Tobacco laws: Bid to overturn packaging rules dismissed

[thunterman]

England has a national healthcare system. It costs its citizens nothing to seek treatment.

Not everything is included in said NHS. Besides, the patches didn't work for me either, they gave me a horrendous rash, the gum tastes like ass..

The only relatively successful thing for me was vaping, but it's become so swarmed with cheap backroom products that I have 0 trust in it anymore. God knows whats in half of that stuff now. The last time I got advice in where to buy I ended up with E-liquid that gave me a chest infection.

Frankly I think they should be regulating the vapers more than smokers right now, we all know smoking kills you, but we know next to nothing that seemingly half the population takes part in. Half the people that Vape don't even have any nicotine, I just can't comprehend why you'd do it for fun, I see it as nothing more than a quitting aid.

[the game]

There is indeed lots of support from the NHS (National Health Service) for quitting smoking in the UK.

http://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and...tion-medicines

Not everything is included in said NHS.

Maybe you didn't see this link.

[Kalis]

Not everything is included in said NHS.

You can get treatments on prescription though and some from chemists over the counter.

Just looked at Boots and a weeks worth of patches costs £14, gum is £15. All the things seem similarly priced.

[Troklon]

Does it outweigh how much smoking costs the NHS?

A smoker is actually better for the health care systems of a country in the long run as they have a shorter live expectency thus less years they need coverage. See e. g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

[Kalis]

Maybe you didn't see this link.

Not everything is free on the NHS, most people have to pay for prescriptions, which are about £8 ($12 US). Presumably that would be for a weeks supply, depending on what you are getting.

Cigarettes are about £9 for a pack of 20, if you only smoke a pack a week, then you probably do not have many worries about smoking anyway.

Rolling tobacco is cheaper, but even then you would struggle to pay less than the prescription costs per week - a 50g pack is about £18.

[the game]

Not everything is free on the NHS, most people have to pay for prescriptions, which are about £8 ($12 US). Presumably that would be for a weeks supply, depending on what you are getting.

Cigarettes are about £9 for a pack of 20, if you only smoke a pack a week, then you probably do not have many worries about smoking anyway.

Rolling tobacco is cheaper, but even then you would struggle to pay less than the prescription costs per week - a 50g pack is about £18.

I get that. Seems like the excuse people are using though is that it's not free so it isn't worth it.

[Kalis]

I get that. Seems like the excuse people are using though is that it's not free so it isn't worth it.

Indeed, but some people would still make excuses even if they were offered money to quit, as it is the financial argument is not one that really holds water when you analyse it.

Unless, as I pointed out, you only smoke 2-3 cigarettes a day, which barely qualifies someone as a smoker anyway and is not who the UK Government is aiming at.

[Deleted]

Indeed, but some people would still make excuses even if they were offered money to quit, as it is the financial argument is not one that really holds water when you analyse it.

Unless, as I pointed out, you only smoke 2-3 cigarettes a day, which barely qualifies someone as a smoker anyway and is not who the UK Government is aiming at.

Pretty much this

Unfortunately Tabacco companies and a minority of smokers just enjoy digging their heels at the reality of smoking no longer deemed fashionable

[Dextroden]

So, wait. I'm confused. Does that mean the left was joking when they were about personal choices? I guess vaping and marijuana will be hit next since certain individuals don't like the smell or the idea of people doing it.

[Deleted]

So, wait. I'm confused. Does that mean the left was joking when they were about personal choices? I guess vaping and marijuana will be hit next since certain individuals don't like the smell or the idea of people doing it.

Poor persecuted smokers

[Dextroden]

Poor persecuted smokers

I just want to know if the left actually does support more prohibition style actions while claiming to want marijuana legalized.

Also, if this is a health and safety driven action, then they need to go after alcohol to remain consistent.

[Deleted]

I just want to know if the left actually does support more prohibition style actions while claiming to want marijuana legalized.

Also, if this is a health and safety driven action, then they need to go after alcohol to remain consistent.

They do go after alcohol... Also of MJ was legalized it's pretty obvious it too would be heavily regulated

[Wildtree]

Nicotine and the human brain. A match made from heaven.
It is great if you don't smoke. I don't either.
But stop bashing people that do, if you don't know the half of the background of the connection between the chemical compound and it's effects on the brain.

This does not excuse smokers that are inconsiderate of other people either.

OT: graphic warning images on cigarette packaging is fine, in my opinion.
For as long as they're strictly kept from little children. I doubt that the brain of a small child can properly process rather gory images.

[Dextroden]

They do go after alcohol... Also of MJ was legalized it's pretty obvious it too would be heavily regulated

There's a difference between regulation and forcibly reducing usage through legislation.

And what I mean is the very same labels should be on alcohol. It should be treated just the same as tobacco for health risks and the dangers it can pose to those around the user.

[Logwyn]

and yet things that kill more people have no warnings what so ever....

Yeah man. We need to label the biggest killer of all dihydrogen monoxide. Slap a label on that before someone goes around and breathes some of it in.

I always failed to see how someone would think lighting someone on fight then breathing in the smoke is a good idea. Hey smoke! Let me go breath some of that into my body. I mean hey wait! If there is a fire in the house... they want me to get out of the smoke. Nah dude light up that cig and breath in the smoke!

[nextormento]

Nothing wrong with that.

I'm actually very disinclined to cast moral judgement on anyone hating anything they want to hate. Any demographic by choice is ok-ish to be hated. Smokers, religious folk, activists, vegans, feminists, hipsters, car drivers, movie buffs, transvestites... you name it. If pressed on taking an stance, I generally think it's petty, but you do you.
But I think it's important to acknowledge the perspective shift: from caring about the 2nd party that just want to not be harmed, to launching a state-supported onslaught on personal choice. I just happen to think that treating them as victims of addiction is more productive than hating them.

[Deleted]

I'm actually very disinclined to cast moral judgement on anyone hating anything they want to hate. Any demographic by choice is ok-ish to be hated. Smokers, religious folk, activists, vegans, feminists, hipsters, car drivers, movie buffs, transvestites... you name it. If pressed on taking an stance, I generally think it's petty, but you do you.
But I think it's important to acknowledge the perspective shift: from caring about the 2nd party that just want to not be harmed, to launching a state-supported onslaught on personal choice.

Would you like some tar to smoke

[Deleted]

Does it outweigh how much smoking costs the NHS?

Nnnnnnnnnnup.

[PaladinBash]

I don't smoke and find the habit irritating in others at best. I wouldn't go so far as to outright ban it but anything that reduces it benefits me so I'm glad for it to die off a little bit.

[Ripster42]

A smoker is actually better for the health care systems of a country in the long run as they have a shorter live expectency thus less years they need coverage. See e. g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

The direct health care costs are not the only costs associated with poor health. Loss of productive work years is the larger contributor to the problem. It's when those productive years turn into years of sucking off health care and disability when the actual costs can be measured.