Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 May '13 21:40 / 3 edits
    I started a tobacco thread a while back, and the issue is matters again as the supermarkets in my area have now put all cigarettes behind screens.

    To be honest i hate the idea and i think only a fascist could of thought of it. Its just not practical - Tobacco companies bring out new products now and then. Marlboro have just released a new brand. How on earth are you supposed to know it exists let alone pay the ludricrous nhs funding 600% rate of tax on them.

    To be honest i would back down if they publish clear lists of whats on sale. But the UK cannot afford tobacco moving to the black market. And that is inevitable and dangerous if the black packs come in, its a dangerous idea.

    Below is a really good post from deepthought from the last thread about the economics of it;


    Ash estimate the total cost to society at £13.74 billion [1]. The total revenue from tobacco sales in the U.K. is around £12.1 billion per year, £9.5 billion in tobacco duty and £2.6 billion in VAT. ASH give a figure of £2.7 billion in treatment cost of smoking related diseases to the NHS - however in response to a Freedom of Information request [2] the Department of Health stated that the figure was in excess of£1.7 billion. ASH add productivity loss due to smoking related absenteeism (£2.5 billion) and cigarette breaks (£2.9 billion), loss of economic output due to mortality of smokers (£4.1 billion) and passive smokers (£700 million), as well as some smaller contributions. This gives a monetary net cost to society of £1.64 billion.

    The problem is ASH compare the Treasuries gain in tax revenue with the loss not just to the treasury through treatment costs, but with the loss to the whole of society. For a fair comparison they should include dividend payments [3], which are cycled back into the economy, as well as wages and payments to other businesses [4], which would presumably vanish since if you close down an entire market another one doesn't magically appear in its place. Since they only show a £1.64 billion deficit, despite the rather unfair comparison, I'd say the argument that there is a net monetary loss for society is false.

    [1] http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf
    [2] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cigarette_tax_receipts_v_cost_of
    [3] As an indication, Imperial Tobacco paid dividends of £982 million in 2012 http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=IMT:LSE&subview=CashFlow
    [4] Imperial's cost of revenue for 2012 was £23 billion, ibid.

    Edit - ASH give a figure of £15.3 - £18.3 billion spent on cigarettes in the U.K. - the net gain from U.K. smokers cannot exceed this figure (essentially it is this figure). Not all of the tobacco companies' revenues are from smokers in the U.K. and not all the dividends are paid to U.K. shareholders.
  2. 21 May '13 08:27
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I started a tobacco thread a while back, and the issue is matters again as the supermarkets in my area have now put all cigarettes behind screens.

    To be honest i hate the idea and i think only a fascist could of thought of it. Its just not practical - Tobacco companies bring out new products now and then. Marlboro have just released a new brand. How on ea ...[text shortened]... venues are from smokers in the U.K. and not all the dividends are paid to U.K. shareholders.
    "How on earth are you supposed to know it exists let alone pay the ludricrous nhs funding 600% rate of tax on them. "

    ignoring the fact that the first sentence has no logical connection to the last, here is a solution:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=new+marlboro+brands
  3. 21 May '13 08:32
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "How on earth are you supposed to know it exists let alone pay the ludricrous nhs funding 600% rate of tax on them. "

    ignoring the fact that the first sentence has no logical connection to the last, here is a solution:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=new+marlboro+brands
    That was kind of funny.
  4. 22 May '13 05:05
    Under current UK laws it fairly easy to import tobacco - legally you can bring enough back to make a good profit - live on doing so - but people don't bother I'm sure most tobacco sold in the UK is legal and duty paid.

    But do they really expect that to continue when the illegal packs still have branding - actually look better - could be up to 6 times cheaper - and do not have a grotesque insult posted on them.

    I could well afford to buy duty free but the nhs / treasury can't afford it.
  5. 22 May '13 05:35
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "How on earth are you supposed to know it exists let alone pay the ludricrous nhs funding 600% rate of tax on them. "

    ignoring the fact that the first sentence has no logical connection to the last, here is a solution:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=new+marlboro+brands
    don't post dodgy links - i never do
  6. 28 May '13 00:42 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "How on earth are you supposed to know it exists let alone pay the ludricrous nhs funding 600% rate of tax on them. "

    ignoring the fact that the first sentence has no logical connection to the last, here is a solution:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=new+marlboro+brands
    It is a serious problem though they expect tobacco to heavily sponsor the NHS - it probably pays for all cancer treatment maybe more if you read deepthoughts post.

    But you expect it to do so when the pack has no packaging its not visible,
    with no list. Its like asking for a rabbit out of a hat.
  7. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    28 May '13 08:47
    Originally posted by e4chris
    It is a serious problem though they expect tobacco to heavily sponsor the NHS - it probably pays for all cancer treatment maybe more if you read deepthoughts post.

    But you expect it to do so when the pack has no packaging its not visible,
    with no list. Its like asking for a rabbit out of a hat.
    there is another downside to tobacco being hidden. tobacco companys paid supermarkets vast sums of money to have their brand in a prime location on the shelf, ie eye level, now with them being hidden, supermarkets have lost that income so be prepared to pay a little more for your milk and bread in the future..
  8. 28 May '13 09:05 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by roma45
    there is another downside to tobacco being hidden. tobacco companys paid supermarkets vast sums of money to have their brand in a prime location on the shelf, ie eye level, now with them being hidden, supermarkets have lost that income so be prepared to pay a little more for your milk and bread in the future..
    I didn't know that, I feel like civilisation has ended when I can't find a newsagent - what london does!

    These stupid laws are trashing a big part of the UK - we smoke! some of us.

    I'm even skeptical of the smoking causes cancer line. If you buy extra lights and smoke them in london i think they're cleaner then the air. They used include coumarin in tobacco which causes lung cancer fairly quick, but tobacco itself has been used for ages.
  9. 28 May '13 13:39
    Originally posted by e4chris
    .

    I'm even skeptical of the smoking causes cancer line.
    According to the National Cancer Institute:

    "Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women are due to smoking"

    Although I do definitely appreciate the exchange of differing opinions of the debate forum, I personally find science more persuasive than your skepticism on the issue of whether smoking causes cancer.
  10. 28 May '13 22:16 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by quackquack
    According to the National Cancer Institute:

    "Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women are due to smoking"

    Although I do definitely appreciate the exchange of differing opinions of the de ...[text shortened]... nd science more persuasive than your skepticism on the issue of whether smoking causes cancer.
    Yes true nothing but tobacco causes lung cancer true, but it takes a long time to get it, never in some smokers - cannabis is proven to curtail if not cure it, its being reaserched right now.

    Heres a great picture of Tal smoking over a chess board;
    http://puffthemutantdragon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/mikhailtal.jpg
    looking haggard, sick even but quite the maniacal genius. Can you afford not to have people smoking? just some people? It temporarily sharpens concentration. We need that all to much in a state that want to put us in hamster cages if we let them.

    That picture was very hard to find too! he smoked like a chimney but all the pictures now don't feature it. Would you loose 10 years of your life to play / think like that?
  11. 28 May '13 23:43
    i wouldn't for chess, but stupidity is perilous these days .... so am smoking for now!!!
  12. 29 May '13 19:43
    In scotland theres a proposal now to ban smoking in cars with children . I'm ok with that - its just the black packs and blacked out counters i have a problem with . if they are foolish enough to change the packs they will watch there tax revenues fall of a cliff....