Smoking in Scotland

[Rat Faced]

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.

[vidcc]

It is time to toss the fags.

not sure if you realise just how funny that is in the USA

But as this isn't the lounge i shall not go further

[vidcc]

[Biggles]

Carry on. (Which is quite appropriate}

We were discussing the bannage of smoking in public places in Scotland. A side helping of the high rates of Excise Duty in the UK and reason for such. Given Paul's comment I suspect we may have drifted towards the harmonization of Duty Rates across the European Trade Area.

Certainly, I took RF's comments to suggest that he was in the vanguard of the latter.

[Everose]

Good idea Everose. It is time to toss the fags, you know it makes sense.

Thank you Mr. Fugley. I do know, as I have quit often and always feel better after awhile. And I appreciate your pointing this out to me, it means even more because you have been there and know the psychological and physical addiction. Tis said it is harder than heroin to give up. No excuse though, as I have quit before. Tis just the pits!!!!!

[DanB]

Duty free stuff is a lifesaver, luckily my parents normally go away 2 or 3 times a year and bring me stuff back.

Last year I didn't have to buy any from a shop

[Everose]

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.

Uhm.....I understand what you are saying....parcel post works for me.

[lynx]

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?

[bigboab]

Lets take the smoking out of the pubs and put it in the houses. That way the kids will suffer from secondary smoking. Sounds like a bad idea too me.

Incidentally where did the 'large' public consultation on the subject take place? On the back of doctors prescriptions. So they were asking people who already had something medically wrong with them. Sounds like a good idea to me, if I wanted to get 'public' backing.

Before I am 'attacked'. I dont smoke. Nobody in the house smokes. I hate it when I visit someone who smokes, or they visit me. You have to get your clothes washed/aired afterwards.

Anyone driving their kids to the school in the morning puts more 'shit' into the atmosphere than the occupants of their whole street cause by smoking. But the government wont tackle that 'head on'. Too much tax involved. Just as they did not tackle smoking 50 years ago. Because then there was too much tax involved. They did know about the hazards of smoking 50 years ago. They were calling cigarettes 'cancer sticks' when I was at school.

Finally, how many people have now ignored the early warning about mobile phones? Another conveniently forgotten risk because everyone is now using these 'Pratt Sticks' as I call them.

Right that is my sermon for today. I hope you enjoy the rest of the week.

[vidcc]

I agree with you Boab, however i have to say that 2 wrongs don't make a right and just because something else needs "fixing" and isn't being fixed doesn't excuse a different "bad thing". All those issues you raised should also be addressed