Printable View
hell yeah! :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@10 December 2003 - 16:14
Do people think that it is morally acceptable to buy "cheap" cigarettes and tobacco at markets and car boot sales.
in the states cigs are at 4-5 dollars a pack :o
(the gov wouldnt need the money if they'd quit embezling all we give em) :lol:
has anyone seen that new ad (UK) that tries to get you to grass up cig suppliers. maybe if they didnt cost nearly £5 ($7-8) we wouldnt use them, and do you really think that youre indirectly beating someone up? :rolleyes:
:o you guys are gettin raped in the ukQuote:
Originally posted by TheDave@10 December 2003 - 16:19
maybe if they didnt cost nearly £5 ($7-8)
who me? :unsure:Quote:
Originally posted by TheDave@10 December 2003 - 16:19
and do you really think that youre indirectly beating someone up? :rolleyes:
I have no morals when it comes to getting things cheap (like cigarettes) or for free (like the music I download). Sorry.Quote:
This money should be used for services including the National Health Service, Education, Roads etc. Do people think that it is morally acceptable to buy "cheap" cigarettes and tobacco at markets and car boot sales.
/me buys Marlboros at the Chevron for $2.80ishQuote:
Originally posted by FKDUP
in the states cigs are 4-5 dollars a pack :o
Maybe if cigarettes weren't taxed to extortionate levels. Here, most of the illegal cigarette trade is based on duty-free cigarettes which were bought legally from various European outlets.
There are also non-regulated forgeries available which I think are the greatest danger to the general public. Who knows what kind of chemicals they've shoved in there.
:angry: ........ :PQuote:
Originally posted by Sparsely@10 December 2003 - 16:32
/me buys Marlboros at the Chevron for $2.80ish
(keep forgettin i live in california, probably the most corrupted state :lol: )
What sucks about the duty on cigarettes in the UK is the huge amounts paid under the guise of "its for your own good".
Crap! Its just another way for the goverment to rape our pockets. :angry:
Don't apologise, the Chancellor will just take the money from elsewhere.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+10 December 2003 - 23:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 10 December 2003 - 23:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@11 December 2003 - 00:26
I have no morals when it comes to getting things cheap (like cigarettes) or for free (like the music I download). Sorry.Quote:
This money should be used for services including the National Health Service, Education, Roads etc. Do people think that it is morally acceptable to buy "cheap" cigarettes and tobacco at markets and car boot sales.
If people want to line the pockets of criminals involved in serious and organised crime, then it is a free country.
As long as they are getting their cigarettes cheaper, that's the important thing. [/b][/quote]
It would be interesting to know how much traffic in illegal cigarettes is REALLY controlled by "organised crime," my own experience in getting cheap fags/booze has been pubs and local shops making a bit extra on the side do their own runs abroad...I certainly wouldn't obtain anything from someone I didn't trust.
And perhaps the chancellor could take the money from, say, those that can truly afford like the rich or big businesses...just an idea. :)
edit: hehe I seem to have contradicted myself on my "no morals" statement change that to "low morals" ;)
I don't smoke and I am against smoking, but I do think they are taking cigarette costs to the extreme (along with software, transit costs, etc., but that's another matter). So I do agree with the people who say lower the prices and the bootleg operations will cease for the most part or make some kind of incentives to current long-time smokers since they've been smoking for a long time and probably won't stop and keep the high prices for casual smokers, that could work.
The vast bulk is from organised crime.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+11 December 2003 - 01:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 11 December 2003 - 01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@11 December 2003 - 00:36
It would be interesting to know how much traffic in illegal cigarettes is REALLY controlled by "organised crime," my own experience in getting cheap fags/booze has been pubs and local shops making a bit extra on the side do their own runs abroad...
The profits are enormous. [/b][/quote]
Come off it, theres more money in "people smuggling". Trust me I can hook you up if you'd like B)
Don't apologise, the Chancellor will just take the money from elsewhere.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+11 December 2003 - 00:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 11 December 2003 - 00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@11 December 2003 - 00:26
I have no morals when it comes to getting things cheap (like cigarettes) or for free (like the music I download). Sorry.Quote:
This money should be used for services including the National Health Service, Education, Roads etc. Do people think that it is morally acceptable to buy "cheap" cigarettes and tobacco at markets and car boot sales.
If people want to line the pockets of criminals involved in serious and organised crime, then it is a free country.
As long as they are getting their cigarettes cheaper, that's the important thing. [/b][/quote]
what proof is there that the money is lining the pockets of organised criminals, if that statement were true then you would have to accept the other statement that we the people who share music are organised criminals selling copyed music to fund our illegal activity, because thats what they say its for, think next time virtually all cheep tobacco and cigs that come here to the uk are usually brought here by lorry drivers from duty frees, to make some extra money.
I understand it is a privelidge to smoke, JP but isn't it hard to avoid the fact the government could bypass this problem altogether by counter-acting the black market?
Every budget spawns a new clutch of spivs.
The vast bulk is from organised crime.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+10 December 2003 - 23:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 10 December 2003 - 23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@11 December 2003 - 00:36
It would be interesting to know how much traffic in illegal cigarettes is REALLY controlled by "organised crime," my own experience in getting cheap fags/booze has been pubs and local shops making a bit extra on the side do their own runs abroad...
The profits are enormous. [/b][/quote]
Well okay but I don't really think a lot of people are going to stop get cheaper fags because of this fact, most people don't really care where they get things from as long as they are cheap.
This goes for a lot of things like drugs (again organised crime I'd assume) and trainers and clothes (from sweatshops in third world countries).
Morality doen't even come into most of the time, usually you just think to yourself, "Great, I've saving a shedload here..."
Snakeheading is entirely different, as there would be no loss to the exchequer anyway. People smuggling and / or human trafficking is not taxed.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+11 December 2003 - 01:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 11 December 2003 - 01:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by namzuf9@11 December 2003 - 00:44
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:41
<!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese
Quote:
Quote:
@11 December 2003 - 00:36
It would be interesting to know how much traffic in illegal cigarettes is REALLY controlled by "organised crime," my own experience in getting cheap fags/booze has been pubs and local shops making a bit extra on the side do their own runs abroad...
The vast bulk is from organised crime.
The profits are enormous.
Come off it, theres more money in "people smuggling". Trust me I can hook you up if you'd like B)
What do you base your judgement on the relative profits from these activities on, other than your "common sense".[/b][/quote]
It was a light hearted approach to a serious subject.
I'd like to hear your definition of "organised crime" are we talking about serious criminal activity such as the mafia, triads etc? Or one bloke who makes regular trips to france for a van load of baccy?
It just seems to me that the deficit you mentioned is snowballing beyond taxation and punishment. I'm sure you's agree this is only the beginning and enterprise exceeds legislation always.
Obviously, shifting the weight to other (already crippled) areas isn't the answer.
Neither, I believe, is all the police hours dedicated to eradicating it.
What makes me laugh is the way that smokers have been slammed by the anti-smoker's organisations in the UK but apparently we're saving a lot of people in this country a shitload of cash.
I would like all the non-smokers in the Uk to remember that next time I light up in a public place.
Edit: Of course this only applys to the smokers that buy tobacco through legal means so its kind of a half arsed point in this conversation. <_<
We have the same thing in Australia. A lot of tobacco seems to fall off the back of the truck somewhere between the farms in Queensland and the packaging factories in Victoria. And guess who does it? The farmers! They get paid $X/kg by the tobacco companies, but they can make 3 times that by "loosing" it in transit and selling it themselves. But hey, supply and demand right?
This episode of Yes Prime Minister has some very funny takes on the situation:
File:Yes Prime Minister - s4-e3 - The Smoke Screen.mp3
Length:7046008 Bytes, 6880KB
UUHash:=RhatOmuWmyfXsOtnY9D6D0SRnn8=
Things may be different here in the US, JP.
But I doubt it.
Our new budget include billions (!!!) of dollars of what is affectionately known a "pork"- pet projects of powerful legislators.
For instance, we will soon be funding ( to the tune of 51 million bucks), a "Rain Forest" project in Iowa ( I think) so Midwestern children can see the glories of a habitat they couldn't care less about.
Recently in Denver, a privately funded aquarium was about to go bankrupt and they appealed for state funding. The source for the extra money?
Yup.
Raise the "sin taxes", alcohol and cigarettes.
Every time I bought a pack of smokes I could feel all warm and fuzzy cause it would help keep the most pathetic aquarium I have ever seen ( I highly recommend the one in Baltimore, BTW) afloat.
Fortunately, this did not happen.
It is a trend however, for states and the Federal government to try and patch up their absurd fiscal irresponsibility by demonizing fringe groups ( read: smokers) and then taxing them to death.
AFAIK, NONE of the settlement money that was gouged from Big Tobacco has gone anywhere near the group of folks it was supposed to benefit.
Here in Colorado our portion of that money went to stem the hemorraging of money to public schools.
Screw that shit.
I arrange to buy my cigs from Indian reservations whenever possible...no tax.
Or "The Troll Tax".Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:18
Clocker
Can I propose that bad posts be the subject of a new levy.
We could call it the syntax.
I've met quite a few heroin addicts in my time, JP and not one of them has offloaded their responsiblities onto the illegal cigarettes trade. They would be less general in their origins.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:25
The real difference between the Clocker scenario and ours is that the profit goes to "Indian reservations" to quote my hirsutely challenged friend.
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.
It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.
This only re-enforces the idea that heavy-taxing of tobacco proliferates the black-market.
Well I reckon wherever you are, most people would be prepared to pay for a legitimate product, provided they don't think they are getting ripped off by a company or the government.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:17
Thanks for the input, but it is not analogous to billions of pounds losses to the UK exchequer.
Check out the Yes Prime Minister episode, it is very poignant to the topic.
Well, you were just being inordinate.
Would you care to directly quote some realible sources on this matter?Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 02:25
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.
I'm kinda missing the point to the above here.Quote:
It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.
Reliable source - meQuote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+11 December 2003 - 02:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 11 December 2003 - 02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by namzuf9@11 December 2003 - 01:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
@11 December 2003 - 02:25
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.
Would you care to directly quote some realible sources on this matter?
I'm kinda missing the point to the above here.Quote:
It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.
Point - self evident. [/b][/quote]
Two fantastic non explanations.
Lets pretend for a moment that I really don't understand the drugs bit. Are you trying to say that the UK's problem with illegal substances is directly related to black market tobacco?
I don't see it as an "ostrich approach" (though the metaphor does set the mind a' bogglin').
I maintain; there wouldn't be half this problem if the taxman wasn't taking the piss to Caligulan proportions.
What is it you are suggesting then?Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 02:25
The real difference between the Clocker scenario and ours is that the profit goes to "Indian reservations" to quote my hirsutely challenged friend.
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.
Ok, I was about to go bed until I saw this thread and had to put in my two cent's!
First though, here Mr JP Fugley, have a joint and a bottle of cheaply imported booze to smoke and drink whilst reading this heh ;)
Ok, so what your saying is that peep's are wrong to buy cig's and stuff cheap, but that it's ok for the government to charge ridiculous prices for drug's they know kill peep's!?
I say f*ck the government on that subject, there's no way i'm going to put money in their pockets to smoke something that they know kill's alot of peep's, especially when I can't afford the price over here!
The only reason they still allow cig's and booze to still be sold and haven't legalized other drugs yet is, and this is just what I believe and if i'm wrong then fair enough, that cig's and booze are more accepted because they've been around alot longer and they can make money out of it, but if they were to legalize alot of drugs and charge for it then there'd be chaos in the UK due to harder drugs being less accepted!
Haven't you noticed that cigar's and certain spirits/alcohol hardly go up at all, if at all some year's, yet cigs and alot of spirits/alcohol!? Reason why cigars and some alcohol doesn't go up is because the ones that don't are actually smoked/drank by the peep's that actually put the prices of others up!
So, aslong as I can get tobacco cheap then I will, I don't want to pay ton's of money for something that's addictive and likely will end up killing me!
If my views have offended you then I appologize, but i'm sure there's some thing's i've said here that you possibly didn't consider. I do commend you on this thread though, it's definitely one of the more serious and thought provoking ones that's graced the lounge in a while :)
Sniper. :gunsmile: (Has got to go bed, must resist reading any other threads... oh, look at that thread, look's interesting lol)
EDIT : Removed the "U" from the F word, made what I said seem more agresive than it already was (and it wasn't supposed to sound this agresive anyway lol), and added some comic relieve to my bracketed comment at the end :)
Just to revisit this thought...Quote:
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:25
It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.
I'm really not concerned by what's "cool", by any definition.
I suppose I'm concerned by matters domestic first and matters aesthetic when I get the time. Weed falls into the latter.
I would argue that the government would clear a lot of prison space, clear a lot of revenue and clear a lot of consciences in one fell swoop if they were to legalise and so regulate and tax marijuana.
Damned straight.Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@11 December 2003 - 01:54
there wouldn't be half this problem if the taxman wasn't taking the piss to Caligulan proportions.
I was pointing out that Australia has the same problem, and the same government attitudes about taxation.
Yes Prime Minister - The Smoke Screen addresses many of the issues that have been raised, and many different arguments on taxation, social welfare and government policy. Why don't you download it.