Smoking e cigarettes in shops..

[Colin]

 

Firstly, it is difficult to obtain a true cost as many of the costs of smoking tobacco are amongst other costs as I have indicated/

 

As for a distraction, you choose to smoke, you also choose not to stop.

 

Still, on topic, reducing the premature deaths of folk has to be a priority, especially those who do not choose to smoke tobacco products.

 

 

Ah, it's just guesswork then or, at best, flawed statistics.

 

I would like to see your 'evidence' that reducing the number of smokers has saved(?) the NHS money or, led to a reduction in the number of staff required.

I would also like to see the 'evidence' that suggests smokers cost the country more than they contribute through extra taxes.

[brian.smith]

 

As for the Tax, the less smokers there are, the less they will cost the NHS. I have yet to find evidence that says they contribute more in taxes than they take. especially if you include the cost of health care, cost of time off from work, cost of SSP and the costs the Fire Brigade have to incure as well as the car accidents that the distraction of smoking can cause. Of course though, having a CD player in a car makes it OK.

 

I think you better have a look on HMRC then NHS websites you will probably find that Tax collected outstrips the cost to The NHS

The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-

2012 (excluding VAT)

Edited February 6, 2014 by brian.smith

[Ghostrider]

 

^ An expected response.

 

Firstly, it is difficult to obtain a true cost as many of the costs of smoking tobacco are amongst other costs as I have indicated/

 

As for a distraction, you choose to smoke, you also choose not to stop.

 

Still, on topic, reducing the premature deaths of folk has to be a priority, especially those who do not choose to smoke tobacco products.

 

 

Smoking remains the main cause of preventable morbidity and

premature death in England, leading to an estimated annual

average of 81,900 deaths in 2005.

 

 A wide range of diseases and conditions are caused by cigarette

smoking including cancers, respiratory disease, coronary heart and

other circulatory diseases, stomach and duodenal ulcers and

erectile dysfunction.

 

 It is estimated that 20% of people with cardiovascular disease

(CVD) are smokers. The British

Heart Foundation estimates that

mortality from coronary heart dis

ease (CHD) is around 60% higher

in people who smoke (80% in

heavy smokers) than in non-

smokers.

 

Smoking costs the NHS in

England about £1.5 billion per year

(Raw et al. 1999).

1.3.5 In England in 2006 about 24%

of people aged 16 and

over smoked.

Jarvis and Wardle (1999) found that the prevalence of smoking has

declined dramatically si

nce the 1970s, but it still remains alarmingly

high in some groups. These include people aged 20–34, women

who continue to smoke through

pregnancy, members of some

minority ethnic communities and t

hose from lower socioeconomic

groups.

 

Smoking in pregnancy increases

infant mortality by about 40% and

more than a quarter of unexpected deaths in infancy are

attributable to smoking

(British Medical Association 2004

 

 

10 to 15 year old "data", attributed in the quoted article to sources some of which arguably have axes to grind, and no source supplied for the article in itself, is highly unimpressive to say the least. If that's the best you've got, there really is no value in it or in any possible debate about it.

 

Are you an ex-smoker yourself by any chance Peat?

[unlinkedstudent]

Last friday in the Scrapstore I saw 2 members of staff smoking e cigarettes at the counter, I was quite shocked as I thought smoking was forbidden in shops, or are e cigarettes allowed? Either way, it looked awful.

 

Given there is no smoke, is it technically smoking?  I find blowing bubble gum looks awful.

 

Did it interfere with how quickly you were served?  I'd be more bothered if the shop assistants were gossiping away and ignoring me rather than if they were vapourising.

[Evil Inky]

It's interesting that Peat's figures claim that 20% of people with cardiovascular disease are smokers, but that 24% of people aged 16 and over smoke.

 

Does this suggest that smoking doesn't significantly affect the chances of developing cardiovascular disease, or has Peat got his numbers in a muddle?

[shetlandpeat]

 

I think you better have a look on HMRC then NHS websites you will probably find that Tax collected outstrips the cost to The NHS

The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-

2012 (excluding VAT)

 

How much of collected tax was spent on smokers and smoking related problems? No point giving one figure and not the the other. As I said, there are costs that are not directly atributed to but are funded by tax deductions.

 

There are then the personal costs, protracted sickness, smokers are more likely to become amputees and there for need additional support for their disability.

 

If you want to find out more precise details on staffing levels, I suggest you ask, that was not the point I was making.

 

The figures quoted in the quote box are from the BMA, their literature is freely available to research.

 

There have been reports that in total, smoking can cost more than it makes. That I believe.

 

Regardless of costs, smoking tends to end folks lives earlier, and in some cases, in a distressing way. I am an ex-smoker, I do wish I had never started, alas, now I have stopped. My life has drastically improved over the years since I stopped, I have a physical job, it was affecting how I did my job, on top of that, my partner at the time had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I went to all the training sessions with my ex-partner, it was the final nail in the coffin as far as me being a smoker. I did this to support my partner as we both gave up. We were told that it would be reduce the problems with diabetes by up to half. I can happily say, even after all the problems that came with this, my ex-partner is still fit and healthy, still diet controlled and has grasped back a few years a healthier life, it has been over 5 years now.

Folk should look at why they smoke and see if they can do better without smoking, that is why the devices this topic is about can be a great help in reducing the numbers of smokers, and therefore reduce the costs to society as a whole.

If you want to continue smoking, that is fine, it is, after all your choice. As for the medical needs you may develop, you will get treated, you may get pushed to the back of the line, again, this is common knowledge.

 

 

 

Last friday in the Scrapstore I saw 2 members of staff smoking e cigarettes at the counter, I was quite shocked as I thought smoking was forbidden in shops, or are e cigarettes allowed? Either way, it looked awful.

 

Given there is no smoke, is it technically smoking?  I find blowing bubble gum looks awful.

 

Did it interfere with how quickly you were served?  I'd be more bothered if the shop assistants were gossiping away and ignoring me rather than if they were vapourising.

 

Part of the reason smoking was banned in some shops was because of hygiene. Not just from smoke and ash but from folk working with substances or food and having contact with the mouth via a cigarette or other device. You have your standards, others have theirs.

 

http://www.refinedguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/7-lucky-strike-cigarettes-ad-lose-weight.jpg

Edited February 6, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[unlinkedstudent]

Tuts, they'll be banning eating bogies in shops next.

[brian.smith]

 

 

I think you better have a look on HMRC then NHS websites you will probably find that Tax collected outstrips the cost to The NHS

The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-

2012 (excluding VAT)

 

How much of collected tax was spent on smokers and smoking related problems? No point giving one figure and not the the other. As I said, there are costs that are not directly atributed to but are funded by tax deductions.

 

cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year Big earner I would say in fact country would be in a hell of a mess if all the smokers gave up tomorrow.

Fact is PEAT if they want to smoke let them they pay through there extra tax for their care and as for ecigs there is nothing at all to back up your position now thats all nothing further to see here

Edited February 6, 2014 by brian.smith

[brian.smith]

Tuts, they'll be banning eating bogies in shops next.

Canna do that huge source of protien

[Ghostrider]

 I am an ex-smoker,

 

Yup, its showing.

[shetlandpeat]

The figure, according to Oxford Uni puts the cost to the NHS at over £5billion.

 

The report from Sky News where the figure comes from that is £2.7 billion, is not really a true reflection. For a start, any one who is involved in palliative care and hospice care will know that deaths are not always reported on the death certificate properly. Many who pass away do so at home or in a hospice. The problem of fully reporting the causes of death are mirrored with many illnesses, for instance, paediatric brain tumour research is seriously under funded because of this, this means that the numbers who die of a tumour are not fully represented. This is will be the case for those who die from smoking related illnesses.

 

The cost to society is more like £13.7 billion according to NICE Professor Kelly. In the same Sky report you get the £2.7 billion, irrespective of direct costs to the NHS, smokers are costing the country more than they pay in. However, of course there is the industry around the production of smoking products, that too contributes. Unless you can show me where BAT and Philip Morris have paid substantial taxes into the Gov machine, I will not think they have paid for the suffering of smoking.

 

The moral reason is still there, if smoking is OK, why are there so few smokers? There has been a forward motion to remove the risks to those who do not smoke, even now, there is debate on smoking in confined spaces with children in proximity, as in cars. I personally think that that is child cruelty.

 

I wonder why the energy is here to defend the activities when it is known that there is so much wrong with it. The attitude that it is OK not to stop smoking because it bolsters the counties coffers is pure folly, when it comes to community health.

 

Alas, folk have choices, and yes, they take the risk. However, there should always be an emphasis to encourage folk not to start, and if they have, to stop.

[Ghostrider]

The moral reason is still there, if smoking is OK, why are there so few smokers? There has been a forward motion to remove the risks to those who do not smoke, even now, there is debate on smoking in confined spaces with children in proximity, as in cars. I personally think that that is child cruelty.

 

I wonder why the energy is here to defend the activities when it is known that there is so much wrong with it. The attitude that it is OK not to stop smoking because it bolsters the counties coffers is pure folly, when it comes to community health.

 

Alas, folk have choices, and yes, they take the risk. However, there should always be an emphasis to encourage folk not to start, and if they have, to stop.

 

A pile of sanctimonious New Labour nanny state slaptrap worthy of Tony Blair's speechwriters.

[shetlandpeat]

I do not see where encouraging folk not to smoke is any of that. Thanks though. Telling folk is not the way forward really, hence it is always best to encourage. Sorry you do not like it.

Edited February 6, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[unlinkedstudent]

SP, why don't you shove it in ya pipe and smoke it then?

[werder]

I fail to see what impact someone smoking and e-cigarette would have on the general public?!

 

Just because you don't like the look of it, doesn't mean that it should be made illegal. I don't like the look of flares, but should they be made illegal? Probably.

 

I think perspective needs to be taken. 

Edited February 6, 2014 by werder