Men sucking dummies !

[Mrs T]

I walked through a town this week and spotted a well dressed man in his 50's sucking a fat white imitation cigarette. I call them dummies.

 

 

[Tracker]

Mrs T - 2013-07-23 12:01 PM

 

I walked through a town this week and spotted a well dressed man in his 50's sucking a fat white imitation cigarette. I call them dummies.

 

 

Which - the men or the cigarettes!

 

Don't knock it - if it cuts down smoking we will all benefit!

[BGD]

Tracker - 2013-07-23 1:08 PM

 

Mrs T - 2013-07-23 12:01 PM

 

I walked through a town this week and spotted a well dressed man in his 50's sucking a fat white imitation cigarette. I call them dummies.

 

 

Which - the men or the cigarettes!

 

Don't knock it - if it cuts down smoking we will all benefit!

 

 

 

 

Actually, and rather annoyingly, we don't.

 

 

 

Because of two factors: their substantially lower average whole-life economic cost to society, and also their higher indirect tax spend.

 

 

On average, smokers die a lot younger and a lot quicker, than non-smokers.

 

The acute diseases which kill smokers younger, actually cost a lot less to the NHS and other Public Sector/Social Security agencies, than the much longer term chronic ongoing ailments and eventual later deaths of non-smokers.

 

Killing yourself early by smoking means you don't need new hips or knees, you don't get dementia or diabetes, or other really long term and massively expensive in-patient problems of long-term residential care.

Something a little over 80% of the entire NHS spend goes on over 65's; and the proportional rate of spend rockets exponentially further for the over 80's age group. But relatively a lot fewer smokers make it into either of those two age groups.

 

Then there's pension cost issues. Smokers draw far less State and Private pension money overall than non-smokers, because of their shorter life spans.

Non smokers don't not-die. What happens is that they die a lot later in life and a lot slower, and that actually costs massively more to other taxpayers.

 

 

 

 

 

Then there's two revenue-benefits from smokers: Public Sector and Private sector:

 

Public Sector.............. Over their relatively shorter lives, they pay enormously more amounts of indirect taxation, because of the astronomically high taxes on packets of the cancer-sticks they buy to feed their habit.

They also pay as much National insurance and income taxes as non-smokers, but take less back out again in State pension payments.

 

Private Sector.............any Company pension scheme or personal pension arrangement that has a mix of smokers and non-smoker, the smokers are effectively subsidising the future pensions of the non-smokers. They pay in the same amount as contributions; but by dying sooner they take a lot less back out, leaving more money in the pot to allow the non-smokers th have their occupational pensions paid for longer.

In addition, the cigarette manufacturing Companies are private sector companies, dedicated to making profit (and in order to do so, employing many thousands of people either directly or indirectly). Those profits, and the wages payments to all those employees, are thus able to be taxed (Corporation tax, Employers NI ,Employees NI, Employees PAYE) which goes into the general " pot" of money that the Government can then spend on state pensions, NHS, etc etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Bizarrely, what we should actually be doing as non-smokers is ENCOURAGING as many other people as possible to TAKE UP and CONTINUE smoking.

Their terminal drugs habit enables us non-smokers to live longer and economically significantly better than if they gave up.

 

 

 

 

[Tracker]

And here endeth the first lesson from the epistle of the apostle Bruce.

 

Fair enough - let me put it another way - life is more pleasant for the rest of us when we are not downwind of a smoker and nobody within range is smoking!

 

Meanwhile I too am delighted to remain a burden on my various pension funds, the NHS and the treasury for as long as I am able!

[malc d]

BGD - 2013-07-23 12:49 PM

 

 

 

 

Non smokers don't not-die. What happens is that they die a lot later in life and a lot slower, and that actually costs massively more to other taxpayers.

 

 

 

But of course some of them do. potentially, pay a lot more VAT / fuel duty into the exchequer, for many more years, driving around in their motorhomes in their seventies and eighties.

 

 

:-D

[Tracker]

All joking aside, anything that cuts down cigarette smoking has to be a good thing and I have great admiration for those with the commitment to stop smoking and kick the addiction.

 

If having something similar to a mini maglite torch in their mouth works for them they will get no comments from me other than support and a well done and good luck.

[Guest Had Enough]

BGD - 2013-07-23 12:49 PM

 

Non smokers don't not-die. What happens is that they die a lot later in life and a lot slower, and that actually costs massively more to other taxpayers.

 

I've lost a few friends lately and only one of them took a long time to die. The others slipped away very late in life (in their 80s mainly) without any massive drain on the NHS.

 

The one who took a long time and various stays in hospital was my brother-in-law who died of cancer at 63. He'd been a smoker. His three years of treatment must have cost the taxpayer a fortune. And of course the distress to his wife and family is incalculable.

 

If I live to be 90 I think that the state will get a very good deal. As opposed to those who die of lung cancer at 65 I shall have paid 25 more years of income tax, I shall have helped the economy by purchasing consumer goods such as many motor cars and hopefully motorhomes over that period, thus providing employment for many British workers.

 

Earlier this year I bought a new British built car for myself and last week my wife took delivery of another. I shall buy food grown in Britain and consumer goods from everywhere but still supplied by British retailers. I dread to think how much VAT I'll pay over the 25 years!

 

So, if I do take a bit longer to pop off and need treatment, and if I do need a new knee in a few years I think that I may well have paid in advance many times over!

 

Some smokers are idiots. With all the evidence that we now have how can anyone contemplate smoking? It makes no sense either from health grounds or from financial ones. And worst of all, it's the lower paid who smoke the most, the ones who can least afford it.

 

And I say that most are idiots because the ones who take it up nowadays must be! I have slight sympathy for those who've been doing it for forty years and are now addicted. It must be hard to stop, I acknowledge that.

 

Those who love moaning about government should consider that this is one area (of many) where they have acted sensibly. It's a pleasure to come home from a meeting or a restaurant and not have to hang my suit in the garage to await some reduction of the awful smell that it's absorbed.

 

After WW2 80% of British males smoked. That's been reduced by three quarters thanks to government legislation and advertising. More power to their elbow!

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Why stop at smoking?..............Booze, fatty foods, illegal drugs all are bad for us..............but so is breathing in fumes from vehicles ;-)................perhaps vehicles should be banned? :D...............

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 12:56 PM

 

Why stop at smoking?..............Booze, fatty foods, illegal drugs all are bad for us..............but so is breathing in fumes from vehicles ;-)................perhaps vehicles should be banned? :D...............

 

Why do you think that it's only smoking? Illegal drugs are, well, illegal! Booze and fatty foods are bad for us and the government tries to educate people about their dangers.

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed the huge pressure put on car manufacturers to reduce emissions or the introduction of diesel particulate filters and catalytic converters to ensure that cars are as clean as possible? Cars are so clean nowadays that they biggest problem comes from old vehicles belching out filth, the kind of filth that DPFs and catalytic converters absorb.

 

But the gaping hole in your statement is that you haven't noticed than no one is calling for a ban on cigarettes. We just don't want smokers doing it near us. If you take drugs or eat too much it doesn't affect me personally, but if you fill the room I'm in full of smoke, it does.

 

If people want to spend their money and ruin their health by drawing smoke and nicotine into their lungs, good luck to them. But keep away from me please!

 

But isn't it odd, that the people most likely to be wasting their money on fags are often the ones who can least afford it! Darwinism come to mind!

 

But I've yet to find a smoker who can put up a coherent argument! When they're cornered it's always a case of switching the subject: "Well, what about dogs fouling the pavement, what abut the power stations in China, what about cars blah, blah and blah."

 

What about them? This is about smoking, it's not about heroin or drugs or old bangers spewing out filth!

 

[RogerC]

Tracker - 2013-07-24 10:09 AMAll joking aside, anything that cuts down cigarette smoking has to be a good thing and I have great admiration for those with the commitment to stop smoking and kick the addiction. If having something similar to a mini maglite torch in their mouth works for them they will get no comments from me other than support and a well done and good luck.

 

Well we agree on something.  I took up the e cig after seeing one many months back and it took only 4 days for me to 'kick' the 'real thing'.  It has improved my health and as it emits only water vapour...it's called 'vaping'......there's no smoke to discolour or stain anything (clothing included) or to impart the smell of smoke.

 

However in these 'enlightened' times there are already Governments around the world that have banned them and the UK Gov't is actively looking to either ban them or bring them under the 'medical' banner.  If the medical qualification comes into force the e cig will inevitably become more expensive (Pharmaceutical testing/licensing etc) and would most likely be somewhat less attractive to hardened smokers due to the higher cost.

 

So the question is does the Gov't really want a reduction in smokers or not?   If they do then why look for ways to 'obstruct' those who wish to try/use e cigs in order to quit?

 

[Tracker]

Or possibly with quality and efficacy sustantiated they may become available, like nicotine patches etc., on the NHS?

 

We can only hope.

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2013-07-24 1:57 PM

Tracker - 2013-07-24 10:09 AMAll joking aside, anything that cuts down cigarette smoking has to be a good thing and I have great admiration for those with the commitment to stop smoking and kick the addiction. If having something similar to a mini maglite torch in their mouth works for them they will get no comments from me other than support and a well done and good luck.

 

Well we agree on something.  I took up the e cig after seeing one many months back and it took only 4 days for me to 'kick' the 'real thing'.  It has improved my health and as it emits only water vapour...it's called 'vaping'......there's no smoke to discolour or stain anything (clothing included) or to impart the smell of smoke.

 

However in these 'enlightened' times there are already Governments around the world that have banned them and the UK Gov't is actively looking to either ban them or bring them under the 'medical' banner.  If the medical qualification comes into force the e cig will inevitably become more expensive (Pharmaceutical testing/licensing etc) and would most likely be somewhat less attractive to hardened smokers due to the higher cost.

 

So the question is does the Gov't really want a reduction in smokers or not?   If they do then why look for ways to 'obstruct' those who wish to try/use e cigs in order to quit?

Does the government really want a reduction in smoking or not? Well of course it does! Why has it been campaigning for decades against smoking, why has it insisted on graphic health warnings on packets, why has it insisted that cigarettes are not on display? Does this seem to be the action of a government trying to maximise its revenues from the taxes on fags!And again, just because questions are being asked about the safety of e-cigarettes simply shows once more, that the government is doing its job.How would you feel if, in ten years' time, people start dying from problems associated with them, that could have been prevented by proper testing?Quote:There’s no standard formula for an e-cigarette. But one of the things found in them is propylene glycol. It’s a substance not to be trifled with, according to Tracy Kane, tobacco dependence treatment specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.“It’s something you would find in antifreeze, and it is what’s in e-cigarettes,” she explains. “That’s why I encourage people to use the FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies instead of the e-cigarettes — because we know what’s in the FDA-approved ones.”End of quote.It's not about governments (the world over) trying to stop people quitting smoking. It's about making sure that the alternative they choose is safe.

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 1:17 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 12:56 PM

 

Why stop at smoking?..............Booze, fatty foods, illegal drugs all are bad for us..............but so is breathing in fumes from vehicles ;-)................perhaps vehicles should be banned? :D...............

 

Why do you think that it's only smoking? Illegal drugs are, well, illegal! Booze and fatty foods are bad for us and the government tries to educate people about their dangers.

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed the huge pressure put on car manufacturers to reduce emissions or the introduction of diesel particulate filters and catalytic converters to ensure that cars are as clean as possible? Cars are so clean nowadays that they biggest problem comes from old vehicles belching out filth, the kind of filth that DPFs and catalytic converters absorb.

 

But the gaping hole in your statement is that you haven't noticed than no one is calling for a ban on cigarettes. We just don't want smokers doing it near us. If you take drugs or eat too much it doesn't affect me personally, but if you fill the room I'm in full of smoke, it does.

 

If people want to spend their money and ruin their health by drawing smoke and nicotine into their lungs, good luck to them. But keep away from me please!

 

But isn't it odd, that the people most likely to be wasting their money on fags are often the ones who can least afford it! Darwinism come to mind!

 

But I've yet to find a smoker who can put up a coherent argument! When they're cornered it's always a case of switching the subject: "Well, what about dogs fouling the pavement, what abut the power stations in China, what about cars blah, blah and blah."

 

What about them? This is about smoking, it's not about heroin or drugs or old bangers spewing out filth!

 

Just for the record ;-) ..............I've never smoked :D..........I'm just flagging up the hypocrisy of attacking one group of addicts...............in a fair world everyone would be taxed the same..........for example, drug addicts would have their fix courtesy of a legitimate business, who can guarantee the quality of their product, the government can charge the appropriate tax, in line with booze and fags.............and the criminals are put out of business and we all save lots of money sending druggies to prison :D........

 

Re old vehicles spewing out filth............how much cost to the environment is there in keeping a vehicle for twenty years, when compared to scrapping it and buying a new one every 3 years? ;-)...............I suspect my ecological bill is a lot less than yours >:-)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 4:34 PM

 

Just for the record ;-) ..............I've never smoked :D..........I'm just flagging up the hypocrisy of attacking one group of addicts...............in a fair world everyone would be taxed the same..........for example, drug addicts would have their fix courtesy of a legitimate business, who can guarantee the quality of their product, the government can charge the appropriate tax, in line with booze and fags.............and the criminals are put out of business and we all save lots of money sending druggies to prison :D........

 

Re old vehicles spewing out filth............how much cost to the environment is there in keeping a vehicle for twenty years, when compared to scrapping it and buying a new one every 3 years? ;-)...............I suspect my ecological bill is a lot less than yours >:-)

 

Oh, only smokers are being attacked then? I hadn't realised that the government had stopped trying to discourage people from drinking too much or taking drugs. I hadn't noticed that the government had stopped all legislation aimed at dogs who foul the streets.

 

Clearly, there's the root of all our problems, everyone is spending every minute of their time attacking the smokers!

 

But there's something you've missed. The government hasn't banned smoking, it just tries to discourage it. But it has banned drugs and made the use of them illegal. It seems to me that smokers are getting a very easy ride! No one is talking about banning cigs!

 

And if you think that the way to be fair to smokers is to legalise heroin, and let young people buy it over the counter, then you've just confirmed my opinion of you.

 

And as for old vehicles belching filth, who scraps them after three years? If you're going to put up a case for old bangers spewing out filth all over our roads and giving people respiratory illnesses ( I can remember the '50s and '60s) then you need to do better than gross exaggerations like that.

 

Must try harder!

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 4:51 PM

 

And as for old vehicles belching filth, who scraps them after three years? If you're going to put up a case for old bangers spewing out filth all over our roads and giving people respiratory illnesses ( I can remember the '50s and '60s) then you need to do better than gross exaggerations like that.

 

Must try harder!

 

 

Ooop's bad grammar on my part :$...................I blame my teachers :D................but the point is, replacing a perfectly serviceable vehicle such as a campervan every 3 years does more damage to the environment than maintaining a existing vehicle ;-)................the scrappage scam is a fine example of perfectly useful vehicles being scrapped *-) ..................conspicuous consumption is all very 80's *-)

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 4:15 PM

RogerC - 2013-07-24 1:57 PM

Tracker - 2013-07-24 10:09 AMAll joking aside, anything that cuts down cigarette smoking has to be a good thing and I have great admiration for those with the commitment to stop smoking and kick the addiction. If having something similar to a mini maglite torch in their mouth works for them they will get no comments from me other than support and a well done and good luck.

 

Well we agree on something.  I took up the e cig after seeing one many months back and it took only 4 days for me to 'kick' the 'real thing'.  It has improved my health and as it emits only water vapour...it's called 'vaping'......there's no smoke to discolour or stain anything (clothing included) or to impart the smell of smoke.

 

However in these 'enlightened' times there are already Governments around the world that have banned them and the UK Gov't is actively looking to either ban them or bring them under the 'medical' banner.  If the medical qualification comes into force the e cig will inevitably become more expensive (Pharmaceutical testing/licensing etc) and would most likely be somewhat less attractive to hardened smokers due to the higher cost.

 

So the question is does the Gov't really want a reduction in smokers or not?   If they do then why look for ways to 'obstruct' those who wish to try/use e cigs in order to quit?

Does the government really want a reduction in smoking or not? Well of course it does! Why has it been campaigning for decades against smoking, why has it insisted on graphic health warnings on packets, why has it insisted that cigarettes are not on display? Does this seem to be the action of a government trying to maximise its revenues from the taxes on fags!And again, just because questions are being asked about the safety of e-cigarettes simply shows once more, that the government is doing its job.How would you feel if, in ten years' time, people start dying from problems associated with them, that could have been prevented by proper testing?Quote:There’s no standard formula for an e-cigarette. But one of the things found in them is propylene glycol. It’s a substance not to be trifled with, according to Tracy Kane, tobacco dependence treatment specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.“It’s something you would find in antifreeze, and it is what’s in e-cigarettes,” she explains. “That’s why I encourage people to use the FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies instead of the e-cigarettes — because we know what’s in the FDA-approved ones.”End of quote.It's not about governments (the world over) trying to stop people quitting smoking. It's about making sure that the alternative they choose is safe.

 

Extract from NHS Choices:

 

 

First, e-cigarettes don’t contain any tobacco – only nicotine, which is highly addictive but much less dangerous than cigarettes. For this reason, smoking e-cigarettes (known as ‘vaping’) is generally regarded a safer alternative to smoking for those unable or unwilling to stop using nicotine.

Also, while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found the liquid and vapour to contain traces of toxins (PDF, 237kb), including cancer-causing chemicals nitrosamines and formaldehyde, the level of these toxins is about one thousandth of that in cigarette smoke.

We cannot be certain that these traces of toxins are harmless, but tests on animals and a small study of 40 smokers are reassuring, providing some evidence that e-cigarettes are well tolerated and only associated with mild adverse effects (slight mouth or throat irritation, a dry cough).

Public health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is cautiously optimistic, concluding in its January 2013 briefing (PDF, 447kb) that ‘there is little evidence of harmful effects from repeated exposure to propylene glycol, the chemical in which nicotine is suspended.’   End quote.

Whilst it is obvious that any form of smoking or inhaling pollutants is potentially dangerous to well being e-cigs are much safer than cigarettes as has been illustrated in the foregoing.  I agree regulation to make selling them to under age persons illegal is desirable I still feel that there is 'possibly' a hidden agenda here to ensure the product generates a 'cash' advantage (to plug the drop in revenue caused by smokers quitting) to the Gov't and other interested parties.  As a nice illustration to the 'cash' issue the UK Gov't raked in over £12 billion in taxes from cigarettes/tobacco products last year......a big hole if e cigs replace cigarettes in any real quantity.

 

Conspiracy theorist? Possibly.  However with the possibility of big money being made from the 'pharmaceuticals' and other 'interested lobby groups I wouldn't put it past certain people in positions of 'power/influence' to look to feathering their nest from forcing e cigs into the arena of 'medication'.  If regulation is being done with purely altrustic intent then I am all for it.......but attitudes to e-cigarettes, and the degree of regulation they face, vary widely from one country to another. Austria and New Zealand classify them as medical devices and restrict their sale; Australia, Brazil, Lebanon and Singapore have banned them outright.  So there is a growing trend towards banning e cigs hence my comment do Gov'ts really want to help smokers quit?  If they did then surely there would be more done to drive forward the research into e cig safety and to keep the price lower than cigarettes....another huge incentive to convert to e cigs.

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 5:18 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 4:51 PM

 

And as for old vehicles belching filth, who scraps them after three years? If you're going to put up a case for old bangers spewing out filth all over our roads and giving people respiratory illnesses ( I can remember the '50s and '60s) then you need to do better than gross exaggerations like that.

 

Must try harder!

 

 

Ooop's bad grammar on my part :$...................I blame my teachers :D................but the point is, replacing a perfectly serviceable vehicle such as a campervan every 3 years does more damage to the environment than maintaining a existing vehicle ;-)................the scrappage scam is a fine example of perfectly useful vehicles being scrapped *-) ..................conspicuous consumption is all very 80's *-)

 

I swapped my first motorhome after three years. I swapped it because, after some experience, I realised that I'd not got the layout I really preferred.

 

That motorhome was sold very quickly to someone who possibly couldn't afford a new one and will be in use for a few more years yet. I love my current 'van, which is now just over three years old and I shall keep it for some time yet as it's perfect and we've added all the things we need and I see no point in replacing it. So again, people may swap a motorhome after a few years but they're not scrapped after three or four. Though I don't suppose that many go on for 25 years. Most people wouldn't want one that old with all the risks involved and the ancient technology.

 

It is a pity that you still can't debate without nasty little digs about conspicuous consumption and constantly suggesting that people only buy new motorhomes to impress the neighbours.

 

But let's look at my contribution to the economy compared to yours.

 

My wife does a low mileage and had a Nissan X-Trail for eight years from new. I decided to get rid before major things start going wrong and we've just bought a new Honda CR-V. It's made in Britain in Swindon.

 

My previous car was over five years old and I fancied a change so a few months ago I bought a new Jaguar XF. That's made in Britain as well.

 

So what do you think contributes the most? Me, providing employment for the UK car industry and several smaller suppliers and dealers, or someone who keeps a car 25 years?

 

What would you have me do? I'm not exactly skint so should I just leave my dosh in the bank and leave my daughter even more money when I die? Or am I better enjoying myself and having a new car every few years and helping to keep the economy moving and securing jobs?

 

And of course I cannot begin to tell you the pleasure that I've had from driving superb motor vehicles during my life. My last two cars were two-seater convertibles and if the weather was nice I would love just going out for a drive over the moors. It really is an enjoyable experience!

 

Apart from which living like an aged hippy is so '60s!

 

 

 

[Tracker]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 6:12 PM

And of course I cannot begin to tell you the pleasure that I've had from driving superb motor vehicles during my life. My last two cars were two-seater convertibles and if the weather was nice I would love just going out for a drive over the moors. It really is an enjoyable experience!

 

At last something we can agree on - me too - our sons can have what's left after we've done our best to support the nation's finances by disseminating their inheritance - and paying more than our whack of VAT whilst so doing!

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2013-07-24 5:58 PM

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 4:15 PM

RogerC - 2013-07-24 1:57 PM

Tracker - 2013-07-24 10:09 AMAll joking aside, anything that cuts down cigarette smoking has to be a good thing and I have great admiration for those with the commitment to stop smoking and kick the addiction. If having something similar to a mini maglite torch in their mouth works for them they will get no comments from me other than support and a well done and good luck.

 

Well we agree on something.  I took up the e cig after seeing one many months back and it took only 4 days for me to 'kick' the 'real thing'.  It has improved my health and as it emits only water vapour...it's called 'vaping'......there's no smoke to discolour or stain anything (clothing included) or to impart the smell of smoke.

 

However in these 'enlightened' times there are already Governments around the world that have banned them and the UK Gov't is actively looking to either ban them or bring them under the 'medical' banner.  If the medical qualification comes into force the e cig will inevitably become more expensive (Pharmaceutical testing/licensing etc) and would most likely be somewhat less attractive to hardened smokers due to the higher cost.

 

So the question is does the Gov't really want a reduction in smokers or not?   If they do then why look for ways to 'obstruct' those who wish to try/use e cigs in order to quit?

Does the government really want a reduction in smoking or not? Well of course it does! Why has it been campaigning for decades against smoking, why has it insisted on graphic health warnings on packets, why has it insisted that cigarettes are not on display? Does this seem to be the action of a government trying to maximise its revenues from the taxes on fags!And again, just because questions are being asked about the safety of e-cigarettes simply shows once more, that the government is doing its job.How would you feel if, in ten years' time, people start dying from problems associated with them, that could have been prevented by proper testing?Quote:There’s no standard formula for an e-cigarette. But one of the things found in them is propylene glycol. It’s a substance not to be trifled with, according to Tracy Kane, tobacco dependence treatment specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.“It’s something you would find in antifreeze, and it is what’s in e-cigarettes,” she explains. “That’s why I encourage people to use the FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies instead of the e-cigarettes — because we know what’s in the FDA-approved ones.”End of quote.It's not about governments (the world over) trying to stop people quitting smoking. It's about making sure that the alternative they choose is safe.

 

Extract from NHS Choices:

 

 

First, e-cigarettes don’t contain any tobacco – only nicotine, which is highly addictive but much less dangerous than cigarettes. For this reason, smoking e-cigarettes (known as ‘vaping’) is generally regarded a safer alternative to smoking for those unable or unwilling to stop using nicotine.

Also, while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found the liquid and vapour to contain traces of toxins (PDF, 237kb), including cancer-causing chemicals nitrosamines and formaldehyde, the level of these toxins is about one thousandth of that in cigarette smoke.

We cannot be certain that these traces of toxins are harmless, but tests on animals and a small study of 40 smokers are reassuring, providing some evidence that e-cigarettes are well tolerated and only associated with mild adverse effects (slight mouth or throat irritation, a dry cough).

Public health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is cautiously optimistic, concluding in its January 2013 briefing (PDF, 447kb) that ‘there is little evidence of harmful effects from repeated exposure to propylene glycol, the chemical in which nicotine is suspended.’   End quote.

Whilst it is obvious that any form of smoking or inhaling pollutants is potentially dangerous to well being e-cigs are much safer than cigarettes as has been illustrated in the foregoing.  I agree regulation to make selling them to under age persons illegal is desirable I still feel that there is 'possibly' a hidden agenda here to ensure the product generates a 'cash' advantage (to plug the drop in revenue caused by smokers quitting) to the Gov't and other interested parties.  As a nice illustration to the 'cash' issue the UK Gov't raked in over £12 billion in taxes from cigarettes/tobacco products last year......a big hole if e cigs replace cigarettes in any real quantity.

 

Conspiracy theorist? Possibly.  However with the possibility of big money being made from the 'pharmaceuticals' and other 'interested lobby groups I wouldn't put it past certain people in positions of 'power/influence' to look to feathering their nest from forcing e cigs into the arena of 'medication'.  If regulation is being done with purely altrustic intent then I am all for it.......but attitudes to e-cigarettes, and the degree of regulation they face, vary widely from one country to another. Austria and New Zealand classify them as medical devices and restrict their sale; Australia, Brazil, Lebanon and Singapore have banned them outright.  So there is a growing trend towards banning e cigs hence my comment do Gov'ts really want to help smokers quit?  If they did then surely there would be more done to drive forward the research into e cig safety and to keep the price lower than cigarettes....another huge incentive to convert to e cigs.

 

 

 

I've no wish to argue this any more with you except to say that your constant theories about the government banning e-cigs as a way of boosting revenue from tobacco verges on the nonsensical.If they want to increase tobacco revenue why are they doing their utmost to stop everyone smoking?The last initiative hasn't gone through for various reasons but it's not long since they banned the public display of cigarettes.How can this be the actions of a government cynically protecting its tax revenue?I would not use an e-cig knowing what I know now, especially when there are other tested and safe alternatives.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

The warning came as an official report showed alcohol abuse cost the equivalent of £415 a year for every man, woman and child in Britain.

 

Health minister Dawn Primarolo said: ‘Around a quarter of the population drink to a harmful level.

 

‘These people could be drinking themselves into an early grave – we need the drinks industry to give them the help and information needed to drink at a safer level.’

 

The £25billion bill is made up of NHS costs of £2.7billion, crime costs of up to £15billion and loss of productivity of up to £7.3billion, the Department of Health report said.

 

It is much higher than previous estimates, which looked only at the cost of alcohol-related illness.

 

There are more than 800,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions a year, the report said. (!) (!) (!)

 

 

And yet the government backed down on minimum alcohol pricing, or even considered taking it back to the days of the off licence. So I belive the government pay lip service to health issues with fags and booze, whilst at the same time increase duty at every budget just enough to cover the losses of revenues of people that cut down on booze and fags.

 

When a budget comes along that doubles the price of fags, or even passes a law to ban tobacco altogether I'll believe it is less about maintaining a very useful form of taxation revenues, and really is about health. ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 6:12 PM

Though I don't suppose that many go on for 25 years. Most people wouldn't want one that old with all the risks involved and the ancient technology.

 

 

 

Have you not read enough threads on here about new technology :D.............I can have mine fixed with a trip to the scrappy and a hammer ;-)...........by what I've read about NEW technology 8-) ...............you need to get rid quick once the dodgy guarantee runs out *-) ............

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 6:12 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 5:18 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-24 4:51 PM

 

 

But let's look at my contribution to the economy compared to yours.

 

My wife does a low mileage and had a Nissan X-Trail for eight years from new. I decided to get rid before major things start going wrong and we've just bought a new Honda CR-V. It's made in Britain in Swindon.

 

My previous car was over five years old and I fancied a change so a few months ago I bought a new Jaguar XF. That's made in Britain as well.

 

So what do you think contributes the most? Me, providing employment for the UK car industry and several smaller suppliers and dealers, or someone who keeps a car 25 years?

 

What would you have me do? I'm not exactly skint so should I just leave my dosh in the bank and leave my daughter even more money when I die? Or am I better enjoying myself and having a new car every few years and helping to keep the economy moving and securing jobs?

 

And of course I cannot begin to tell you the pleasure that I've had from driving superb motor vehicles during my life. My last two cars were two-seater convertibles and if the weather was nice I would love just going out for a drive over the moors. It really is an enjoyable experience!

 

Apart from which living like an aged hippy is so '60s!

 

 

 

You just don't get it do you Frank :D....................there are people on this planet who don't measure their IQ by the size of their bank balance *-)..........neither do they value themselves above anyone else ;-) .............but some of us can see a bit further ahead to where your great grandkids will be :-S..............and it ain't looking pretty 8-)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-24 7:50 PM

 

You just don't get it do you Frank :D....................there are people on this planet who don't measure their IQ by the size of their bank balance *-)..........neither do they value themselves above anyone else ;-) .............but some of us can see a bit further ahead to where your great grandkids will be :-S..............and it ain't looking pretty 8-)

 

You're doing it again, all this nonsense about anyone who's a bit better off than you. Who measures IQ by their bank balance? The cleverest bloke I know is a school teacher who earns a modest salary.

 

But where in my post have I indicated anything about IQ and bank balance? All I did is tell you that people who are lucky enough to have some money do the economy a lot of good by spending it. They create jobs and wealth for others.

 

People who choose to opt out and spend as little as possible are welcome to do so, good luck to them.

 

But your most unpleasant trait is in constantly accusing people who can afford, for instance, a nice new motorhome of only buying it to impress the neighbours with their 'conspicuous consumption'.

 

Ever since I started my business I haven't milked it so that I can impress anyone. I've reinvested most of the profits year on year and I always said that the first time I bought an expensive car was when I could afford to buy three! Unlike people who go out and buy a Jag on the never never just to impress their pals.

 

And it would appear that you value yourself above everybody else. You denigrate our lifestyles. You accuse us of being money fixated and of only buying things to impress others. You constantly belittle those of us who actually enjoy work and consider us fools for not living a pointless and idle existence that you consider the ultimate human achievement!

 

But I ask you again. I've been very lucky in life and aren't exactly hard-up. What should I do with my money? Just leave it all to my daughter who'll get a lot anyway, or should I continue to enjoy my life and have a nice new car when I feel the urge or trade in my motorhome every few years?

 

What would you do? I suspect that I know the answer (if you're honest).

 

And as for the future of our grandchildren? What are you worrying about? They'll be healthier, live longer and enjoy their lives just as much as we have. I really have no idea what is worrying you about the future. And are you really worried anyway, or is it just another way of justifying your choice of lifestyle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RogerC]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-24 7:14 PMThe warning came as an official report showed alcohol abuse cost the equivalent of £415 a year for every man, woman and child in Britain.Health minister Dawn Primarolo said: ‘Around a quarter of the population drink to a harmful level.‘These people could be drinking themselves into an early grave – we need the drinks industry to give them the help and information needed to drink at a safer level.’The £25billion bill is made up of NHS costs of £2.7billion, crime costs of up to £15billion and loss of productivity of up to £7.3billion, the Department of Health report said.It is much higher than previous estimates, which looked only at the cost of alcohol-related illness.There are more than 800,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions a year, the report said. (!) (!) (!) And yet the government backed down on minimum alcohol pricing, or even considered taking it back to the days of the off licence. So I belive the government pay lip service to health issues with fags and booze, whilst at the same time increase duty at every budget just enough to cover the losses of revenues of people that cut down on booze and fags.When a budget comes along that doubles the price of fags, or even passes a law to ban tobacco altogether I'll believe it is less about maintaining a very useful form of taxation revenues, and really is about health. ;-)

 

Very true...it's all (no pun intended)smoke and mirrors where the Gov't is concerned.   And for HE I would like to know the tried and tested alternatives you refer to?

 

[Guest Had Enough]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-24 7:14 PM

 

And yet the government backed down on minimum alcohol pricing, or even considered taking it back to the days of the off licence. So I belive the government pay lip service to health issues with fags and booze, whilst at the same time increase duty at every budget just enough to cover the losses of revenues of people that cut down on booze and fags.

 

When a budget comes along that doubles the price of fags, or even passes a law to ban tobacco altogether I'll believe it is less about maintaining a very useful form of taxation revenues, and really is about health. ;-)

 

Minimum prices for booze will do no good whatsoever. Boozers will buy just as much and have even less for their other requirements. Have you noticed what people will do to get the drugs that they can't afford to buy, such as rob and burgle?

 

But I just love your last sentence. If the government were to ban fags or double the taxation you'd be the first on here moaning about the dictator state if they banned them, and if they doubled taxation, about how they're only interested in the tax that they collect! You do make me laugh!

 

But how anyone, who has seen government policy over the last few decades, can claim that it's about revenue and not health is just scary! Have you been living in a cave somewhere?

 

Since the end of the war government policy has reduced smoking by over 75% and still it continues to try to convince us to quit.

 

There are conspiracy theorists but even worse there are people who just can't work out what's going on!