• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public places

Either
1) E-fags ween people off the real thing.
Or
2) E-fags lure people into the real thing.

I don't know.
I do know they look very silly and if people are such saps that they are happy to look silly to get their fix, then I think the rest of us should be allowed to hang tinsel on them and throw eggs and stuff.
This is all really very, very silly, but it's always good to have someone to laugh at.
 
The Don said:
Maybe, I don't know. Tobacco duty is increasing in real terms so a modest reduction in the number of smokers will maintain tax revenues. A large reduction in the number of smokers will result in a drop in tax revenues. If some or all of these non-smokers are instead eCigarette users then some but not all of these revenues may be recovered through VAT and whatever additional taxes may be placed on eCigarattes in the future.
Click to expand...

The "loss of revenue" question is only a short term issue really. Smoking costs the economy in lots of ways, direct healthcare costs are only a part of it. All told Smoking costs more than tobacco duties bring in according to some sources.

A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. [...] The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT) This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn.[link(pdf)]
Click to expand...

Smoking related disease takes a long time to kick in though, so we'll be treating sick smokers on the NHS for the next 10 odd years even if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow. Politicians don't seem to care so much about enacting policies that will bear fruit long after they've left office and may in fact cost a bit extra in the short term.

They could simply add an extra tax to e-cigarettes, how they'd justify it is another thing. People pay "sin tax" on things that cost society money to offset the cost to society. If vaping doesn't cost the NHS lots of money in treatments then where is the justification for the "sin tax" ?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Either
1) E-fags ween people off the real thing.
Or
2) E-fags lure people into the real thing.
Click to expand...

Maybe these options are not mutually exclusive.

I remember as a child watching an episode of Absolutely Fabulous where the chain-smoking mother Jennifer Saunders was so annoyed with her goody-goody daughter that she stuck Nicorette patches on the daughter's back when she wasn't looking. In a later scene the daughter takes up smoking to get her nicotine fix. I wondered if that would actually happen.
 
Ambrosia said:
The "loss of revenue" question is only a short term issue really. Smoking costs the economy in lots of ways, direct healthcare costs are only a part of it. All told Smoking costs more than tobacco duties bring in according to some sources.
Click to expand...

Other sources say that smokers die early and quickly, they cost the economy less. This uncertainty is why I didn't press the point and wanted instead only to focus on tax revenue rather than health or pension expenditure.

Ambrosia said:
Smoking related disease takes a long time to kick in though, so we'll be treating sick smokers on the NHS for the next 10 odd years even if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow. Politicians don't seem to care so much about enacting policies that will bear fruit long after they've left office and may in fact cost a bit extra in the short term.
Click to expand...

And yet generation after generation of politicians are happy to promote the "stop smoking" message. Maybe it's more accurate to say that politicians are less bothered about policies where the political rewards cannot be reaped in the short to medium tern (whether or not the actual benefits ever come to pass).

Ambrosia said:
They could simply add an extra tax to e-cigarettes, how they'd justify it is another thing. People pay "sin tax" on things that cost society money to offset the cost to society. If vaping doesn't cost the NHS lots of money in treatments then where is the justification for the "sin tax" ?
Click to expand...

I agree, it will come down to whether the public can be convinced that nicotine (addictive mood modifier) is the "sin" or whether smoking (addictive mood modifier which wrecks your health) is the "sin".

What I haven't seen evidence of is politicians making life hard for eCigarettes in order to preserve tax revenues.
 
angrysoba said:
Maybe these options are not mutually exclusive.

I remember as a child watching an episode of Absolutely Fabulous where the chain-smoking mother Jennifer Saunders was so annoyed with her goody-goody daughter that she stuck Nicorette patches on the daughter's back when she wasn't looking. In a later scene the daughter takes up smoking to get her nicotine fix. I wondered if that would actually happen.
Click to expand...

Speaking personally as someone who is not currently smoking but who has friends who smoke and who, after a few beers, can be tempted......the temptation is much less if I haven't had nicotine for some time. Whether this means that eCigarettes would inevitably lead to cigarettes is quite a stretch from this but IMO if someone isn't addicted to nicotine then there isn't much of an incentive to start smoking.
 
Kahalachan said:
It doesn't produce dangerous second hand smoke. And people want to ban it? Just cause it looks like a cigarette? Where's that topic about smokers being unfairly stigmatized? This looks like an obvious example where someone isn't even allowed to look like they are smoking.
Click to expand...

Out here, places that sell cigarettes have to hide them from public view. I absolutely hate cigarettes and support their banning from inside buildings, but this extra stuff is ridiculous.
 
Belz... said:
Out here, places that sell cigarettes have to hide them from public view. I absolutely hate cigarettes and support their banning from inside buildings, but this extra stuff is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I recently required a cigar for the first time in years (well, perhaps not required, but I wanted one/some). I was unable to see what was available at my local Tesco, because some idiot/s decreed that children would be less interested in something if you hide it away and give it an air of mystery and prohibition... The assistant felt able only to open the sliding screen (as they might when retrieving a named tobacco product) and then immediately let it slide back into place, giving me a fleeting glimpse of the wide range of cigars available. After she'd done this three times, grown increasingly frustrated and advised me that I should know what I want, I settled for the most visually obvious item. How that's going to work when the packaging must be plain (apart from the pictures of blackened lungs or mouth cancer) I don't know.

The e-cigs, meanwhile, are prominently displayed on the counter, within easy reach...tempting children! :eek:
 
angrysoba said:
I remember as a child watching an episode of Absolutely Fabulous where the chain-smoking mother Jennifer Saunders was so annoyed with her goody-goody daughter that she stuck Nicorette patches on the daughter's back when she wasn't looking. In a later scene the daughter takes up smoking to get her nicotine fix. I wondered if that would actually happen.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Never having smoked would be a huge barrier to lighting up for the first time, to fix a craving she's never associated with needing a fag.
 
I saw someone smoking an e-cigarette on the subway here a couple of months ago. My first reaction was surprise--you can't do that! Then I was amused at my reaction, and then I kind of wanted to **** her.
 
angrysoba said:
Money, taxation, money.

For the nth time, this policy is not about taxation.

But let's assume it is.

Who gets money from taxes on tobacco?
Click to expand...

Here's an article that makes the connection clear:

http://www.loganbanner.com/news/news/2498113/E-cigs-quite-harmful-says-UK-cancer-center-chief

E-cigs are "quite harmful," according to this expert. He says they might be "every bit as dangerous" as tobacco cigarettes. And he says the research shows they are not safe... without clarifying what research he means.

In fact, he says nothing about any kind of scientific findings pertaining to e-cigs. He's not putting forth a substantive position. He's the director of a program that gets funding from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, and he's reacting to a threat.
 
Solving real problems is hard. Solving fake problems like e-cigs with simple bans is easy. What do you think the politician will choose?
 
Since i don`t all the info, this is how i would rule: Effective immediately; no bong-like smoking apparutus allowed to be carried inside of any retail establishment, except bars and coffee shops, and mom & pop eateries, that wish to allow it.
It be too nutty and create other problems say in relation to shoplifting to have people carrying in and holding onto contraptions, toking away. Like someone toking away on bagpipes. Can you imagine people roaming around your local Walmart with these things? Can you imagine how this would even look? It be like our culture went off the complete deep end.
Then probably every so often, you`d get a wafting aroma from some long hair, with round wire rim glasses, saying ``Oh wow mannn, far out``...and you`d get that all too familiar 60`s smells coming out of one of those bong-looking things, and you`d say, ``Uh, yeah man, like dig, like whatcha smokin there?``
If the e-cigs were all like gen1 cig looking e-cigs, maybe that be okay.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Either
1) E-fags ween people off the real thing.
Or
2) E-fags lure people into the real thing.

I don't know.
I do know they look very silly and if people are such saps that they are happy to look silly to get their fix, then I think the rest of us should be allowed to hang tinsel on them and throw eggs and stuff.
This is all really very, very silly, but it's always good to have someone to laugh at.
Click to expand...



I know it's just anecdotal, but we have a smoker in our house that literally quit smoking tobacco cigarettes overnight thanks to e-cigs. Also, it made the upstairs much less smelly and cough inducing.
 
Well, if it can cure anecdotal smoking, that's a plus.
Now we need a cure for anecdotal argument.:D
 
Ambrosia said:
generally speaking nicotine is harmless, (at the doses used in smoking/e-cigs)
Click to expand...
The average cigarette yields about 1mg of nicotine, which is well below being lethal. However that does not mean that it is 'harmless'. Nicotine increases blood pressure and clotting, may contribute to atherosclerosis, and has numerous other side effects. Nicotine is as addictive as Cocaine, but 10 times more toxic.

E-cigs are potentially more dangerous that conventional cigarettes, because the nicotine is held in liquid form. It is rapidly absorbed through the skin and a dose of 30–60 mg could be lethal.

E-cig rule coming 'very soon,' U.S. FDA chief says
a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that the number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • nicotine.jpg
    nicotine.jpg
    90.6 KB · Views: 2
Charlie Wilkes said:
Here's an article that makes the connection clear:

http://www.loganbanner.com/news/news/2498113/E-cigs-quite-harmful-says-UK-cancer-center-chief

E-cigs are "quite harmful," according to this expert. He says they might be "every bit as dangerous" as tobacco cigarettes. And he says the research shows they are not safe... without clarifying what research he means.

In fact, he says nothing about any kind of scientific findings pertaining to e-cigs. He's not putting forth a substantive position. He's the director of a program that gets funding from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, and he's reacting to a threat.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom