of this good economics.

Since when have Government paid more than lipservice to this?

"Im alright Jack"